From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <378636981a1ef81a533ceae9db9f9f80@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue,  3 Oct 2006 22:18:27 -0400
From: jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] gs
In-Reply-To: <6e35c0620610031348j7bb69409qc12082341f9d23e2@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c4c6091e-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue Oct  3 16:49:10 EDT 2006, knapjack@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
> ...but from the looks of it, maybe it would be easier to "fix"
> ghostscript by making it faster/slimmer/etc.  I wonder if it runs
> better on some architectures than others?  If so, sounds like a good
> job for a cpu server.
> 
> -Jack

As we get older, faster/slimmer/etc. gets harder and harder
and eventually we just buy bigger jeans.