Linux distro request
in [ASM]
|
From: Rod Pemberton on 12 Apr 2008 10:42 "Evenbit" <nbaker2328(a)charter.net> wrote in message news:3283878e-6cb7-44b3-8e86-e3f01a02ff14(a)b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 11, 11:21 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> > wrote: > I suppose you wish to re-write the history books to conform to your > view that Linux does not (and never did) run on that "entire > generation" of PCs?? I didn't say that either. Although, the I think the early versions were mostly unuseable due to their primitiveness. > I'll remind you that Mr. Torvalds started his > project in '91. Yes, someone mentioned it to me. I think '91, might've been '92. > I had Slackware operational on a 486 in '95. I didn't. I don't recall the first version(s) that I tried. I think they were multiple floppy installs I dl'd. IIRC, I couldn't find a kernel that would boot. Later on, I obtained Red Hat 3.0.3 4 CD set spring '96 and SlackWare 3.2 4 CD set April '97 set. (I don't have the CD's anymore, just the cases). I wasn't able to get either working properly on that generation of machines. They both lacked support for so much hardware... Admittedly, I did learn recently that Linux didn't fully support one of the cdrom's I was using. A patch that supported it was released which allowed some versions to work with that cdrom, but for unknown reasons the patch was lost or reverted. Creative 32Xmx losetup: ioctl: LOOP_SET_FD: Bad File Descriptor > > > > pre-450/500Mhz cpu's. So, I'd probably set the DX2-66 as a minimum > > useable > > > > cpu for a modern OS without heavy GUI use. > > > > > Do you have any evidence to support your claim that Windows Vista will > > > run on a DX2-66 box??? > > > > What? Where did I mention Vista? Where did I say anything about running > > Vista on a DX2-66? But, given that XP runs on Celeron's... > > You classify Win98 as a "modern OS" but Vista doesn't fit that > description? Do you like to distort statements? "...without heavy GUI use..." I.e., command line interface, perhaps with TUI, or a "lite" VGA only GUI. If you can run a GUI on a DX2-66 reliably (perhaps Win95), then that's fine. > > I merely presented what I consider to be baseline cpu's based on their speed > > as needed for a generic (unbloated) OS. > > > > XP app's can run on Win98 with KernelExhttp://x86.neostrada.pl/KernelEx/ > > > > IIRC, Axcel216 has updates for Win98,ME, with support for more cpu'shttp://www.mdgx.com/ > > > That's a pretty big "leap" for the sole purpose of obtaining a > "modern" status for Win98. :) (This is being posted from Win98SE...) Win98 isn't "modern"? ;) It's only been available to the public for a decade. In reality, that's just enough time for 1) a large number of people to get it and learn it well and 2) the problems to be worked out of the OS. But, I was just pointing out that "very old 486 cpu's that can run Win98" can run XP applications on 98 with modest modification (perhaps even a lowly DX2-66... I'm curious, but it's boxed up.). Vista might require a 586 or 686, but it seems XP, or at least XP's apps don't... Rod Pemberton
From: Rod Pemberton on 12 Apr 2008 15:08 "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote in message news:ftqhk9$n4o$1(a)aioe.org... > "Evenbit" <nbaker2328(a)charter.net> wrote in message > news:3283878e-6cb7-44b3-8e86-e3f01a02ff14(a)b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > > On Apr 11, 11:21 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> > Creative 32Xmx > losetup: ioctl: LOOP_SET_FD: Bad File Descriptor > Well, I don't have another cdrom I can drop into the 32Mb machine at the moment. So, a couple of them failed due to that. I'll try them again with another cdrom when I get some time. HiStar - insufficient memory LFS Linux (boot LiveCD) - cdrom failure Parted Magic (boot LiveCD) - either out of memory or cdrom depending 1) (in memory?) hard lock up 2) (low memory) - cdrom failure (message below) 3) (vga) didn't try 4) (?) out of memory kill -9, kill -9, can't mount read only FS, ditto, ditto, ditto, etc... 5) (?) out of memory kill -9, kill -9, can't mount read only FS, etc... Since the Parted Magic failed for memory, it's likely LFS will too. It seems I previously tried these with it: Vector Linux 5.0 (boot Install) RIP Linux recovery (boot LiveCD) PHLACK Linux (?, probably boot at least...) Puppy Linux 2.15 (boot LiveCD) I recall the Vector and Puppy running, but I ran them on another machine too. And, I may have switched cdroms. I think the RIP didn't give an error on the cdrom and the PHLACK was the losetup error message above. LFS gives a short cdrom failure message similar to Parted Magic. Parted Magic gives this: ATAPI device: hdb ERROR: Illegal request -- (Sense key=0x05) Illegal mode for this track or incompatible medium -- (asc=0x64,ascq=0x00) " 28 00 00 00 00 11 00 00 01/02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 " end_request: I/O error, dev hdb, sector 68 Buffer I/O error on device hdb, logical block 16/17 Either 01 or 02 in 01/02 was displayed. Either 16 or 17 in 16/17 was displayed. This was random on a per boot basis. Rod Pemberton
From: Rugxulo on 12 Apr 2008 15:21 Hi, On Apr 11, 8:53 pm, Evenbit <nbaker2...(a)charter.net> wrote: > > Luckily, like he said, "many are in the distro game," and I happen to > remember that Knoppix pretty much matches his needs. I haven't test- > driven any of the latest versions, but I know they tend to keep up-to- > date on the Kernels, build tools, and such and I've gotten it to boot > on many "constrained" Win95-era PCs. Knoppix does look like it might be what he wants. But he'll almost definitely have to install and make swap (running live won't let him compile anything). It either needs 16 MB or 32 MB (conflicting requirements online) for terminal only. I think he should try it. Of course, it's not like I haven't given him a billion other things to consider too. ;-) > http://www.knoppix.org/ > > Use to be, the alternative boot commands were like: > > expert > knoppix desktop=fluxbox > knoppix 2 {for textmode only} > fb800x600 desktop=icewin > > Pressing 'F2' displays the full list... > > Nathan.
From: Evenbit on 12 Apr 2008 20:29 Rod Pemberton wrote: > > > I had Slackware operational on a 486 in '95. > > I didn't. I don't recall the first version(s) that I tried. I think they > were multiple floppy installs I dl'd. IIRC, I couldn't find a kernel that > would boot. Later on, I obtained Red Hat 3.0.3 4 CD set spring '96 and > SlackWare 3.2 4 CD set April '97 set. (I don't have the CD's anymore, > just the cases). I wasn't able to get either working properly on that > generation of machines. They both lacked support for so much hardware... > Admittedly, I did learn recently that Linux didn't fully support one of the > cdrom's I was using. A patch that supported it was released which allowed > some versions to work with that cdrom, but for unknown reasons the patch was > lost or reverted. Well, I have to admit that "operational" in the quote above might paint the wrong picture. I was somewhat of a DOS- and Windows-guru in that I had years of experience with those, had several books and such about them, read plenty of tips and instructions on the 'net for those OSes, etc. so it was not much of a pain for me to get either DOS or Windows running on just about any machine at that time. Linux, however, was a different story. No books, no experience. No nada! I could get it to boot to a command line... but that was it! I read the provided READMEs but still couldn't figure out how to get X running. I knew how to "ls" and "cd" but not much beyond that. So, my bigest hurdles, at that time, was the HOW and the WHY to use Linux. Nathan.
From: Evenbit on 12 Apr 2008 20:40 On Apr 12, 3:08 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote: > PHLACK Linux (?, probably boot at least...) Well *here* is something that I recognize. My handwriting on the CD cover says "0.2-1" for the version. It was a hacked-up spin-off of the Knoppix CD. My understanding is that they gutted what they could so they could fit all of those security-related documents and tools onto that CD. I am of the impression that they fsked-up some of the boot-scripts in the process because some of the boot options seemed to go ignored and I couldn't get the thing to boot on as many machines as I could get Knoppix onto. If you didn't have common hardware, Phlack wouldn't boot. So, if it was even half-way agreeable with your system, that is a sign that Knoppix "should" work. Nathan.
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Prev: Why is my nasm program killing itself? Next: Correction: Linux distro request |