On Jun 28, 5:38*am, Robert Heller wrote:

> I used a
> 200mhz Pentium Pro box at UMass until I was laid off in Nov of 2005 --
> at the time I had the oldest and slowest desktop in the lab were I
> worked -- a sort of point of pride -- I kept *refusing* newer boxes,
> since I liked that old box -- it worked well and I was confortable with
> it.
>

Uh, ok. But maybe that's why you were fired? (using old equipment)
Probably not, but the thought comes to mind.

Do you have a vote on a min hardware distro?

It's surprising how un-helpful Linux advocates are. Their main point--
and indeed only point--is not to waste bandwidth answering trolls.
Back in the days when bandwidth was limited and the Internet was
government owned, that was a good point, but no more; however, Linux
users are stuck in the past, still fighting the battle that was
settled by litigation 10+ years ago, that MSFT charges vendors for
Windows regardless of what OS is actually loaded...that is so, what,
1995?

BTW If you don't believe I am sincere, at least answer the questions
raised for the benefit of people Googling this issue in the future.

RL

In comp.os.linux.advocacy raylopez99 wrote:
> BTW If you don't believe I am sincere, at least answer the questions
> raised for the benefit of people Googling this issue in the future.

Can't come up with your own ideas?
Note to readers. That's almost word for word what I put at the bottom of my
first reply to this waster.
"NB: this is not for the benefit of lopez, but for anyone googling in the
future"

If there's anything lopez lacks, it's sincerity.
All he cares about is fud, and he's been chucking a lot of that about in
this thread so far, hasn't he?
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

In comp.os.linux.advocacy raylopez99 wrote:
> But do you have any constructive comments about Linux for my
> question?

I gave my ha'penny's worth days ago, which you of course chose to ignore.
(along with everynoe else who gave you advice)
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

At Sun, 29 Jun 2008 02:10:46 -0700 (PDT) raylopez99 wrote:

>
> On Jun 28, 5:38=A0am, Robert Heller wrote:
>
> > I used a
> > 200mhz Pentium Pro box at UMass until I was laid off in Nov of 2005 --
> > at the time I had the oldest and slowest desktop in the lab were I
> > worked -- a sort of point of pride -- I kept *refusing* newer boxes,
> > since I liked that old box -- it worked well and I was confortable with
> > it.
> >
>
> Uh, ok. But maybe that's why you were fired? (using old equipment)
> Probably not, but the thought comes to mind.

I wasn't 'fired' -- I was laid off due to lack of funding.

>
> Do you have a vote on a min hardware distro?

I already answered that: I have used CentOS (4) on some fairly old
hardware.

>
> It's surprising how un-helpful Linux advocates are. Their main point--
> and indeed only point--is not to waste bandwidth answering trolls.
> Back in the days when bandwidth was limited and the Internet was
> government owned, that was a good point, but no more; however, Linux
> users are stuck in the past, still fighting the battle that was
> settled by litigation 10+ years ago, that MSFT charges vendors for
> Windows regardless of what OS is actually loaded...that is so, what,
> 1995?
>
> BTW If you don't believe I am sincere, at least answer the questions
> raised for the benefit of people Googling this issue in the future.
>
> RL
>

--
Robert Heller -- Get the Deepwoods Software FireFox Toolbar!
Deepwoods Software -- Linux Installation and Administration
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Web Hosting, with CGI and Database
heller@deepsoft.com -- Contract Programming: C/C++, Tcl/Tk

Robert Heller wrote (in part):
> At Sun, 29 Jun 2008 02:10:46 -0700 (PDT) raylopez99 wrote:
>
>> Do you have a vote on a min hardware distro?
>
> I already answered that: I have used CentOS (4) on some fairly old
> hardware.
>
I run CentOS4 on my "old" machine, a dual 550 MHz Pentium III machine with
512 MBytes RAM that I got in early 2000. So it is a little over 8 years old.
CentOS4 runs perfectly well there.

The oldest machine I had (now gone) had about 166 MHz Pentiun with 64 Megs
RAM. It ran Red Hat Linux 7.3 OK, but it did not run RHL 9 very well because
it was thrashing the disk. I upped the RAM to 128 Megs and that stopped the
thrashing. I raised it to 256 Megs but that did not make much difference.
The main trouble with it was that the 166MHz processor was just too slow.

I am not sure if my "new" machine is still considered new as I built it
myself and started running it in March 2004. It runs RHEL5 just fine still;
I started it with RHEL3. It was almost state of the art then, but surely is
no longer. Dual 3.06 GHz Xeon processors, 8 GBytes RAM, 10,000 rpm Ultra/320
SCSI hard drives, ... . But these days, 4 year old machines are already
considered fairly old by some.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 08:20:01 up 3 days, 17:40, 4 users, load average: 4.10, 4.07, 4.11

* Robert Heller:

> Pentium Pros were available at 200mhz -- not labeled as PIIs, but were
> 686 processors and thus effectively PIIs in all but name.

Definitely not. There are several non-minor differences between a
Pentium Pro and Pentium II.

> I'm guessing
> that the OP has one of these

It can be a Pentium Pro 200, it can be a Pentium 200, it can be a
Pentium 200 MMX, it can be a Pentium II 233+, who knows. Guessing is
just a waste of time.

> Most *older* graphic cards are supported on some level.

Yes, as frame buffer device. Nothing someone really wants to work with.

> Graphics cards
> that are supported are cheap -- almost any nVidia PCI or AGP card is
> supported.

Investing anything in a 200MHz computer is more or less just a waste as
a much faster P3 (500+Mhz) can be had for almost nothing today.

Benjamin

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> Investing anything in a 200MHz computer is more or less just a waste as a
> much faster P3 (500+Mhz) can be had for almost nothing today.
>
Well yes.

I bought a used 200MHz Pentium in mid-2001 to run Linux. The next
year, I found a nearly identical system lying on the sidewalk waiting
for the garbage truck. Almost five years ago I was given this hand me
down 1GHz computer, so basically I'm not paying attention to what's
being thrown out these days. But surely it's better than 200MHz.
A few weeks ago, I did finally find a computer with a 256meg DIMM
in it, so I'm finally up to 512megs, the maximum of this computer. In
retrospect, given that memory I should have taken a closer look to
see if it was better than this one. At this point it likely is time
to see better computers waiting for the garbage. Certainly, I'm seeing
1GHz or slightly better in local ads around the $40 mark.

Michael

On 2008-06-29, raylopez99 wrote:
> On Jun 28, 5:38*am, Robert Heller wrote:

[deletia]

> government owned, that was a good point, but no more; however, Linux
> users are stuck in the past, still fighting the battle that was
> settled by litigation 10+ years ago, that MSFT charges vendors for

A lot of trolls are stuck in the past too. They're probably the
ones that generate most of the counter-traffic.

With Linux, it's not so much the distro but what you try and run.
I can take Ubuntu and easily adapt it to a less powerful system just
by running the sorts of things that I ran back when a PentiumPro was
new. A lot depends on what all your requirements are.

Even my current fancy desktop is mostly idle...

BTW, WindowMaker was what I ran when my system was a 32M 486.

--

Unfortunately, the universe will not conform itself to
your fantasies. You have to manage based on what really happens |||
rather than what you would like to happen. This is true of personal / | \
affairs, government and business.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

JEDIDIAH writes:

> On 2008-06-29, raylopez99 wrote:
>> On Jun 28, 5:38Â*am, Robert Heller wrote:
>
> [deletia]
>
>> government owned, that was a good point, but no more; however, Linux
>> users are stuck in the past, still fighting the battle that was
>> settled by litigation 10+ years ago, that MSFT charges vendors for
>
> A lot of trolls are stuck in the past too. They're probably the
> ones that generate most of the counter-traffic.
>
> With Linux, it's not so much the distro but what you try and run.

That's a cracker even for your silly word mangling games.

> I can take Ubuntu and easily adapt it to a less powerful system just
> by running the sorts of things that I ran back when a PentiumPro was

Yup. Hence my question about why so many distros.

> new. A lot depends on what all your requirements are.
>
> Even my current fancy desktop is mostly idle...

Yup. Mine too. I tend to play movies on the second head while
programming or playing COLA (by far the best RPG available for
Linux).. And the machine is still only ticking over. So I use the CPU
Frequency Scaling monitor and associated kernel support in OnDemand mode
to reduce power consumption.

>
> BTW, WindowMaker was what I ran when my system was a 32M 486.

--
"We will never allow an event like an election reverse our
independence, our sovereignty, our sweat and all that we fought
for. -- Robert Mugabe, OSS supporter and advocate for freedom. COLA advocate."

Hadron wrote:
> JEDIDIAH writes:
>
>> On 2008-06-29, raylopez99 wrote:
>>> On Jun 28, 5:38 am, Robert Heller wrote:
>> [deletia]
>>
>>> government owned, that was a good point, but no more; however, Linux
>>> users are stuck in the past, still fighting the battle that was
>>> settled by litigation 10+ years ago, that MSFT charges vendors for
>> A lot of trolls are stuck in the past too. They're probably the
>> ones that generate most of the counter-traffic.
>>
>> With Linux, it's not so much the distro but what you try and run.
>
> That's a cracker even for your silly word mangling games.
>
>> I can take Ubuntu and easily adapt it to a less powerful system just
>> by running the sorts of things that I ran back when a PentiumPro was
>
> Yup. Hence my question about why so many distros.
>
>> new. A lot depends on what all your requirements are.
>>
>> Even my current fancy desktop is mostly idle...
>
> Yup. Mine too. I tend to play movies on the second head while
> programming or playing COLA (by far the best RPG available for
> Linux).. And the machine is still only ticking over. So I use the CPU
> Frequency Scaling monitor and associated kernel support in OnDemand mode
> to reduce power consumption.
>
>> BTW, WindowMaker was what I ran when my system was a 32M 486.
>
What is COLA? Can't quite place the acronym..
Eric

On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
> JEDIDIAH writes:
>
>> On 2008-06-29, raylopez99 wrote:
>>> On Jun 28, 5:38Â*am, Robert Heller wrote:
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>>> government owned, that was a good point, but no more; however, Linux
>>> users are stuck in the past, still fighting the battle that was
>>> settled by litigation 10+ years ago, that MSFT charges vendors for
>>
>> A lot of trolls are stuck in the past too. They're probably the
>> ones that generate most of the counter-traffic.
>>
>> With Linux, it's not so much the distro but what you try and run.
>
> That's a cracker even for your silly word mangling games.

Why do you insist on being such an ass.

>
>> I can take Ubuntu and easily adapt it to a less powerful system just
>> by running the sorts of things that I ran back when a PentiumPro was
>
> Yup. Hence my question about why so many distros.

Obviously you've never really worked in the computing industry.

>
>> new. A lot depends on what all your requirements are.
>>
>> Even my current fancy desktop is mostly idle...
>
> Yup. Mine too. I tend to play movies on the second head while
> programming or playing COLA (by far the best RPG available for
> Linux).. And the machine is still only ticking over. So I use the CPU

....must not be much of movie then.

> Frequency Scaling monitor and associated kernel support in OnDemand mode
> to reduce power consumption.
>
>>
>> BTW, WindowMaker was what I ran when my system was a 32M 486.

...in those days instead of converting movies while watching
them it was listening to music while converting it. There was also the
occasional programming, web surfing, document editing and running amok
on Usenet.


--

Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire,
is genuinely new: culture, like science and |||
technology grows by accretion, each new creator / | \
building on the works of those that came before.

Judge Alex Kozinski
US Court of Appeals
9th Circuit


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

> "Hadron" quacked:
>>
>>Hence my question about why so many distros.

Don't you mean your "continuous, cretinous, anti-choice trolling",
Quack?

JEDIDIAH writes:

> On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH writes:
>>
>>> On 2008-06-29, raylopez99 wrote:
>>>> On Jun 28, 5:38ÂÂ*am, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>
>>> [deletia]
>>>
>>>> government owned, that was a good point, but no more; however, Linux
>>>> users are stuck in the past, still fighting the battle that was
>>>> settled by litigation 10+ years ago, that MSFT charges vendors for
>>>
>>> A lot of trolls are stuck in the past too. They're probably the
>>> ones that generate most of the counter-traffic.
>>>
>>> With Linux, it's not so much the distro but what you try and run.
>>
>> That's a cracker even for your silly word mangling games.
>
> Why do you insist on being such an ass.
>
>>
>>> I can take Ubuntu and easily adapt it to a less powerful system just
>>> by running the sorts of things that I ran back when a PentiumPro was
>>
>> Yup. Hence my question about why so many distros.
>
> Obviously you've never really worked in the computing industry.
>

This must be a new meaning of "obviously" only you are familiar with.

>>
>>> new. A lot depends on what all your requirements are.
>>>
>>> Even my current fancy desktop is mostly idle...
>>
>> Yup. Mine too. I tend to play movies on the second head while
>> programming or playing COLA (by far the best RPG available for
>> Linux).. And the machine is still only ticking over. So I use the CPU
>
> ...must not be much of movie then.

Your clueless regarding video and video HW is simply gobsmacking in this
day and age.


--
"Unfortunately, once again, the user-unfriendly dirtware sucks so bad it's
hard to prove how bad it sucks."
-- "DFS" in comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
> JEDIDIAH writes:
>
>> On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
>>> JEDIDIAH writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-06-29, raylopez99 wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 28, 5:38ÂÂ*am, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [deletia]
>>>>
>>>>> government owned, that was a good point, but no more; however, Linux
>>>>> users are stuck in the past, still fighting the battle that was
>>>>> settled by litigation 10+ years ago, that MSFT charges vendors for
>>>>
>>>> A lot of trolls are stuck in the past too. They're probably the
>>>> ones that generate most of the counter-traffic.
>>>>
>>>> With Linux, it's not so much the distro but what you try and run.
>>>
>>> That's a cracker even for your silly word mangling games.
>>
>> Why do you insist on being such an ass.
>>
>>>
>>>> I can take Ubuntu and easily adapt it to a less powerful system just
>>>> by running the sorts of things that I ran back when a PentiumPro was
>>>
>>> Yup. Hence my question about why so many distros.
>>
>> Obviously you've never really worked in the computing industry.
>>
>
> This must be a new meaning of "obviously" only you are familiar with.

Don't kid yourself.

>
>>>
>>>> new. A lot depends on what all your requirements are.
>>>>
>>>> Even my current fancy desktop is mostly idle...
>>>
>>> Yup. Mine too. I tend to play movies on the second head while
>>> programming or playing COLA (by far the best RPG available for
>>> Linux).. And the machine is still only ticking over. So I use the CPU
>>
>> ...must not be much of movie then.
>
> Your clueless regarding video and video HW is simply gobsmacking in this
> day and age.

Not really. Although I am satisfied to just let your comments speak for
themselves....

--
vi isn't easy to use. |||
/ | \
vi is easy to REPLACE.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

JEDIDIAH writes:

> On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH writes:
>>
>>> On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
>>>> JEDIDIAH writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2008-06-29, raylopez99 wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 28, 5:38ÂÂÂ*am, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [deletia]
>>>>>
>>>>>> government owned, that was a good point, but no more; however, Linux
>>>>>> users are stuck in the past, still fighting the battle that was
>>>>>> settled by litigation 10+ years ago, that MSFT charges vendors for
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot of trolls are stuck in the past too. They're probably the
>>>>> ones that generate most of the counter-traffic.
>>>>>
>>>>> With Linux, it's not so much the distro but what you try and run.
>>>>
>>>> That's a cracker even for your silly word mangling games.
>>>
>>> Why do you insist on being such an ass.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I can take Ubuntu and easily adapt it to a less powerful system just
>>>>> by running the sorts of things that I ran back when a PentiumPro was
>>>>
>>>> Yup. Hence my question about why so many distros.
>>>
>>> Obviously you've never really worked in the computing industry.
>>>
>>
>> This must be a new meaning of "obviously" only you are familiar with.
>
> Don't kid yourself.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> new. A lot depends on what all your requirements are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even my current fancy desktop is mostly idle...
>>>>
>>>> Yup. Mine too. I tend to play movies on the second head while
>>>> programming or playing COLA (by far the best RPG available for
>>>> Linux).. And the machine is still only ticking over. So I use the CPU
>>>
>>> ...must not be much of movie then.
>>
>> Your clueless regarding video and video HW is simply gobsmacking in this
>> day and age.
>
> Not really. Although I am satisfied to just let your comments speak for
> themselves....

As they have done. I use a dual head, HW accelerated video card on a top
notch machine driving both a big plasma screen and a lcd monitor. I do
play modern FPS and similar. You do none of these things. You have no
experience of what I speak and your ridiculous word games reveal you to
be a wannabe.

--
"Maybe you can buy a Saturday Night Special and blow your POS brains out."
-- Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2008-07-01, Hadron wrote:
> JEDIDIAH writes:
>
>> On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
>>> JEDIDIAH writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
>>>>> JEDIDIAH writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2008-06-29, raylopez99 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 5:38ÂÂÂ*am, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>>>
[deletia]
>>>>> Yup. Mine too. I tend to play movies on the second head while
>>>>> programming or playing COLA (by far the best RPG available for
>>>>> Linux).. And the machine is still only ticking over. So I use the CPU
>>>>
>>>> ...must not be much of movie then.
>>>
>>> Your clueless regarding video and video HW is simply gobsmacking in this
>>> day and age.
>>
>> Not really. Although I am satisfied to just let your comments speak for
>> themselves....
>
> As they have done. I use a dual head, HW accelerated video card on a top
> notch machine driving both a big plasma screen and a lcd monitor. I do

....try your dick waving with someone who cares and/or doesn't know better.

> play modern FPS and similar. You do none of these things. You have no
> experience of what I speak and your ridiculous word games reveal you to
> be a wannabe.
>


--
vi isn't easy to use. |||
/ | \
vi is easy to REPLACE.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

JEDIDIAH writes:

> On 2008-07-01, Hadron wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH writes:
>>
>>> On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
>>>> JEDIDIAH writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>> JEDIDIAH writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2008-06-29, raylopez99 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 5:38ÂÂÂÂ*am, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>>>>
> [deletia]
>>>>>> Yup. Mine too. I tend to play movies on the second head while
>>>>>> programming or playing COLA (by far the best RPG available for
>>>>>> Linux).. And the machine is still only ticking over. So I use the CPU
>>>>>
>>>>> ...must not be much of movie then.
>>>>
>>>> Your clueless regarding video and video HW is simply gobsmacking in this
>>>> day and age.
>>>
>>> Not really. Although I am satisfied to just let your comments speak for
>>> themselves....
>>
>> As they have done. I use a dual head, HW accelerated video card on a top
>> notch machine driving both a big plasma screen and a lcd monitor. I do
>
> ...try your dick waving with someone who cares and/or doesn't know
> better.

We were discussing it with people who cared. Until you hopped in with
your usual misinformation and hot air. You're not related to Mark Kent
are you?

--
"Off the top of my head, I can't tell you which sites. They are ones that
throw up some kind of dialog, I change the user agent and look at them
again, then move on."
-- Rick telling lies in comp.os.linux.advocacy

raylopez99 wrote:

> Tell me seriously, hell-fire and brimstone boy, do you actually use
> Linux? Does it ever crash on you? How often? Windows NT and 2000
> are super stable--I've rarely gotten the BSOD except when first
> configuring stuff on it. Once stable, it's stable. Is Linux the
> same?

In over six years of using Linux on an almost daily basis, on three
separate machines, I have NEVER had Linux crash. I have had some
improperly-designed Flash-based websites crash Firefox, but it always
goes back to the KDE desktop. I repeat - Linux has NEVER crashed on me.

I can't say the same for Windows.

TJ

In comp.os.linux.advocacy TJ wrote:
> raylopez99 wrote:
>
>> Tell me seriously, hell-fire and brimstone boy, do you actually use
>> Linux? Does it ever crash on you? How often? Windows NT and 2000
>> are super stable--I've rarely gotten the BSOD except when first
>> configuring stuff on it. Once stable, it's stable. Is Linux the
>> same?
>
> In over six years of using Linux on an almost daily basis, on three
> separate machines, I have NEVER had Linux crash. I have had some
> improperly-designed Flash-based websites crash Firefox, but it always
> goes back to the KDE desktop. I repeat - Linux has NEVER crashed on me.
>
> I can't say the same for Windows.

Indeed. I've had X crashes, I've had app crashes...
But the only time I've ever seen a kernel panic was with a badly setup
LILO/GRUB, duff RAM or other hardware problem.

Oh, tell a lie, 5 years ago I tried a linmodem and that driver caused a
panic when it had to dialin a second time...

Watch as the wintrolls leap on this linmodem driver as proof of linux's
instability, even though the driver wasn't part of linux (and was 5 years
ago).


--
| spike1@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |