Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a oldersystem? - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a oldersystem? - Linux ; On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:08:47 -0700, raylopez99 wrote: > Fourth time (and I've lost count) of this question: an older system, > running fine but very slow on Windows 2000, might need (I increasingly > question this) Linux, just ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a oldersystem?

  1. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a oldersystem?

    On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:08:47 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:

    > Fourth time (and I've lost count) of this question: an older system,
    > running fine but very slow on Windows 2000, might need (I increasingly
    > question this) Linux, just for "fun" (pulling teeth fun). Which distro?
    > It's a Pentium II, small HD about 2 or maybe 3 GB, with 225 or probably
    > 512 MB RAM.
    >
    > In another thread, a helpful poster recommended "SLAX". I can't fault
    > him, at least he tried to help instead of just flaming me, which 90% of
    > the replies do. I downloaded this distro and also "Vector", which
    > somebody else recommened (took over 3 hours since the download speed,
    > being a free download, was restricted by the Linux distributor). SLAX
    > unfortunately needs to be compiled, from what I can tell. Vector is
    > "good to go" it seems, but Vector needs 2.3 GB HD and I'm not sure I
    > have that (the machine BTW is not near me, it's somebody else's). So
    > I'd like to download another distro as a backup. The target machine
    > does not have fast internet access, but a 56k dialup modem, so I want to
    > download the distros now.


    Last time I checked, 2.3 was still less than 3. If you only have a 2gb
    drive - it most likely just simply ain't gonna happen. Suggest you part
    with $20-30 and get an 80gb drive.



  2. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    * ray peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:08:47 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    >> In another thread, a helpful poster recommended "SLAX". I can't fault
    >> him, at least he tried to help instead of just flaming me, which 90% of
    >> the replies do.


    You must have an asbestos asshole, since you keep coming back for more
    more more.

    > Last time I checked, 2.3 was still less than 3. If you only have a 2gb
    > drive - it most likely just simply ain't gonna happen. Suggest you part
    > with $20-30 and get an 80gb drive.


    You can fit a pretty good Linux system on a 2 Gb drive. Avoid Gnome/KDE
    in favor of fluxbox, and avoid office software.

    We put a development system and our ported software on such a machine,
    and there's 500 Mb to spare.

    --
    There once was this swami who lived above a delicatessan. Seems one
    day he decided to stop in downstairs for some fresh liver. Well, the owner
    of the deli was a bit of a cheap-skate, and decided to pick up a little extra
    change at his customer's expense. Turning quietly to the counterman, he
    whispered, "Weigh down upon the swami's liver!"

  3. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a oldersystem?

    On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:31:58 -0400, Linonut wrote:

    > * ray peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:08:47 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:
    >>
    >>> In another thread, a helpful poster recommended "SLAX". I can't fault
    >>> him, at least he tried to help instead of just flaming me, which 90%
    >>> of the replies do.

    >
    > You must have an asbestos asshole, since you keep coming back for more
    > more more.
    >
    >> Last time I checked, 2.3 was still less than 3. If you only have a 2gb
    >> drive - it most likely just simply ain't gonna happen. Suggest you part
    >> with $20-30 and get an 80gb drive.

    >
    > You can fit a pretty good Linux system on a 2 Gb drive. Avoid Gnome/KDE
    > in favor of fluxbox, and avoid office software.
    >
    > We put a development system and our ported software on such a machine,
    > and there's 500 Mb to spare.


    Ah - that's a very good point. One option would be a basic Debian (non-
    GUI) install, followed up with, for example, xfce or enlightenment.

  4. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    ray espoused:
    > On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:31:58 -0400, Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> * ray peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:08:47 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In another thread, a helpful poster recommended "SLAX". I can't fault
    >>>> him, at least he tried to help instead of just flaming me, which 90%
    >>>> of the replies do.

    >>
    >> You must have an asbestos asshole, since you keep coming back for more
    >> more more.
    >>
    >>> Last time I checked, 2.3 was still less than 3. If you only have a 2gb
    >>> drive - it most likely just simply ain't gonna happen. Suggest you part
    >>> with $20-30 and get an 80gb drive.

    >>
    >> You can fit a pretty good Linux system on a 2 Gb drive. Avoid Gnome/KDE
    >> in favor of fluxbox, and avoid office software.
    >>
    >> We put a development system and our ported software on such a machine,
    >> and there's 500 Mb to spare.

    >
    > Ah - that's a very good point. One option would be a basic Debian (non-
    > GUI) install, followed up with, for example, xfce or enlightenment.


    Aha, I've just noticed the x-posting, so I see what Mr Lopez is up to.
    There are plenty of small distros around, as he knows only too well,
    having been trolling in cola for many years. Just in case there is
    anyone who is truly interested in this question though, here's a link to
    scores of tiny distros:

    http://www.linuxlinks.com/Distributi...Distributions/

    Considering that I've run Linux on 486 machines with 12Meg of ram and
    40Meg hard drive, the whole question seems more than a little bizarre.

    --
    | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |


  5. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a oldersystem?

    On Jul 6, 5:22*pm, Gregory Shearman wrote:

    >
    > Ah, the stinking troll reveals its venom...
    >
    > It's ugly, it's filthy and it reeks of failure.
    >
    > Forget it and leave it to die...


    > Genpoo Linux - Penguin Power


    What is that smell? Is that you, Genpoo?

    RL


  6. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    On 2008-07-07, raylopez99 wrote:
    > On Jul 6, 5:22*pm, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Ah, the stinking troll reveals its venom...
    >>
    >> It's ugly, it's filthy and it reeks of failure.
    >>
    >> Forget it and leave it to die...

    >
    >> Genpoo Linux - Penguin Power


    The troll reveals its diseased nature further, now resorting to editing
    the posts of others.

    > What is that smell? Is that you, Genpoo?


    Remove your arse from your head.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  7. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    Gregory Shearman wrote:

    > On 2008-07-07, raylopez99 wrote:
    >> On Jul 6, 5:22¬*pm, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Ah, the stinking troll reveals its venom...
    >>>
    >>> It's ugly, it's filthy and it reeks of failure.
    >>>
    >>> Forget it and leave it to die...

    >>
    >>> Genpoo Linux - Penguin Power

    >
    > The troll reveals its diseased nature further, now resorting to editing
    > the posts of others.


    Nothing new. Most wintrolls do that. And Mac-fanbois like Snot Glasser do
    it, too
    Sure sign they have lost the plot and can't admit it

    --
    Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
    Let it get in YOUR way. The problem for your problem.


  8. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    Peter Köhlmann writes:

    > Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-07-07, raylopez99 wrote:
    >>> On Jul 6, 5:22¬*pm, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Ah, the stinking troll reveals its venom...
    >>>>
    >>>> It's ugly, it's filthy and it reeks of failure.
    >>>>
    >>>> Forget it and leave it to die...
    >>>
    >>>> Genpoo Linux - Penguin Power

    >>
    >> The troll reveals its diseased nature further, now resorting to editing
    >> the posts of others.

    >
    > Nothing new. Most wintrolls do that. And Mac-fanbois like Snot Glasser do
    > it, too
    > Sure sign they have lost the plot and can't admit it


    And when Tattoo Campfire or High Plains Hypocrite does it it's ok?

  9. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    Hadron wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann writes:
    >
    >> Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-07-07, raylopez99 wrote:
    >>>> On Jul 6, 5:22¬*pm, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Ah, the stinking troll reveals its venom...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It's ugly, it's filthy and it reeks of failure.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Forget it and leave it to die...
    >>>>
    >>>>> Genpoo Linux - Penguin Power
    >>>
    >>> The troll reveals its diseased nature further, now resorting to editing
    >>> the posts of others.

    >>
    >> Nothing new. Most wintrolls do that. And Mac-fanbois like Snot Glasser do
    >> it, too
    >> Sure sign they have lost the plot and can't admit it

    >
    > And when Tattoo Campfire or High Plains Hypocrite does it it's ok?


    Are those your new comrades, Hadron Josip Stalin Quark?
    I have never heard of those
    --
    "The number of Unix installations has grown to ten, with more expected"
    -- The Unix programmers handbook, 1972


  10. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    On 2008-07-07, Unruh wrote:
    > raylopez99 writes:
    >
    >>On Jul 4, 12:05=A0am, Mark Kent wrote:

    >
    >>> Aha, I've just noticed the x-posting, so I see what Mr Lopez is up to.
    >>> There are plenty of small distros around, as he knows only too well,
    >>> having been trolling in cola for many years. =A0

    >
    >>No I don't. You're late to the thread Mr. Mark "the Linux
    >>Propagandist" Kent. I don't know of any distros that will fit the
    >>target machine. All of them seem to require more than 2 GB in HD. I
    >>might upgrade the HD but right now it's 2 or 3 GB, very small. I'm
    >>waiting for confirmation of some distros that do fit on the target.
    >>The problem is Linux evolves over time so that stuff that used to work
    >>on old machines is now upgraded for modern machines and won't fit on
    >>old 'puters.

    >
    > Lets see, there are now about 10 distros that fit on a CD. That is 700MB
    > which is smaller than 2-3G. They are called "Live" distributions.


    My latest MythTV frontend uses about 2G. That's the product of starting
    out with the basic install from Ubuntu Server x86 7.10 and just adding
    what was necessary to run the stuff for MythTV.

    My first Linux box had a 1G hard drive. I did not forego X.

    Been using X since before Linux existed...

    [deletia]
    >>>
    >>> Considering that I've run Linux on 486 machines with 12Meg of ram and
    >>> 40Meg hard drive, the whole question seems more than a little bizarre.
    >>>

    >
    >>Well answer the 'bizarre' question, Mr. Bizzarro. What distro did you
    >>use on your 486 PC?


    ....I used Redhat & Mandrake. I used something other than KDE or GNOME.

    >
    >>You Linux nuts are all the same, talking generalities that make Linux
    >>seem so cool and easy, yet when the rubber hits the road and it's time


    Nope. You just start with something ultra basic like the Debian net
    installer and add stuff from there.

    [deletia]

    --


    Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 |||
    reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \
    both at the same time was something worth patenting.


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

  11. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a oldersystem?

    "Hadron" stated in post
    g4su70$4f8$1@registered.motzarella.org on 7/7/08 4:21 AM:

    > Peter KŲhlmann writes:
    >
    >> Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-07-07, raylopez99 wrote:
    >>>> On Jul 6, 5:22*pm, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Ah, the stinking troll reveals its venom...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It's ugly, it's filthy and it reeks of failure.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Forget it and leave it to die...
    >>>>
    >>>>> Genpoo Linux - Penguin Power
    >>>
    >>> The troll reveals its diseased nature further, now resorting to editing
    >>> the posts of others.

    >>
    >> Nothing new. Most wintrolls do that. And Mac-fanbois like Snot Glxsser do
    >> it, too
    >> Sure sign they have lost the plot and can't admit it

    >
    > And when Tattoo Campfire or High Plains Hypocrite does it it's ok?


    When Peter accuses me of editing posts the *only* think he is in reference
    to is my undoing - in my reply - his (and others) use of my personal
    information in their posts. He cannot point to *any* content I have *ever*
    edited. Ever.

    Peter is simply bitter of his recent losses, including:

    * He mocked a bug in MS Excel that is shared by OpenOffice... and this
    was humiliating to him

    * His ISP smacked him down for targeting my personal and business info
    so he has to change Usenet providers.

    * He as caught openly lying about my comments about students in regards
    to Mac use and files and folders.

    --
    "For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
    I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
    interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
    company..." Linus Torvalds


  12. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a oldersystem?

    "Peter KŲhlmann" stated in post
    4871fb53$0$6602$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net on 7/7/08 4:17 AM:

    > Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-07-07, raylopez99 wrote:
    >>> On Jul 6, 5:22*pm, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Ah, the stinking troll reveals its venom...
    >>>>
    >>>> It's ugly, it's filthy and it reeks of failure.
    >>>>
    >>>> Forget it and leave it to die...
    >>>
    >>>> Genpoo Linux - Penguin Power

    >>
    >> The troll reveals its diseased nature further, now resorting to editing
    >> the posts of others.

    >
    > Nothing new. Most wintrolls do that. And Mac-fanbois like Snot Glxsser do
    > it, too
    > Sure sign they have lost the plot and can't admit it


    Why Peter is lashing out against me now:

    * He mocked a bug in MS Excel that is shared by OpenOffice... and this
    was humiliating to him

    * His ISP smacked him down for targeting my personal and business info
    so he has to change Usenet providers.

    * He as caught openly lying about my comments about students in regards
    to Mac use and files and folders.

    Once again Peter has made an ass out of himself... so he gets angry and
    lashes out.

    And as he crosses the line of decency and targets my business I shall be
    reporting him to his current Usenet provider... hence the reason he,
    thankfully, has reduced this behavior considerably. It certainly is not
    because he suddenly grow some moral fiber!


    --
    "The music is not inside the piano." - Alan Kay


  13. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a oldersystem?



    On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, JEDIDIAH wrote:

    > My latest MythTV frontend uses about 2G. That's the product of starting
    > out with the basic install from Ubuntu Server x86 7.10 and just adding
    > what was necessary to run the stuff for MythTV.
    >

    That's the point. The clueless, and maybe more important those who
    don't want to learn, want things handed to them on a silver platter.

    So they don't want to fuss with an install, they want everything done
    for them.

    Which is why there are all those distributions. They aren't just about
    specific things like "good for multimedia" they are also about "being
    small". They are all trying to sell their own distribution, so they
    promote it without a lot of care for reality.

    And the followers believe the bunk. They think vectorlinux is good
    for old computers because the distribution tells them that. They don't
    grasp that vectorlinux is derived from Slackware (or maybe they've moved
    on? I don't know), in effect leeching off Slackware by deciding what
    should be in the distribution, stripping it down for people. Yet, a
    user could just do the same thing with Slackware, installing what they
    need rather than the whole shebang.

    Undoubtedly there are distributions that don't allow a custom install,
    since there are a wide range of distributions, all trying to cater to
    a specific market. But most of the Big Distributions will allow for
    a selective install, so one can leave off emacs (or vi though that's
    not likely to save as much space), install only one graphic browser,
    install a console mailreader (and only one), leave off the server stuff
    that will never be used, even if it could fit in the hard drive space,
    and so on.

    Yes, it is far easier to install everything and I'd suggest that for
    everyone who has the hard drive space. Most of it will just take
    up space on the hard drive, but it being there will otherwise never
    be noticed. But if you've got limited space, then do a limited
    install, and just about any distribution will allow that.

    Michael

  14. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    JEDIDIAH writes:

    >On 2008-07-07, Unruh wrote:
    >> raylopez99 writes:
    >>
    >>>On Jul 4, 12:05=A0am, Mark Kent wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Aha, I've just noticed the x-posting, so I see what Mr Lopez is up to.
    >>>> There are plenty of small distros around, as he knows only too well,
    >>>> having been trolling in cola for many years. =A0

    >>
    >>>No I don't. You're late to the thread Mr. Mark "the Linux
    >>>Propagandist" Kent. I don't know of any distros that will fit the
    >>>target machine. All of them seem to require more than 2 GB in HD. I
    >>>might upgrade the HD but right now it's 2 or 3 GB, very small. I'm
    >>>waiting for confirmation of some distros that do fit on the target.
    >>>The problem is Linux evolves over time so that stuff that used to work
    >>>on old machines is now upgraded for modern machines and won't fit on
    >>>old 'puters.

    >>
    >> Lets see, there are now about 10 distros that fit on a CD. That is 700MB
    >> which is smaller than 2-3G. They are called "Live" distributions.


    >My latest MythTV frontend uses about 2G. That's the product of starting
    >out with the basic install from Ubuntu Server x86 7.10 and just adding
    >what was necessary to run the stuff for MythTV.


    So? I can write a program that takes 1000000GB on disk and to run. Does this say
    anything about linux or anything else?

    >My first Linux box had a 1G hard drive. I did not forego X.


    And it did not have MythTV.

    My first Unix box (Sun 3 with SunOS) had a 100MB disk. And it ran X.

    >Been using X since before Linux existed...



    >Nope. You just start with something ultra basic like the Debian net
    >installer and add stuff from there.


    Or start with a LiveCD version and add stuff from there.
    Kubuntu, Mandriva One, MCN Toronto ( which allows you to even create your
    own live CD. Unfortunately only with older 2.6 kernels. )


    >[deletia]


    >--



    > Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 |||
    > reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \
    > both at the same time was something worth patenting.



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


  15. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    Michael Black writes:



    >On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, JEDIDIAH wrote:


    >> My latest MythTV frontend uses about 2G. That's the product of starting
    >> out with the basic install from Ubuntu Server x86 7.10 and just adding
    >> what was necessary to run the stuff for MythTV.
    >>

    >That's the point. The clueless, and maybe more important those who
    >don't want to learn, want things handed to them on a silver platter.


    >So they don't want to fuss with an install, they want everything done
    >for them.


    >Which is why there are all those distributions. They aren't just about
    >specific things like "good for multimedia" they are also about "being
    >small". They are all trying to sell their own distribution, so they
    >promote it without a lot of care for reality.


    >And the followers believe the bunk. They think vectorlinux is good
    >for old computers because the distribution tells them that. They don't
    >grasp that vectorlinux is derived from Slackware (or maybe they've moved
    >on? I don't know), in effect leeching off Slackware by deciding what


    Leeching? And Slackware "Leeches" off Linus Torvald. The whole idea behind
    linux is that you use others work to make your own. That is NOT "leeching"
    that is doing exactly what you are supposed to do and are encouraged to do.
    It is being a responsible Linux citizen.

    >should be in the distribution, stripping it down for people. Yet, a
    >user could just do the same thing with Slackware, installing what they
    >need rather than the whole shebang.


    And making use of other people's work who have already done the work for
    you and have done much of the learning and thinking for you is EXACTLY the
    right thing to do.


    >Undoubtedly there are distributions that don't allow a custom install,
    >since there are a wide range of distributions, all trying to cater to
    >a specific market. But most of the Big Distributions will allow for
    >a selective install, so one can leave off emacs (or vi though that's
    >not likely to save as much space), install only one graphic browser,
    >install a console mailreader (and only one), leave off the server stuff
    >that will never be used, even if it could fit in the hard drive space,
    >and so on.


    Yes. the problem is that deciding to leave out A could impact your ability
    to use B, even though the link is not obvious.


    >Yes, it is far easier to install everything and I'd suggest that for
    >everyone who has the hard drive space. Most of it will just take
    >up space on the hard drive, but it being there will otherwise never
    >be noticed. But if you've got limited space, then do a limited
    >install, and just about any distribution will allow that.


    Yes, but what can you safely leave out? It is huge trial and error process.


    > Michael


  16. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    On 2008-07-07, Unruh wrote:
    > JEDIDIAH writes:
    >
    >>On 2008-07-07, Unruh wrote:
    >>> raylopez99 writes:
    >>>
    >>>>On Jul 4, 12:05=A0am, Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>

    [deletia]
    >
    >>My latest MythTV frontend uses about 2G. That's the product of starting
    >>out with the basic install from Ubuntu Server x86 7.10 and just adding
    >>what was necessary to run the stuff for MythTV.

    >
    > So? I can write a program that takes 1000000GB on disk and to run. Does this say
    > anything about linux or anything else?


    Install the base version of MacOSX or Vista MCE and find out.

    Linux can do useful "modern" things with "modern" software and only 2G of storage space.

    You don't even have to use vintage apps or a vintage distro.

    >
    >>My first Linux box had a 1G hard drive. I did not forego X.

    >
    > And it did not have MythTV.


    It had many of the same sorts of things just with a lot less sophistication.

    >
    > My first Unix box (Sun 3 with SunOS) had a 100MB disk. And it ran X.
    >
    >>Been using X since before Linux existed...

    >
    >
    >>Nope. You just start with something ultra basic like the Debian net
    >>installer and add stuff from there.

    >
    > Or start with a LiveCD version and add stuff from there.


    ....which will probably want to use more space than you have.

    A compressed LiveCD can easily break the 2G limit specified in the original troll.

    > Kubuntu, Mandriva One, MCN Toronto ( which allows you to even create your
    > own live CD. Unfortunately only with older 2.6 kernels. )
    >
    >
    >>[deletia]

    >
    >>--

    >
    >
    >> Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 |||
    >> reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \
    >> both at the same time was something worth patenting.

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



    --


    Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 |||
    reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \
    both at the same time was something worth patenting.


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

  17. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    Unruh wrote:

    >Michael Black writes:
    >>
    >>And the followers believe the bunk. They think vectorlinux is good
    >>for old computers because the distribution tells them that. They don't
    >>grasp that vectorlinux is derived from Slackware (or maybe they've moved
    >>on? I don't know), in effect leeching off Slackware by deciding what

    >
    >Leeching? And Slackware "Leeches" off Linus Torvald. The whole idea behind
    >linux is that you use others work to make your own. That is NOT "leeching"
    >that is doing exactly what you are supposed to do and are encouraged to do.
    >It is being a responsible Linux citizen.


    Exactly. Anyone who would use the term "leeching" in this context
    does not "get" Open Source.

    >>should be in the distribution, stripping it down for people. Yet, a
    >>user could just do the same thing with Slackware, installing what they
    >>need rather than the whole shebang.

    >
    >And making use of other people's work who have already done the work for
    >you and have done much of the learning and thinking for you is EXACTLY the
    >right thing to do.


    Yep. A FEW knowledgable people can re-package things and save a LOT
    of less-knowledgable people a lot of work.


  18. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    * Unruh peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Michael Black writes:
    >
    >>Yes, it is far easier to install everything and I'd suggest that for
    >>everyone who has the hard drive space. Most of it will just take
    >>up space on the hard drive, but it being there will otherwise never
    >>be noticed. But if you've got limited space, then do a limited
    >>install, and just about any distribution will allow that.

    >
    > Yes, but what can you safely leave out? It is huge trial and error process.


    You can get around that by doing a basic netinstall, then picking only
    the items you want beyond the basic stuff. The package manager will
    pull in whatever else it needs.

    --
    If people concentrated on the really important things in life,
    there'd be a shortage of fishing poles.
    -- Doug Larson

  19. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a oldersystem?

    On Jul 7, 10:51*am, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >
    > > Or start with a LiveCD version and add stuff from there.

    >
    > ...which will probably want to use more space than you have.
    >
    > A compressed LiveCD can easily break the 2G limit specified in the original troll.
    >


    So, if I understand correctly, a Live CD will pull stuff off the
    internet (once you decide to burn the live CD contents into your HD as
    an image file)?

    So a Live CD "grows" larger than the 650 MB CD. Then there's no
    telling where this monster, cancerous LInux distro will stop, is
    there? It keeps growing and growing until it consumes and crashes
    your HD!

    SO, back to square one. I have to essentially upgrade the HD (after I
    get a SCSI controller card, since my BIOS is too old). But then if I
    upgrade the HD, it might solve my original problem because with
    Windows 2000 I will have a larger swap file partition (which is, like
    Ghost points out, probably why the present old Windows 2000 system is
    so slow).

    SO, if I upgrade the HD, why would I want to switch to Linux then?
    It's a moot point.

    So, in short, Linux sucks and is unsuitable for a older machine. So
    much for the "Linux for poor people with old hardware" myth.

    RL

  20. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    On 2008-07-07, raylopez99 wrote:
    > On Jul 7, 10:51*am, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>
    >> > Or start with a LiveCD version and add stuff from there.

    >>
    >> ...which will probably want to use more space than you have.
    >>
    >> A compressed LiveCD can easily break the 2G limit specified in the original troll.
    >>


    What exactly about the term "compressed" leaves any ambiguity?

    >
    > So, if I understand correctly, a Live CD will pull stuff off the
    > internet (once you decide to burn the live CD contents into your HD as
    > an image file)?
    >
    > So a Live CD "grows" larger than the 650 MB CD. Then there's no
    > telling where this monster, cancerous LInux distro will stop, is
    > there? It keeps growing and growing until it consumes and crashes
    > your HD!
    >
    > SO, back to square one. I have to essentially upgrade the HD (after I
    > get a SCSI controller card, since my BIOS is too old). But then if I
    > upgrade the HD, it might solve my original problem because with
    > Windows 2000 I will have a larger swap file partition (which is, like
    > Ghost points out, probably why the present old Windows 2000 system is
    > so slow).
    >
    > SO, if I upgrade the HD, why would I want to switch to Linux then?
    > It's a moot point.
    >
    > So, in short, Linux sucks and is unsuitable for a older machine. So
    > much for the "Linux for poor people with old hardware" myth.
    >
    > RL



    --


    Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 |||
    reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \
    both at the same time was something worth patenting.


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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast