Anybody use Linux? For old hardware, which distro?
in [Home Built PC]
|
Prev: Interesting power problem
Next: NETBOOK VS LAPTOP
From: Mike Easter on 5 Jun 2010 10:53 RayLopez99 wrote: > But if it works, I'll be "pleasantly surprised" in the same > way you're "pleasantly surprised" if you don't get food poisoning > after eating at a run-down greasy spoon interstate diner. TrollTrashTalk -- Mike Easter
From: Mike Easter on 5 Jun 2010 11:13 RayLopez99 wrote: >> -- >> Mike Easter You are still bottom posting untrimmed. > DSL > or Puppy Linux for this old system? I hate to get rid of DSL-which > has some variant of Firefox on it--if it works..."if it ain't broke > don't fix it". But let's see if it works first... The newest puppy I have is 4.3.1 which was released 2009 Oct and default installed browser was SeaMonkey 1.1.18 which is a Moz Gecko 2009 Sep engine. The current puppy is 5.0.1 which gives a choice of 4 browsers, Firefox, SeaMonkey, Chromium, and Opera - one click install. If you want to/ don't/ know the relationship between SeaMonkey and Firefox you can look it up. DSL last release was 2008 Nov and it carried Firefox 2.0 -- which Fx is now at 3.6.3 It is not at all difficult to add applications to either DSL or Puppy. -- Mike Easter
From: Mike Easter on 5 Jun 2010 13:41 Mike Easter wrote: > The newest puppy I have is 4.3.1 > The current puppy is 5.0.1 I just burned and booted Puppy 5.0.1 - lucid puppy - and it is the best so far. Lots of information; lot of connection options ease. Lots of browsers. And staying with Barry's philosophy. Click on the browser icon and it gives you a choice of 5; firefox, seamonkey, chromium, and puppy's - and/but it advises you to get online first. Click the connect icon and it reports the current status, recognizing on my hardware a dialup modem, an available ethernet, and options for connecting by wired or wireless which advances you to a choice of a network wizard or a simple Barry network tool. Bravo puppy. I was afraid that engaging Ub would be 'disruptive' to the previous goals, but it wasn't/didn't. -- Mike Easter
From: RayLopez99 on 5 Jun 2010 19:34 On Jun 5, 6:13 pm, Mike Easter <Mi...(a)ster.invalid> wrote: > RayLopez99 wrote: > >> -- > >> Mike Easter > > You are still bottom posting untrimmed. > Why is this a problem? I use Google Groups and only you and Rick (aka Thick) have ever complained. Your newsreader chokes when I do that? > > DSL > > or Puppy Linux for this old system? I hate to get rid of DSL-which > > has some variant of Firefox on it--if it works..."if it ain't broke > > don't fix it". But let's see if it works first... > > The newest puppy I have is 4.3.1 which was released 2009 Oct and default > installed browser was SeaMonkey 1.1.18 which is a Moz Gecko 2009 Sep > engine. The current puppy is 5.0.1 which gives a choice of 4 browsers, > Firefox, SeaMonkey, Chromium, and Opera - one click install. That's all fine and dandy but remember the target system is short of RAM and is running a Pentium II (early generation too). It has BIOS 1.x and I was pleasantly surprised (greasy spoon style) that DSL recognized the USB mouse (which BTW was a Microsoft USB mouse). > > If you want to/ don't/ know the relationship between SeaMonkey and > Firefox you can look it up. > I don't think I care. Firefox, if it runs like it does in Windows, is fine with me. But I would care if SeaMonkey has a lighter footprint-- because of the RAM issue. If it does feel free to let me know...I'll stick with Firefox for now, if and when I connect to the internet. > DSL last release was 2008 Nov and it carried Firefox 2.0 -- which Fx is > now at 3.6.3 > > It is not at all difficult to add applications to either DSL or Puppy. OK if you say so...but if it's so easy feel free to tell me how, right here...I know it's in the man page somewhere but I always remember stuff easier when people tell me online... Booting up Linux as I type this...we'll see if it connects to the Internet via dialup in about a few minutes...you can be sure if it does not I'll have a huge inflammatory post about it... RL ^^^ that sig line thing again, doh!
From: Mike Easter on 5 Jun 2010 20:12
RayLopez99 wrote: > Mike Easter >> You are still bottom posting untrimmed. >> > > Why is this a problem? It is a problem because it fails to directly contextualize exactly what words you are replying to and thereby impairs your communication. Bottom posting untrimmed is 'just like' top posting which is also untrimmed and noncontextualized, except that in some ways untrimmed noncontextualized bottom posting is *WORSE* than untrimmed noncontextualized top posting. The important thing is: trim (almost) everything first, then reply to just those specific words you left, right under them. Can't you see what I am doing? > I use Google Groups You can trim and context with GG just like a healthy newsreader. > and only you and Rick (aka > Thick) have ever complained. Your newsreader chokes when I do that? No choking. I have to imagine your context since you didn't prepare it, and I have to trim for both of us. You aren't carrying your end of the load. -- Mike Easter |