pace where>2G RAM per process would be
>>> >beneficial, so I will consider switching to only 64-bit by that
>>> >time. Will anyone be terribly upset to leave 32-bit behind?
>
> Upset, a little; no where near jumping ship (as BitFolk has always
> exceeded expectations) but would prefer to keep the 32bit option (if
> possible). Is it not possible to boot a 32bit Dom1 kernel from a 64bit
> Dom0? Or is the overhead of maintaining the two sets of bootstraps?
>
> ~Mat
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users@???
> https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
From daniel.neri@??? Wed Jun 06 11:52:11 2012
Received: from mail-gh0-f176.google.com ([209.85.160.176])
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_MD5:16)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <daniel.neri@???>)
id 1ScEmW-0004K6-DB
for users@???; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:52:08 +0000
Received: by ghbz10 with SMTP id z10so5903587ghb.21
for <users@???>; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 04:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=/U/HI8yfNMpNU+EIysO0RZpnljkaC8esvEGothSheJM=;
b=cDuFaNhIjxT8Q96sQ/V4gopr6G9ejp3JU1ZfQbMLJQ4T41nc6r/9mWH1bfneWtiTQp
pNHD1XkYn8xg3zxumfQ+dBmCa1+XcWHv6frF5gGJMTK0zHSW8sJgw+W6tKT6D6X2TZqu
WJ+lasvl65NC7q0LOOHW3Cm4Hxy2djJbNVAPgV7y3FGa2o8iWHlhA/bU9QqkTX/mVasX
/XxeaqgHoJmS9DUI8W5t9gKZh9zrg0U4UhsHUGToyj7xNLF6J88yVwgnZmaZttP1NTHj
pzoLr4q5I8mOJ2YUym2ZVA6oApQcngic5dqIhTtTQXmtRJwsJG7W3Ui/XK/ZtesA6Z33
sBbA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.77.74 with SMTP id c50mr2821544yhe.112.1338983520534; Wed,
06 Jun 2012 04:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: daniel.neri@???
Received: by 10.236.80.106 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 04:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120528144346.GX3867@???>
References: <20120528144346.GX3867@???>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:52:00 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: MPZkWJTqcXO1IOb8AH11waqtEWQ
Message-ID: <CAOpGBFQHpJJ8AEdO+0J7XU7Gp4SLcJSXzUaQS26D_ChvFnFZqw@???>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_N=E9ri?= <daniel.neri+bitfolk@???>
To: users@???
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Wed,
06 Jun 2012 11:52:08 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.160.176
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: daniel.neri@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd1.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's * domain
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
* 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
* valid
* -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
low * t
