For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?
raylopez99
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.
I also, from a previous post, I recall Damn Small Linux (DSL)--and
when I tried to download a working bootable image file (.iso) that I
can run on a CD (the target machine doesn't have a DVD), I found
nothing. Turns out DSL's mirrors are not allowed to --for some
strange reason-- have a working bootable image file--you have to
compile. Note the bad english ("honnor") message below, from a
Belgian site for DSL. I'm not sure I trust the Linux community when
they make such crude, "hacker like" comments in English, even if they
are clearly French or EFL students. And send money to a Foster City
USA post office box called "Lizard Biscuit"? Please. I rather send
my money to Nigeria. Warez anybody? That's what the Linux community
reminds me of.
I say again: which distro for a min hardware system, one that has a
compiled and good to go binary image file I can burn into a CD and
infect my perfectly good Windows 2k system (albeit painfully slow)?
I'm sarcastic but serious.
Yes, this is the real face of Linux. And I haven't had the trouble of
installing it yet--I can imagine what that's going to be like. No
wonder Linux has 1% or less market share.
RL
We honnor the GPL and will send anybody the sources to the GPL
software in Damn Small.
If you want to recive copies of the software please send us $7 (cost
of media and shipping)
and we will gladly mail you the sources.
Please send the check to:
Lizard Biscuit
P.O Box 4504
Foster City, CA
94404
Dookus_malukus
Zenwalk
Douglas Mayne
> Fourth time (and I've lost count) of this question:
>
It is considered "good form" to stick with _one_ thread and to see it
through. That usually includes asking followup questions if difficulties
arise in following the instructions. Opening new threads with the exact
same content (within days of each other) is considered _bad_ form. In your
case, _extremely_ bad form.
<snip>
--
Douglas Mayne
William Poaster
FYI: raylopez99 is a *troll*, who is not interested in linux.
--
Mandriva 2008.1 64-bit.
This message was sent from a
computer which is guaranteed
100% free of the M$ Windoze virus.
ray
> 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.
Linonut
> 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!"
ray
> * 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.
Darth Chaos
Linux Mint 4 Fluxbox Community Edition and gOS Rocket E run well on
older hardware. If you're interested in gOS Rocket E, you might want
to download gOS Ultimate E, which I have a link to on my blog
(darthchaosofrspw.wordpress.com).
The Ghost In The Machine
<raylo...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:08:47 -0700 (PDT)
<53d31e23-795b-43b3...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
> 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.
[rest snipped]
What category of answer would you want here? You said
you wanted a "straight answer"; I want to know what you're
expecting in this context.
Otherwise, backup the user's data and reinstall Win2k and
have done with it; that machine's probably suffering from
bit rot or malware. You'll also want to set the virtual
memory settings to a constant 400 MB, to predispose paging
file fragmentation in the future.
It's not rocket science; it just needs to be done on Windows boxes.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Murphy was an optimist.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Keith Keller
On 2008-06-30, raylopez99 <raylo...@yahoo.com> 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.
I wonder why. Could it be that only a flaming idiot (or a troll) would
ask a serious question and crosspost it to cola?
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
raylopez99
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
> Otherwise, backup the user's data and reinstall Win2k and
> have done with it; that machine's probably suffering from
> bit rot or malware. You'll also want to set the virtual
> memory settings to a constant 400 MB, to predispose paging
> file fragmentation in the future.
>
> It's not rocket science; it just needs to be done on Windows boxes.
>
Thanks Ghost, that's a straight answer I guess. What I will do now is
this: I will buy yet another SCSI controller card, since my BIOS does
not support 20+ GB drives, and the first SCSI controller card had a
weird form factor that prevented it from fitting into the PCI slot for
this system. Then I will install a 40 GB drive. Then I will see if
this helps. Then, if all that fails, I might try Linux, but honestly
I don't know what Linux would easily work on even a PII with a 40 GB
drive (since I'm confident I will be able to eventually get a bigger
HD on this old system). No help from any of these threads, though I
do have Puppy Linux (from last year), some version of Ubuntu (forget
now, it's in my CD bin), Vector (as of this week downloaded). Any
other suggestions welcome.
Failing ALL of the above, I searched eBay and found that a Pentium III
or IV system with a 20 GB HD goes for around $120 total (includes
shipping). Since I don't need a monitor or KB, I might just buy this
type system, though for political reasons too complicated to get into,
this user is a cheapskate and prefers never to buy new stuff "if the
old stuff can be made to work". One of these ecology freaks who
thinks modern life has too much waste. To make them happy, I might
have to repair the old system, unless I can, as I outlined above,
convince them there's no hope for this old system.
BTW on any Pentium III or IV system I wonder what Linux flavor might
easily install on that, but I'll cross that bridge later.
RL
raylopez99
Thanks, but it seems the Ultimate version won't fit on my 2 or 3 GB
HD. If I upgrade to a 40 GB HD, as might be the case if I find the
right SCSI controller card (my BIOS won't support a large HD; see this
thread), then I might consider the gOS Ult E.
But I wonder, with Ubuntu etc, why would anybody want to use gOS?
What cool features are there and nowhere else? This whole Linux
distro fragmentation makes no sense to me.
RL
raylopez99
> I wonder why. Could it be that only a flaming idiot (or a troll) would
> ask a serious question and crosspost it to cola?
>
> --keith
>
No, because COLA has some smart fellows, like Ghost and Hadron. But
for them, I wouldn't have bothered. And in fact, in this thread,
Ghost seems to have given the right answer (just stick with Windows,
and do a clean reinstall).
RL
High Plains Thumper
>> I wonder why. Could it be that only a flaming idiot (or a troll) would
>> ask a serious question and crosspost it to cola?
>
> No, because COLA has some smart fellows, like [....] Hadron.
Debian Stable is one of the most widely used distros for mission critical
applications and where one wants minimal impact to production work. Very
few require bleeding edge software to be productive.
Yet Hadron insists that Debian Stable is full of bugs and too backward for
usage:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/3364e9f972538fd9?
Subject: Re: [News] Sister OS to Linux, OS-X Has Better TCO than Microsoft
Windows
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:50:07 +0100
Message-ID: fr08c1$9e1$2...@registered.motzarella.org
[quote]
> Hadron has an apparent inability to recognise how more consistent usage
> of Debian Stable will only help his usage of the product, preferring
> unstable versions of Debian; if not for the only reason as an
> opportunity to attack Linux/OSS.
Once more for the hard of brain power : I use testing. Not unstable. And I
use it for a reason - Debian Stable is simply too buggy and backward and I
cant be arsed to manage pinning or selectively monitoring backports.
[/quote]
--
HPT
Hadron
> raylopez99 wrote:
>
>>> I wonder why. Could it be that only a flaming idiot (or a troll) would
>>> ask a serious question and crosspost it to cola?
>>
>> No, because COLA has some smart fellows, like [....] Hadron.
>
> Debian Stable is one of the most widely used distros for mission critical
> applications and where one wants minimal impact to production work. Very
> few require bleeding edge software to be productive.
>
> Yet Hadron insists that Debian Stable is full of bugs and too backward for
> usage:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/3364e9f972538fd9?
>
I said, you moron, that it would not work on my HW. And that a lot of
the bugs in it has been addressed by Lenny.
Christ on a bike High Plains Hypocrite, how f*cking stupid are you?
William Poaster
> raylopez99 wrote:
>
>>> I wonder why. Could it be that only a flaming idiot (or a troll) would
>>> ask a serious question and crosspost it to cola?
>>
>> No, because COLA has some smart fellows, like [....] Hadron.
Hardon Quack.......smart? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA!!!
> Debian Stable is one of the most widely used distros for mission critical
> applications and where one wants minimal impact to production work. Very
> few require bleeding edge software to be productive.
>
> Yet Hadron insists that Debian Stable is full of bugs and too backward for
> usage:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/3364e9f972538fd9?
>
> Subject: Re: [News] Sister OS to Linux, OS-X Has Better TCO than Microsoft
> Windows
> Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:50:07 +0100 Message-ID:
> fr08c1$9e1$2...@registered.motzarella.org
>
> [quote]
>> Hadron has an apparent inability to recognise how more consistent usage
>> of Debian Stable will only help his usage of the product, preferring
>> unstable versions of Debian; if not for the only reason as an
>> opportunity to attack Linux/OSS.
>
> Once more for the hard of brain power : I use testing. Not unstable. And I
> use it for a reason - Debian Stable is simply too buggy and backward and I
> cant be arsed to manage pinning or selectively monitoring backports.
> [/quote]
--
Hadron
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:40:06 -0600, High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> raylopez99 wrote:
>>
>>>> I wonder why. Could it be that only a flaming idiot (or a troll) would
>>>> ask a serious question and crosspost it to cola?
>>>
>>> No, because COLA has some smart fellows, like [....] Hadron.
>
> Hardon Quack.......smart? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA!!!
I just love COLA. It's like the one eyed man being king in the valley of
the blind.
Andrew Halliwell
> Thanks Ghost, that's a straight answer I guess. What I will do now is
> this: I will buy yet another SCSI controller card, since my BIOS does
> not support 20+ GB drives, and the first SCSI controller card had a
> weird form factor that prevented it from fitting into the PCI slot for
> this system. Then I will install a 40 GB drive. Then I will see if
> this helps. Then, if all that fails, I might try Linux, but honestly
> I don't know what Linux would easily work on even a PII with a 40 GB
> drive (since I'm confident I will be able to eventually get a bigger
> HD on this old system). No help from any of these threads, though I
> do have Puppy Linux (from last year), some version of Ubuntu (forget
> now, it's in my CD bin), Vector (as of this week downloaded). Any
> other suggestions welcome.
Lopez, you're such a lying pile of shite.
I told you waaaaay back that linux worked ok on a 486 with only 16 meg of
RAM and a 400meg hard disk. Big deal, that was a while back and things've
got bigger since then, but if you choose WHAT you install from the distro,
you can fine tune it to your hearts content. Distros only say "miniumum
diskspace... xxxx" if you select their pre-defined installs.
"Not sure if linux'll work on a PII even with 40gig disk, indeed...."
Pa-thetic.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
Moshe Goldfarb.
High Plains Thumper is not the sharpest knife in the drawer but he sure is
fun to watch!
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
The Ghost In The Machine
<707fc0f4-fb07-4c43...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
> On Jun 30, 3:06 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>>
>> Otherwise, backup the user's data and reinstall Win2k and
>> have done with it; that machine's probably suffering from
>> bit rot or malware. You'll also want to set the virtual
>> memory settings to a constant 400 MB, to predispose paging
>> file fragmentation in the future.
>>
>> It's not rocket science; it just needs to be done on Windows boxes.
>>
>
> Thanks Ghost, that's a straight answer I guess. What I will do now is
> this: I will buy yet another SCSI controller card, since my BIOS does
> not support 20+ GB drives, and the first SCSI controller card had a
> weird form factor that prevented it from fitting into the PCI slot for
> this system. Then I will install a 40 GB drive. Then I will see if
> this helps. Then, if all that fails, I might try Linux, but honestly
> I don't know what Linux would easily work on even a PII with a 40 GB
> drive (since I'm confident I will be able to eventually get a bigger
> HD on this old system).
You've yet to answer *my* question. Why are you installing
Linux on this machine? What is this machine's ultimate
purpose in life? What does its user intend? Why is reinstalling
Win2k and reconfiguring its virtual memory properly not an option?
And why add a SCSI controller? Does the user need more
disk space? 40GB is peanuts nowadays; I just bought a
1 terabyte Firewire-capable solution for $300. Granted,
it may depend on the area, and I doubt that klunker has Firewire,
though it might have USB.
> No help from any of these threads, though I
> do have Puppy Linux (from last year), some version of Ubuntu (forget
> now, it's in my CD bin), Vector (as of this week downloaded). Any
> other suggestions welcome.
Gentoo, if you're not averse to a fair bit o' tweaking. ;-)
Call it a personal bias of mine.
>
> Failing ALL of the above, I searched eBay and found that a Pentium III
> or IV system with a 20 GB HD goes for around $120 total (includes
> shipping). Since I don't need a monitor or KB, I might just buy this
> type system, though for political reasons too complicated to get into,
> this user is a cheapskate and prefers never to buy new stuff "if the
> old stuff can be made to work". One of these ecology freaks who
> thinks modern life has too much waste.
It is legally required in California to turn waste
machines into recycling areas...I don't know the details.
The general idea is to recover things such as gold and
prevent pollution.
YMMV in other states, of course.
> To make them happy, I might
> have to repair the old system, unless I can, as I outlined above,
> convince them there's no hope for this old system.
Plenty of hope if you can find a copy of Win2k. After all,
it worked fine on that era system. If you really want
Linux, though, be prepared for a lot of interesting
questions -- from me, if nothing else.
>
> BTW on any Pentium III or IV system I wonder what Linux flavor might
> easily install on that, but I'll cross that bridge later.
Define "easily". There's a *lot* of details, especially
where RAID is involved. I can't help you much on RAID; my
systems don't have it. I *do* have PIII and PIV systems
successfully running Gentoo Linux, admittedly (this
particular one has a PIII, 320 MB, primary drive 4.3 GB,
secondary drive 300 GB). I also have mentioned my Athlon,
Kayak, and nx9010; the Athlon is 1.7 GHz, the Kayak 833
MHz PIII (he could take a second processor, if I can find
one...not horribly likely nowadays), and the nx9010 is a
2.8 GHz Pentium 4 mobile; /proc/cpuinfo doesn't tell me
what variety exactly.
>
> RL
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
for(;;) ;
The Ghost In The Machine
<e449f1a5-5fe0-4ce9...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>:
I'd do more than that; your machine is apparently suffering from bit
rot. Configure the virtual memory correctly, at least. Dunno what to
recommend regarding AV solutions. Do you have a NAT in front?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).
The Ghost In The Machine
<spi...@ponder.sky.com>
wrote
on Tue, 1 Jul 2008 12:42:19 +0100
<rphpj5-...@ponder.sky.com>:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy raylopez99 <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Thanks Ghost, that's a straight answer I guess. What I will do now is
>> this: I will buy yet another SCSI controller card, since my BIOS does
>> not support 20+ GB drives, and the first SCSI controller card had a
>> weird form factor that prevented it from fitting into the PCI slot for
>> this system. Then I will install a 40 GB drive. Then I will see if
>> this helps. Then, if all that fails, I might try Linux, but honestly
>> I don't know what Linux would easily work on even a PII with a 40 GB
>> drive (since I'm confident I will be able to eventually get a bigger
>> HD on this old system). No help from any of these threads, though I
>> do have Puppy Linux (from last year), some version of Ubuntu (forget
>> now, it's in my CD bin), Vector (as of this week downloaded). Any
>> other suggestions welcome.
>
> Lopez, you're such a lying pile of shite.
> I told you waaaaay back that linux worked ok on a 486 with only 16 meg of
> RAM and a 400meg hard disk.
I had Debian working on a *386* at one point, with 4MB
RAM (it needed swap just to boot). Installing it there
was tricky. I still have the mobo (AFAIK it's still
functional, though I've not put it in a box and fired it
up lately). Granted, that was little more than Linux,
bash, init, and vi, and Debian now wants 14 MB RAM, so I'd
have to build it from Gentoo.
> Big deal, that was a while back and things've
> got bigger since then, but if you choose WHAT you install from the distro,
> you can fine tune it to your hearts content. Distros only say "miniumum
> diskspace... xxxx" if you select their pre-defined installs.
>
> "Not sure if linux'll work on a PII even with 40gig disk, indeed...."
>
> Pa-thetic.
Depends on what he means by the term. I doubt he'll ever get
compiz to work well thereon. ;-) But a basic Linux system
with leafnode capabilities, not a problem; the main issue
is RAM, and he's got more than enough of that.
But he does have to clarify his question, especially
if he's getting paid; AFAIK the going rate for a Linux
consultancy would pay for a brand new (if cheap) machine
in less than a half-day.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
for(;;) ;
Tattoo Vampire
> I just love COLA. It's like the one eyed man being king in the valley of
> the blind.
On a related note, you're a one-eyed trouser snake.
--
Regards,
[tv]
...He who takes credit for rain will be blamed for drought.
Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
Good to the last supper
William Poaster
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> I just love COLA. It's like the one eyed man being king in the valley of
>> the blind.
>
> On a related note, you're a one-eyed trouser snake.
A flaccid one at that.
--
The little scamps! It's the oldest trick in the book: capture your ship,
turn it into a planet, then explore a macro universe in a laundry basket.
How could you fall for an old scam like that?
--Holly, Nanarchy - Red Dwarf--
Tattoo Vampire
>> On a related note, you're a one-eyed trouser snake.
>
> A flaccid one at that.
And teeny!
--
Regards,
[tv]
...Have an adequate day.
Darth Chaos
> But I wonder, with Ubuntu etc, why would anybody want to use gOS?
> What cool features are there and nowhere else? This whole Linux
> distro fragmentation makes no sense to me.
>
> RL
Really the only advantage gOS has over Ubuntu is it works better with
older hardware and gOS includes "Google Apps" (Google Docs, Google
Maps, Google News, Google Reader, etc.) in its "Dock" interface.
There's some software made for Ubuntu that won't work with gOS (TV
Time doesn't work for me on gOS or any other E17-based distro, but
Myth TV does...go figure0, but if you're looking for a distro which
will surf the web and play music and play some games without being too
taxing on hardware, then gOS might suit your needs.
The reason I recommend gOS Ultimate E (my customized gOS) over gOS
Rocket E (the "official" release that thinkgos.com offers) is because
gOS Ultimate E includes things that makes it way more useable than the
official gOS. For example, in the official gOS, gnome-system-tools is
not included so it could be hard for the Linux novice to add new users
or adjust the date or time, while gOS Ultimate E includes gnome-system-
tools so you can easily add new users and manage groups. In addition,
gOS Ult. E also includes gnome-cups-manager (better printing support)
and gnome-mount for easy mounting of removable drives and other
partitions. Finally, gOS Ultimate E includes the Thunar file manager
and xfce4-terminal; Thunar greatly compensates for the shoddy file
manager included with the official gOS Rocket E (EFM is the worst file
manager I have ever used since some text-based file manager I used on
MS-DOS).
Moshe Goldfarb.
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:36:15 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> I just love COLA. It's like the one eyed man being king in the valley of
>>> the blind.
>>
>> On a related note, you're a one-eyed trouser snake.
>
> A flaccid one at that.
Sounds like you are an expert in trouser snakes, ehh William Poaster?
It figures.
High Plains Thumper
> William Poaster wrote:
>
>>> On a related note, you're a one-eyed trouser snake.
>>
>> A flaccid one at that.
>
> And teeny!
If they were going to name a distro after Hadron, it would be
called ....
"Damn Small Hadron" :-)
--
HPT
Andrew Halliwell
>> A flaccid one at that.
>
> Sounds like you are an expert in trouser snakes, ehh William Poaster?
> It figures.
>
--
| spi...@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..." |
raylopez99
{STUFF ON gOS DELETED}
Sounds like a great OS Darth. But for my proposed system (Pentium II
from over 10 years ago) , it's got too many features I'll never use.
RL
Hadron
Wonderful guys. Just wonderful. You add to your resumes daily.
--
"The even stupider thing about it is, these morons really believe that
threatening people will fire and brimstone will "convert" them."
-- Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Tattoo Vampire
> Wonderful guys. Just wonderful. You add to your resumes daily.
Aw, did da widdle twoll get his feewings hurt?
--
Regards,
[tv]
...Vanyel Ashkevon, Tylendel and Stefen, r.i.p.
William Poaster
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Wonderful guys. Just wonderful. You add to your resumes daily.
>
> Aw, did da widdle twoll get his feewings hurt?
Nah, just his Damn Small Hardon. ;-)
raylopez99
>
> Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
> Good to the last supper
^ ^ ^ that's blasphemy. You're going to hell.
RL
Andrew Halliwell
There he goes again.
It's only blasphemy to you. To everyone who isn't a bible bashing fanatic,
it's just a play on words.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
Psyc Geek
you can get one at a swap meet for about 50 cents.
the atari may work too. they have word processing built in.
geeze. read the replies.
Darth Chaos
lol
Funny thing about the Atari OS. The Tramiels were such glory hogs that
they named the OS after them (TOS stands for Tramiel Operating
System), and the ST in Atari ST supposedly was taken from Sam
Tramiel's initials. Why they would name a computer after the most
inept person to ever run a company into the ground (and Sam Tramiel
was exactly that), I will never know.
JEDIDIAH
> On Jul 2, 10:48 am, Psyc Geek <psycge...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> for the 2nd time, get the atari os.
>> you can get one at a swap meet for about 50 cents.
>> the atari may work too. they have word processing built in.
You are confused.
Now, if you really wanted to you could run GEM on an old PC.
However, that's something slightly different than TOS. The GEM
that ran on the Atari was in some ways better and in some ways
worse than the version straight from DR.
The Atari version didn't come with "word processing built in".
Atari did bundle a word processor though.
>>
>> geeze. read the replies.
>
> lol
>
> Funny thing about the Atari OS. The Tramiels were such glory hogs that
> they named the OS after them (TOS stands for Tramiel Operating
> System), and the ST in Atari ST supposedly was taken from Sam
> Tramiel's initials. Why they would name a computer after the most
> inept person to ever run a company into the ground (and Sam Tramiel
> was exactly that), I will never know.
--
The average IT manager is a less effective mentor than a
Spongebob Squarepants cartoon.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
The Ghost In The Machine
<DarthCha...@gmail.com>
wrote
on Wed, 2 Jul 2008 11:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
<656eecf1-8e2b-4779...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
Unfortunately, they outlasted Commodore, though.
The Ghost In The Machine
<raylo...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Wed, 2 Jul 2008 07:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
<02a6906e-c8db-4a28...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
http://www.markfiore.com/what_if_0
:-)
(Specific to the US elections and not strictly speaking
relevant to Linux, I know...but many will consider it
blasphemy, and many others will see through Mr. Fiore's
editorial message and note the blasphemy of the "Religious
Right". In its way, Linux is also blasphemous; it
challenges what many consider to be the One True Operating
System, which is Microsoft Windows. Never mind that there
are a lot more computer types than the desktop PC. Never
mind that Win 3.1 is/was quite different from Vista.)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/signature: Resource temporarily unavailable
Mark Kent
> 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/Distributions/Mini_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! |
raylopez99
> 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.
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.
> 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/Distributions/Mini_Distributions/
You gotta be kidding me. There's something like over 40 distros
listed here, some not even for PCs, some for "home entertainment
systems". For example, will ZipSlack work? "ZipSlack is a special
edition of Slackware Linux that can be installed onto any FAT (or
FAT32) filesystem with about 100 MB of free space. It uses the UMSDOS
filesystem and contains most of the programs you will need. This means
that you do not need to repartition your hard disk if you already have
DOS or Windows installed. ZipSlack installs into a directory on your
DOS filesystem. It can also be installed to and booted from a Zip
disk."
So, Mr. Propagandist, can I dual boot ZipSlack with Windows 2000?
Sounds like an all week or all month hobbyware project to me.
>
> 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?
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
to perform, these generalities become gibberish. No wonder Linux
distributers make so much money off of support. They give away the
buggy software for free, yet make money off the support helpline.
Clever folks. Kind of like giving away the shaving razor blade holder
and making money off the razors.
RL
Baho Utot
> On Jul 4, 12:05 am, Mark Kent <mark.k...@demon.co.uk> 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.
>
Ah yes, The forever drooling win troll.
> 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.
>
Yes Arch Linux, I have it on a 1G hard drive pentium 200 256MB RAM.
>
>> 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/Distributions/Mini_Distributions/
>
> You gotta be kidding me. There's something like over 40 distros
> listed here, some not even for PCs, some for "home entertainment
> systems". For example, will ZipSlack work? "ZipSlack is a special
> edition of Slackware Linux that can be installed onto any FAT (or
> FAT32) filesystem with about 100 MB of free space. It uses the UMSDOS
> filesystem and contains most of the programs you will need. This means
> that you do not need to repartition your hard disk if you already have
> DOS or Windows installed. ZipSlack installs into a directory on your
> DOS filesystem. It can also be installed to and booted from a Zip
> disk."
>
> So, Mr. Propagandist, can I dual boot ZipSlack with Windows 2000?
> Sounds like an all week or all month hobbyware project to me.
>
Why not?
It is not my fault that you don't know what your doing, but I see ms made
you that way.
>>
>> 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?
Arch Linux
>
> 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
> to perform, these generalities become gibberish. No wonder Linux
> distributers make so much money off of support. They give away the
> buggy software for free, yet make money off the support helpline.
> Clever folks. Kind of like giving away the shaving razor blade holder
> and making money off the razors.
>
> RL
I already gave you advise on the distro Arch Linux. I use it on a pentium
200 with 256MB RAM.
Now do you want to give me a ms os that will work on that machine? I need
one that is still supported by ms, WINx don't count, XP either as it is no
longer being sold and support will be dropped. I would like to use the
said machine as a DNS/EMAIL/HTTP/File server.
You "winwoes experts" are all the same, running your mouth about nothing and
demanding a answer to an ever changing question so as to claim no one can
answer it. You are in no position to demand anything.
--
Tayo'y mga Pinoy
Gregory Shearman
>
> 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
> to perform, these generalities become gibberish. No wonder Linux
> distributers make so much money off of support. They give away the
> buggy software for free, yet make money off the support helpline.
> Clever folks. Kind of like giving away the shaving razor blade holder
> and making money off the razors.
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...
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
raylopez99
> raylopez99 wrote:
> Ah yes, The forever drooling win troll.
>
Well, what are you, a Philosopher?
> Yes Arch Linux, I have it on a 1G hard drive pentium 200 256MB RAM.
>
OK, I visited them, found out they don't really have a easy or well
documented installation, but once I figured out x686 includes Pentium
II, I decided to download it. Bitorrent is very fast, and it will
only take 15 minutes or so to download. Unlike some linux sites, this
Arch distro site is not bandwidth limited.
>
> I already gave you advise on the distro Arch Linux. I use it on a pentium
> 200 with 256MB RAM.
Yeah but I typed my answer before you answered. What are you,
stupid? Am I supposed to read your mind?
>
> Now do you want to give me a ms os that will work on that machine? I need
> one that is still supported by ms, WINx don't count, XP either as it is no
> longer being sold and support will be dropped. I would like to use the
> said machine as a DNS/EMAIL/HTTP/File server.
>
> You "winwoes experts" are all the same, running your mouth about nothing and
> demanding a answer to an ever changing question so as to claim no one can
> answer it. You are in no position to demand anything.
>
Yes we are. We are 99% of the majority. You are 1%. The majority
rulez.
> --
> Tayo'y mga Pinoy
Is this Tagalog? I visited Philippines and had a good time, saw the
Visayan islands before the typhoon struck. Did not get laid, though
the girls were pretty (Thailand was better for that). Saw many poor
people--visited them in the barrios--but they were all smiling--sh it
stains around them, but all smiling. Kind of like Linux users--
rolling with the punches despite all the abuse and rap that they have
to put up with, given their hobbyware is a piece of rap. Hey, if you
have a cute sister, I'm rich and will do her right. Send her my way
and I'll send you some money.
Ultimo Adios monkey boy! Hasta la pasta!
RL
raylopez99
>
> 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
Gregory Shearman
> On Jul 6, 5:22 pm, Gregory Shearman <ZekeGreg...@netscape.net> 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.
Peter Köhlmann
> On 2008-07-07, raylopez99 <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 5:22 pm, Gregory Shearman <ZekeGreg...@netscape.net> 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.
Hadron
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> On 2008-07-07, raylopez99 <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 6, 5:22 pm, Gregory Shearman <ZekeGreg...@netscape.net> 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?
Peter Köhlmann
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
Unruh
>On Jul 4, 12:05=A0am, Mark Kent <mark.k...@demon.co.uk> 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.
???? You are obviously NOT interested in answering your questions.
>RL
JEDIDIAH
> raylopez99 <raylo...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>On Jul 4, 12:05=A0am, Mark Kent <mark.k...@demon.co.uk> 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.
Snit
g4su70$4f8$1...@registered.motzarella.org on 7/7/08 4:21 AM:
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@arcor.de> writes:
>
>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-07-07, raylopez99 <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 6, 5:22 pm, Gregory Shearman <ZekeGreg...@netscape.net> 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 <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>
Snit
4871fb53$0$6602$9b4e...@newsspool2.arcor-online.net on 7/7/08 4:17 AM:
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> On 2008-07-07, raylopez99 <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 6, 5:22 pm, Gregory Shearman <ZekeGreg...@netscape.net> 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
Michael Black
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
Unruh
>On 2008-07-07, Unruh <unruh...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>> raylopez99 <raylo...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>>On Jul 4, 12:05=A0am, Mark Kent <mark.k...@demon.co.uk> 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. )
Unruh
>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
JEDIDIAH
> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>
>>On 2008-07-07, Unruh <unruh...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>> raylopez99 <raylo...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>On Jul 4, 12:05=A0am, Mark Kent <mark.k...@demon.co.uk> 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.
>
> 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.
chrisv
>Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> 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.
Linonut
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> 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
raylopez99
>
> > 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
JEDIDIAH
>>
>> > 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
Peter Köhlmann
> On 2008-07-07, raylopez99 <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 10:51 am, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> 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?
>
Everything. It is a 3 syllable word.
That is 2 too much for widiots
--
My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
Andrew Halliwell
> On Jul 7, 10:51 am, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> 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)?
Where did he say that, oaf?
Do you not even know what COMPRESSION is?
*sigh*
IF the image the live CD loads is compressed, then the act of decompressing
it will obviously inflate the size well beyond the capability of a CD to
hold it.
Now, where does ANYONE mention downloading off the internet?
You don't NEED internet.
> So a Live CD "grows" larger than the 650 MB CD.
By the act of decompressing into RAM, yes.
> 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!
A live CD doesn't TOUCH your hard disk moron, until you click on the install
button. Then it just installs the RAM image onto disk and sets up a boot
loader. Do you really think there's no limit?
LOL
Here, I've got a byte somewhere that decompresses into the entire
encyclopedia galactica... Want a copy? here it is....
----- attached file -----
%
-------------------------
> SO, back to square one. I have to essentially upgrade the HD
Get stuffed lopez.
You've been given at least half a dozen viable alternatives to solve your
imaginary problem by now. You've not tried ANY of them.
And you still cry "no-one will give me a straight answer".
Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? The chances of you getting viable
helpful information reduces each time you post this shit.
> So, in short, Linux sucks and is unsuitable for a older machine.
Says the troll who was given many options to try and failed to even try one.
Says the troll who's never even USED linux.
Says the troll who's only here because his M$ shares are plummetting like a
lemming in a disney film.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
Andrew Halliwell
> On 2008-07-07, raylopez99 <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 10:51 am, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> 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?
Didn't you know? Compression is online storage in his mind. All it does is
produce a file that's a hash to the ACTUAL file on the internet. It's not
possible to reduce the size of things via algorithms and bit fiddling, it
has to go somewhere.
:)
High Plains Thumper
> raylopez99 wrote:
>
>> So, in short, Linux sucks and is unsuitable for a older machine.
>
> Says the troll who was given many options to try and failed to even try
> one. Says the troll who's never even USED linux. Says the troll who's
> only here because his M$ shares are plummetting like a lemming in a
> disney film.
Kinda' like the troll who not long ago, said he tried Linux audio mixing
and it didn't compare with a professional mixing program under Windows, so
he went back to it for his home studio.
This was in spite of other reviews by those who use the Linux software in
professional recording studios as a productive cost saving measure.
The dumb shmuck failed to mention that the package was several thousand US
dollars.
So I'm supposed to get rid of my Dell C600 older laptop, so I can spend
$2K US on new equipment, Vista and software for home use.
It amazes me that these fanbois think the only way to solve a problem is
to throw money at it. That all cost effective solutions like Linux and
FOSS are total failures.
Sounds like they don't have a life.
--
HPT
Linonut
> This was in spite of other reviews by those who use the Linux software in
> professional recording studios as a productive cost saving measure.
>
> The dumb shmuck failed to mention that the package was several thousand US
> dollars.
>
> So I'm supposed to get rid of my Dell C600 older laptop, so I can spend
> $2K US on new equipment, Vista and software for home use.
>
> It amazes me that these fanbois think the only way to solve a problem is
> to throw money at it. That all cost effective solutions like Linux and
> FOSS are total failures.
>
> Sounds like they don't have a life.
They don't have any sense.
--
Hideously disfigured by an ancient Indian curse?
WE CAN HELP!
Call (511) 338-0959 for an immediate appointment.
Douglas Mayne
<snip>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>
A full-featured, modern GNU/Linux OS will not fit in 100M. But IIRC,
a "rescue" environment (with the kernel, all kernel modules, and basic
busybox-based toolset) consumes only about 64M. That will provide
a good command line environment, which is often enough to fixup a
borked system. And for a small, full-featured live CD which includes KDE,
IMO you can't beat Slax. It packs a lot into a 200M image.
I get the impression that software expands to fill the container size
which is available. Various discrete sizes have been important in the past:
1.44M (floppy)
100M (Zip)
650M (CD-R)
4G (DVD-R) *
* current generation, approximate
Extremely small OS footprints remain of interest, mainly for handheld
devices with limited storage. The next generation of flash memory will
minimize the necessity of cutting to the bone. It will be possible to hold
a standard OS image with the full feature set. That is, it will fit- if
the rate of OS "expansion" (bloat) can be held in check (or finally
starts to level off.) An 8G container should give enough room for almost
everything conceivable. 8G flash is becoming common, now. This storage
advance, courtesy of Moore's law, reduces the need to use extra tricks;
such as tailored kernels, root filesystem compression, and the busybox
toolset. In other words, the standard install will be "good enough" and
will fit into that container with no "shoe horning" requried. This will be
a good thing because the extact same OS that runs on your desktop will
also be running on your handheld.
As far as a a full-featured GNU/Linux, I prefer Slackware. IMO, it has
done a very good job of adding features, while avoiding excessive bloat.
Its baseline install is a good starting point because it gives the
complete toolset, and other software can simply be added according
to user taste. I am willing to "waste" some disk space on some software
packages that may be seldomly used in exchange for the convenience of not
having to "go hunting" for too many missing features.
One trick that I use to clone Slackware onto multiple system is to
maintain a baseline setup image. That image can simply be "pasted" into
place onto the target hard drive partition (using dd). Some minor
final setup steps are all that is necessary to finalize and rollout
the clone. Right now, my baseline image consumes less than 4G (and
includes KDE 3.5.7 and OpenOffice 2.4.1.) If KDE is removed, then the
space used is reduced to just under 3G. That is mostly of academic
interest to me, though. I am happy as long as the total image stays below
4G (DVD-R container size). BTW, I also use the XFS filesystem
for the image. The xfs_growfs and xfs_admin utilities allow for the image
to be "expanded" to use all of space on the partition where it has been
copied.
--
Douglas Mayne
Linonut
> A full-featured, modern GNU/Linux OS will not fit in 100M. But IIRC,
> a "rescue" environment (with the kernel, all kernel modules, and basic
> busybox-based toolset) consumes only about 64M. That will provide
> a good command line environment, which is often enough to fixup a
> borked system.
You can squeeze a GUI on that, too. I've used this free product:
http://www.inside-security.de/download_en.html
INSERT v1.3.9b is released under the GNU General Public License.
Please read the terms of use. After that you can download the latest
version free of charge from Sourceforge as a ready-to-burn ISO-image
of about 60MB, which fits on a credit card-sized CD-ROM (with
overburning).
The GUI is fluxbox.
> And for a small, full-featured live CD which includes KDE,
> IMO you can't beat Slax. It packs a lot into a 200M image.
>
> I get the impression that software expands to fill the container size
> which is available. Various discrete sizes have been important in the past:
> 1.44M (floppy)
60 M (credit-card CD)
> 100M (Zip)
> 650M (CD-R)
> 4G (DVD-R) *
>
> * current generation, approximate
<rest of good post snipped>
--
The woman you buy -- and she is the least expensive -- takes a great
deal of money. The woman who gives herself takes all your time.
-- Balzac
Maxwell Lol
>> Sounds like they don't have a life.
>
> They don't have any sense.
But they do have an agenda......
The Ghost In The Machine
<raylo...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
<bd4b1c3f-2b6d-4048...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
> On Jul 7, 10:51 am, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> 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).
No, the reason is most likely fragmentation of your
swapfile, not its size. Set your virtual to twice your RAM
in both min and max of your swapfile after you've defragged
your harddrive (preferably *without* a swapfile at all,
so as to allow for more space to move files about), and
the machine should be better off in that department.
(You'll still need AV, of course; with Windows that's a given.)
>
> SO, if I upgrade the HD, why would I want to switch to Linux then?
> It's a moot point.
Why switch to Linux at all? You've *still* not answered
my question as to why you would consider that beneficial
for the user in question. At best, it's an exercise in
futility, absent something obvious.
The user and the machine are not client-server,
master-slave. They are *paired*. I'm an old Unix-head;
I can work with Linux, and can make it sit up, beg, roll
over, dig in the dirt, and retrieve bones. Others might
barely be able to make it go "woof". Still others will
chain it 3 feet away from its doggie dish then wonder why
Rover died some days later.
(Meanwhile, Windows oozes its way all over one's house. But
never mind that; green's in this year.)
>
> So, in short, Linux sucks and is unsuitable for a older machine. So
> much for the "Linux for poor people with old hardware" myth.
Linux distros have grown way too much. How one can pare them back, I'm
not sure unless one can in fact recognize where Rover is chained....
>
> RL
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
Windows. The choice of a bunch of people who like very weird behavior on
a regular basis, random crashes, and "extend, embrace, and extinguish".
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Kees Theunissen
> 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).
Normally you don't need to install a scsi controller and drive to
circumvent the BIOS HD size limits. It's the kernel that accesses
your HD, not the BIOS. You only need to take precautions that the
BIOS can load your kernel (and initrd if used).
I ran a Dell Dimension XPS Pro200n system for several years with a
80 GB and a 160 GB disk. That is a system with an Intel Pentium Pro
processor running at 200 MHz. The system was originally delivered
with a 4 GB HD and the BIOS limit was 20 GB iirc.
I won't spoil any time to explain how to setup such a system for
two reasons:
1) You don't seem to be interested anyway to install Linux on
your box,
2) It won't be a single click install, so it's probably way beyond
your Linux knowledge and/or capabilities.
If others are interested in more details about such a setup: just ask.
Regards,
Kees.
--
Kees Theunissen
Unruh
>raylopez99 wrote:
>> 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).
>Normally you don't need to install a scsi controller and drive to
>circumvent the BIOS HD size limits. It's the kernel that accesses
>your HD, not the BIOS. You only need to take precautions that the
>BIOS can load your kernel (and initrd if used).
>I ran a Dell Dimension XPS Pro200n system for several years with a
>80 GB and a 160 GB disk. That is a system with an Intel Pentium Pro
>processor running at 200 MHz. The system was originally delivered
>with a 4 GB HD and the BIOS limit was 20 GB iirc.
>I won't spoil any time to explain how to setup such a system for
>two reasons:
>1) You don't seem to be interested anyway to install Linux on
> your box,
I agree, but I will outline it anyway, just in case the person is really
legit.
make a small partion right at the beginning of the disk to contain /boot
The partion can basically be of minimum size -- lets say 50M.
Then install / partition and your others anywhere you want. The key thing
is that bios of the computer is ONLY used to read the initrd and vmlinuz
from /boot. Thereafter everything is taken over by the kernel which is
loaded by the bios and lilo from /boot.
raylopez99
> Normally you don't need to install a scsi controller and drive to
> circumvent the BIOS HD size limits. It's the kernel that accesses
> your HD, not the BIOS. You only need to take precautions that the
> BIOS can load your kernel (and initrd if used).
Normally he says. Well, this must be the exception. Don't you see
that I cannot even bootup when I install a large HD--so it has to be
the BIOS.
>
> I ran a Dell Dimension XPS Pro200n system for several years with a
> 80 GB and a 160 GB disk. That is a system with an Intel Pentium Pro
> processor running at 200 MHz. The system was originally delivered
> with a 4 GB HD and the BIOS limit was 20 GB iirc.
>
> I won't spoil any time to explain how to setup such a system for
> two reasons:
> 1) You don't seem to be interested anyway to install Linux on
> your box,
> 2) It won't be a single click install, so it's probably way beyond
> your Linux knowledge and/or capabilities.
Wrong again. But I thank you for your reply. I have installed from
scratch many a machine, even where I had to mechanically alter an IDE
ribbon cable, and do stuff to get a SATA boot drive loaded that took
three days to figure out (too complicated to even write about; I had
to ghost a working non-SATA drive onto the SATA drive and play around
with dip switches). But you confirmed that it will be a lot of work
to get Linux loaded onto this system--once I get a bigger drive.
So stick with windows is your implicit answer. Understood.
RL
raylopez99
> >1) You don't seem to be interested anyway to install Linux on
> > your box,
>
> I agree, but I will outline it anyway, just in case the person is really
> legit.
>
> make a small partion right at the beginning of the disk to contain /boot
> The partion can basically be of minimum size -- lets say 50M.
> Then install / partition and your others anywhere you want. The key thing
> is that bios of the computer is ONLY used to read the initrd and vmlinuz
> from /boot. Thereafter everything is taken over by the kernel which is
> loaded by the bios and lilo from /boot.
>
> >2) It won't be a single click install, so it's probably way beyond
> > your Linux knowledge and/or capabilities.
> >If others are interested in more details about such a setup: just ask.
Essentially, you are saying that I should dual boot Linux with
Windows, is that correct? And I assume you must set up a partition,
using say Partition Magic, that supports Linux format (which is not
NTFS or FATxx). Is this right? I do have Partition Magic somewhere,
and have used it, even for LInux, but failing that, failing finding PM
(and I'm not going to rebuy it just for this project), I don't see why
I can't do a clean reinstall of LInux, assuming Windows 2000 cannot be
made to work better. In short, I don't see why I should dual boot,
though I do understand the advantages of dual boot. Remember, this
project is for a n00b--who when they get into trouble do a hard power
off of the system! I can't imagine them living with a dual boot
system--liable to muck it up. I'm trying to keep in simple.
RL
Unruh
>On Jul 9, 4:42=A0pm, Kees Theunissen <theun...@rijnh.nl> wrote:
>> Normally you don't need to install a scsi controller and drive to
>> circumvent the BIOS HD size limits. It's the kernel that accesses
>> your HD, not the BIOS. You only need to take precautions that the
>> BIOS can load your kernel (and initrd if used).
>Normally he says. Well, this must be the exception. Don't you see
>that I cannot even bootup when I install a large HD--so it has to be
>the BIOS.
No, it does not have to be the bios. It could also be that the hard drive
controller is incapable of handling large disks. Rare but possible.
Note when you say "I cannot even bootup" that is totally consistant also
with your not having properly read the previous posts. In the boot
sequence, the hard drive is read by the bios in order to load initrd and
vmlinuz. They MUST MUST MUST be on the first few bytes of the hard disk for
the bios to be able to read them. The address space-- the number of bytes
allocated to addresses-- on those bioses only allow a limited number of
bytes on the disk to be addressed. That means that the /boot partition MUST
be within that set of addresses on the disk. The bios loads by telling the
controller -- download the following set of bytes with addresses in the
range... to memory.
Thus on those disks you MUST make a separate partion containing ONLY the
/boot directory, and that partition MUST be right at the beginning of the
disk. Those MUSTs are in capitals because if you do not comply, it will not
boot.
>>
>> I ran a Dell Dimension XPS Pro200n system for several years with a
>> 80 GB and a 160 GB disk. That is a system with an Intel Pentium Pro
>> processor running at 200 MHz. The system was originally delivered
>> with a 4 GB HD and the BIOS limit was 20 GB iirc.
>>
>> I won't spoil any time to explain how to setup such a system for
>> two reasons:
>> 1) You don't seem to be interested anyway to install Linux on
>> =A0 =A0 your box,
>> 2) It won't be a single click install, so it's probably way beyond
>> =A0 =A0 your Linux knowledge and/or capabilities.
>Wrong again. But I thank you for your reply. I have installed from
>scratch many a machine, even where I had to mechanically alter an IDE
>ribbon cable, and do stuff to get a SATA boot drive loaded that took
>three days to figure out (too complicated to even write about; I had
>to ghost a working non-SATA drive onto the SATA drive and play around
>with dip switches). But you confirmed that it will be a lot of work
>to get Linux loaded onto this system--once I get a bigger drive.
Uh, no. it will not be. the requirement is as above.
>So stick with windows is your implicit answer. Understood.
That is always an option. However, modern Windows will not work. And there
is no workaround for them.
>RL
Maxwell Lol
> Essentially, you are saying that I should dual boot Linux with
> Windows, is that correct? And I assume you must set up a partition,
> using say Partition Magic,
Many linux distros use an open source program that does the same as
partition magic (shrinking an existing Windows partition without
deleting files).
The Ghost In The Machine
<nos...@com.invalid>
wrote
on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:46:34 -0400
<87d4lli...@com.invalid>:
A combination of fstab and ntfsresize. The main problem with
ntfsresize is that it's not GUIfied enough for some. :-)
(It also marks the volume dirty so that Windows runs chkdsk on it
during its next reboot, a safety feature.)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows. Because it's not a question of if.
It's a question of when.
AZ Nomad
I"ll take qtparted or gparted over PM any day. PM's current insanity requires
a system be bootable before partitions can be resized. When I'm transfering
a system to a new hard drive, that isn't usually the case as I may reorder
the partitions. I much prefer doing the whole operating via a live CD.
raylopez99
> raylopez99 <raylope...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >Don't you see
> >that I cannot even bootup when I install a large HD--so it has to be
> >the BIOS.
>
> No, it does not have to be the bios. It could also be that the hard drive
> controller is incapable of handling large disks. Rare but possible.
> Note when you say "I cannot even bootup" that is totally consistant also
> with your not having properly read the previous posts. In the boot
> sequence, the hard drive is read by the bios in order to load initrd and
> vmlinuz. They MUST MUST MUST be on the first few bytes of the hard disk for
> the bios to be able to read them.
Wait. I just realized something. You think I have a Linux system,
"load initrd and vmlinuz". The old target machine is running Windows
2000 (before that, it was running Windows NT), not Linux.
Does this change your analysis? While I realize that playing around
with BIOS can allow you to successfully load...wait let me Google
this.
OK, I found the solution, see below.
So I did learn something from this thread, but no thanks to you,
though you did get me to research it.
RL
hardware fixes
Use of large harddisks in PC's with BIOS size limit
There are certain limitations why you could not use the full capacity
of your harddisk right from the beginning.
Case 1
Your mainboard BIOS lacks support for large harddisks (540MB / 2GB /
8GB / 16GB / 32GB limit). This is when your harddisk is reported as
unsupported [AutoDetect reports None] or with wrong sizes in the BIOS
setup. Even when your computer stops starting.
Case 2
Your harddisk features an UltraDMA mode not known to the harddisk or
vice versa. Therefore no communication can be established.
Case 3
Your operating system does not support partitions larger than 2GB.
For all limitations workarounds exist.
Case 1
Solution 1
Your mainboard manufacturer may provide a new BIOS binary for download
to update your current version with a Flash utility. To identify your
mainboard at least a manufacturer name and product name or a BIOS ID
is needed.
Info on how to find the BIOS ID and manufacturer
Solution 2
If you use an operating system like Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, Linux,
MacOS... you can manually enter harddisk data in the BIOS to limit
your HD to 2GB. This will prevent your BIOS from autodetecting your
harddisk and will limit BIOS access to your harddisk to the first 2GB.
During boot-up your BIOS will report this "wrong" size. This is only
important up the point when the BIOS hands over control to your
operating system (e.g. Windows 95 IO.SYS / COMMAND.COM). Then your
operating system uses it's own method to access the harddisk and is
indepented from your BIOS limitations. Creating partitions is more
difficult when using this solution as FDISK does rely on proper
initialization of your harddisk during boot up.
You can download a partition tool to create partitions with every size
and file system you like here:
http://www.users.intercom.com/~ranish/part/
FAQ for solving problems or questions:
http://www.users.intercom.com/~ranish/part/faq.htm
Solution 3
Some harddisks provide a jumper to limit harddisk size visible to your
BIOS to 2GB (sometimes 8GB or 32GB). That would be easier than the
above given solution to enter manually data into BIOS settings.
Solution 4
Most harddisk manufacturers provide a software tool to do both parts
(using fake settings for the BIOS and translating harddisk size
correctly to its full capacity). Please specify your harddisk type to
guide you to a download location. This solution works with legacy
operating systems, too.
Fujitsu DiskManager
IBM DiskManager 2000 (v 3.10.14)
Seagate DiscWizard 2000
Full version for all harddisks by OnTrack (59.95$)
Case 2
Change UDMA mode for your harddisk. As your chipset is based on VIA
82C586B southbridge all modes above UDMA33 are useless, because this
chipset can only handle up to UDMA33. So limiting your harddisks
firmware to UDMA66 or UDMA33 does NOT decrease performance. Problem
could be that your harddisk can't get initialized as it features an
UDMA mode unknown to the BIOS / chipset.
Fujitsu UDMA changer
Case 3
Microsoft DOS based operating systems like Windows 3.1, Windows 95
implement a file system called FAT16. This file system can only handle
partitions up to 2GB:
65525 cluster (max) * 32768 Byte (max) = 2.147.123.200Byte
So you would end up with 10 partitions with 2GB each when using a 20GB
disk. Newer releases of Microsoft Windows like Windows 95 OSR 2,
Windows 98 and later use a new file system called FAT32 which can have
partitions larger than 2GB. Windows 95 and Windows 95 SP1 don't
feature FAT32 (see Properties of MyComputer for version of Windows95 -
> 950 or 950A have no FAT32). All in all you can use harddisks with
20GB in your PC but you might end up with ten partitions named C:, D:,
E: ... all with 2GB each. If this is OK for you no further activities
are necessary. If you want to use one partition with more than 2GB
upgrade to an operating system with support for different file systems
like FAT32 (Windows95 SP2, Windows98/ME, Windows 2000), NTFS (Windows
NT, Windows 2000), HPFS (MacOS), extFS (Linux) etc.
Douglas Mayne
> On Jul 10, 9:14 am, Unruh <unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>> raylopez99 <raylope...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> >Don't you see
>> >that I cannot even bootup when I install a large HD--so it has to be
>> >the BIOS.
>>
>> No, it does not have to be the bios. It could also be that the hard drive
>> controller is incapable of handling large disks. Rare but possible.
>> Note when you say "I cannot even bootup" that is totally consistant also
>> with your not having properly read the previous posts. In the boot
>> sequence, the hard drive is read by the bios in order to load initrd and
>> vmlinuz. They MUST MUST MUST be on the first few bytes of the hard disk for
>> the bios to be able to read them.
>
> Wait. I just realized something. You think I have a Linux system,
> "load initrd and vmlinuz". The old target machine is running Windows
> 2000 (before that, it was running Windows NT), not Linux.
>
<snip>
>
I believe Unruh is speaking in the presumptive tense; he is
speaking in the case where you eventually attempt to install
a GNU/Linux. I guess that could happen- if you ever run out of excuses.
And monkeys might fly out of my butt.
Your research on old hardware is all valid. Whenever I use old hardware,
I often purposely avoid using the onboard disc controllers. UltraDMA
makes a big difference in performance, and was not present at all on
the earliest controllers because it had not been invented yet. PIO modes
were the first IDE modes. UltraDMA makes a big difference in
performance. Then UltraDMA went through several performance improvements
which had different burst modes, as listed below:
22 MB/s *
33 MB/s
66 MB/s
100 MB/s
133 MB/s
* Likely to be present on motherboards using Intel's Natoma/Neptune
chipset (440FX and similar.)
I like to avoid the onboard IDE controllers and their onboard BIOS
restrictions whenever it looks like problems would be difficult
to overcome. I simply disable the onboard controller and add a PCI IDE
controller. There are PCI IDE controller boards available on
EBay for next to nothing ($5 to $10). I prefer using the Promise Ultra100
TX2. However, IDE drives are on there way out- SATA is taking over. Also,
on EBay are Via chipset based combo controller cards which include SATA
and IDE ports (on a PCI expansion card).
Again, and this refers back to my first response to you,
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.misc/msg/46de4d19cbb518af
all of these little detours can add up, in both time and money. If you
know that the end user is not going to be happy running with that CPU
speed, then the first step is to get a better starting platform. As I
said, I wouldn't use a 200MHz class CPU in 2008. Better computers
are in the trash. People are junking their 900MHz Pentium III class
machines for $20 salvage. As I said, I have a Dell Dimension 4100, circa
2001, outfitted with 512MB RAM. Its performance is definitely acceptable.
But a PC of the vintage you are attempting to use for the install would
most likely choke when attempting to load OpenOffice. It might be able to
_finally_ do it, but by the time is gets past the splash screen hours
may have passed by. I think any user subjected to that treatment
would come away with a bad taste in their mouth, and a negative opinion
about Linux. At some point, old computers get put out to pasture.
Fortunately, with Linux a lot of old hardware gets new life as file
servers (boot headless, etc.) I know that I could get something
working on the system you describe, because I have worked with hardware of
that vintage quite a lot. However, it is _you_ and not _me_ that would
have to roll up sleeves and get to work. You appear to be too easily
discouraged to even attempt it. In any case, trying to fixup a 200MHz
system for an end user is a losing proposition, IMO. If you are looking
for a first Linux platform, then get something you know is likely to work.
Once the hardware "just works," then you can concentrate on working with
the software, and tweaking it for the end user (if necessary).
p.s. My earlier post (as referenced above) had a bad link. It
should have referenced these screen shots of my Dell Dimension:
http://www.xmission.com/~ddmayne2/images/ss.2008-06-20.01.png
http://www.xmission.com/~ddmayne2/images/ss.2008-06-20.02.png
--
Douglas Mayne