From 1496935f5035c98886e6474e4d54beb036d9f206 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: zooko <>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 16:12:43 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?fix=20link=20to=20Fran=C3=A7ois's=20buildslave?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

[Imported from Trac: page FAQ, version 74]
---
 FAQ.md | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/FAQ.md b/FAQ.md
index a2e7292..876d7e3 100644
--- a/FAQ.md
+++ b/FAQ.md
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ A: [//source/tahoe/trunk/docs/architecture.rst <https://tahoe-lafs.org/source/ta
 
 **<a name="Q5_embedded_devices">Q5:</a> Does Tahoe-LAFS work on embedded devices such as a [PogoPlug](http://www.pogoplug.com) or an [OpenWRT](http://openwrt.org) router?**
 
-A: Yes.  François Deppierraz contributes [*buildbot-tahoe-lafs/builders/FranXois%20lenny-armv5tel a buildbot] which shows that Tahoe-LAFS builds and all the unit tests pass on his Intel SS4000-E NAS box running under Debian Squeeze.  Zandr Milewski [*pipermail/tahoe-dev/2009-November/003157.html reported] that it took him only an hour to build, install, and test Tahoe-LAFS on a PogoPlug. Johannes Nix [//pipermail/tahoe-dev/2012-March/007073.html reported] that the Tahoe-LAFS storage server runs okay on a "DNS-323" which has 64 MB of RAM.
+A: Yes.  François Deppierraz contributes [*buildbot-tahoe-lafs/builders/Francois%20lenny-armv5tel a buildbot] which shows that Tahoe-LAFS builds and all the unit tests pass on his Intel SS4000-E NAS box running under Debian Squeeze.  Zandr Milewski [*pipermail/tahoe-dev/2009-November/003157.html reported] that it took him only an hour to build, install, and test Tahoe-LAFS on a PogoPlug. Johannes Nix [//pipermail/tahoe-dev/2012-March/007073.html reported] that the Tahoe-LAFS storage server runs okay on a "DNS-323" which has 64 MB of RAM.
 
 If you try it, note that the Tahoe-LAFS storage *server* is a much less demanding process than the Tahoe-LAFS gateway. The server doesn't do any decryption or digital signature signing or verifying or erasure coding, and in general is pretty dumb, so it fits more easily into RAM and CPU limits. The gateway has to do all of that, so it requires more CPU and RAM than the server does. Please send a letter to the tahoe-dev mailing list if you try deploying Tahoe-LAFS on an embedded device and let us know the details of your device and how well it worked.