Subj : multitask or die! To : David Drummond From : Charles Angelich Date : Tue Nov 27 2001 04:13 am 1233341fa5b7 unix Hello David - --8<--cut DD>>> What?? No-one would clone their CD for you?? The bastards! CA>> Many with newer/larger installs offered to make me a CD. CA>> Not sure if that was because they knew I couldn't use it CA>> or their offers were legitimate? DD> I'm talking of the distribution CDROM - Most are designed DD> to be installed on a 80386 and up. Admittedly one or two DD> have been optimised for Pentiums and won't run on anything DD> less. I'm not so sure any recent distribution would work on an 80386 (if you can find one with a CD reader). CA>>>> Some time ago I could see that most who considered CA>>>> themselves experienced LINUX users were resorting to an CA>>>> install on a newer machine with more memory and then CA>>>> transferring that setup to the older machine. DD>>> I've never heard of anyone doing this. How exactly do DD>>> they get it from the newer machine to the old - swap the DD>>> harddrive over? CA>> I think a few did it that way, yes. CA>>>> Logic seemed to dictate finding someone with a working CA>>>> install and get an image copy from them to avoid the CA>>>> requirement of two machines (one newer, one older). DD>>> I have never taken a "working image" and installed it on DD>>> a machine, I've allways gone through the installation DD>>> process. --8<--cut CA>> From what I have read sys admins keep images handy and use CA>> them to setup dozens of machines at a time. It seems CA>> rather commonplace from what I've read. DD> We do that at work with Windows machines. We make the DD> initial image for each particular type/model/config PC from DD> scratch. DD> I don't know anyone personally who runs that many Linux DD> workstations. From what I've read they like to do the same thing. --8<--cut DD>>> Basements are not a popular fitting in homes here so I'm DD>>> not combing those. CA>> Maybe the word "basement" was a clue and I just didn't get CA>> it. I never considered that basements would not exist in CA>> other places. DD> Most relatively recent homes here are bult on a concrete DD> slab - straight onto the ground. Many of the older homes DD> are on "stumps", 5 to 6 foot piers with airspace underneath. I was not aware of that. DD>>> I have the word out amoung my friends/associates to DD>>> borrow a working 386 box. Someone's sure to have one DD>>> somewhere that I can use. CA>> Probably. DD> Heard of three so far. One is some sort of laptop, 2Mb RAM DD> and a 40Mb harddrive - I won't be attempting that. DD> Another is an IBM PS/2 - still to get my hands on it. DD> Similar RAM and drive sizes to the laptop, but I should be DD> able to replace with something more usable. Not necessarilly. The majority of an IBM PS/2 is proprietary. I had a difficult time just finding the necessary setup disks to get two of them working. IBM decided to erase much of this from their servers just six months or more after I found what I needed and people on usenet IBM echos were frantically downloading all of it to save it. DD> The third is a clone - It has 4Mb RAM and a 99Mb drive. It DD> keeps falling over with parity errors, so I'm still playing DD> with it's memory. So far you're finding machines closer to what I remember as typical 80386's and not the 8 meg of memory or 500 meg (or larger) hard drives people seem to think were sold. I guess no one wants to know that it's all so bloated now? CA>> I wanted to install on an 80386 with 4 meg of memory and a CA>> 250 meg hard drive. Most installs require an 8 meg CA>> ramdrive. Even an 8 meg 80386 can't create an 8 meg ram CA>> drive and then execute anything. When others claimed to CA>> have installed a distro that required an 8 meg ram drive CA>> but the machine only had 8 meg of memory ... you can CA>> imagine this confused me quite a bit? DD> You add an 8Mb swap partition, not a RAM drive. I read ramdrive many times, never swap file. I've used W31 for over a decade I would notice the different words. ;-) CA>> It is hard if the install won't execute in 4 meg of memory. DD> One enables the swap partition as the first part of the DD> install as explained in the docos. Are you saying that you think a 4 meg 80386 will be enough to get an install going and actually install LINUX on the machine? DD>>> Slackware installs are very easy - as long as one has a DD>>> little computer experience. CA>> Try OBERON installs. DD> No point unless I can get the applications I need. No point installing LINUX on a machine if you have no hard drive space or memory remaining to _use_ the applications you need. CA>>>> My Pentium 5 with only 16 meg would, no doubt, install CA>>>> some older version for text mode use. The time wasted CA>>>> looking for what did not exist has not given me the best CA>>>> overall impression of people who would claim to have had CA>>>> something that seems to not exist. If this is typical I CA>>>> can imagine how many other vaporware recommendations are CA>>>> passing daily between LINUX users with a warped sense of CA>>>> bravado? DD>>> I had ZIPSlack 4 running OK on my P75 notebook (32Mb RAM) DD>>> - BTW you've missed a digit with your P5 above. CA>> No, actually I didn't miss a digit. I really do have a CA>> Pentium 5. It's a Compaq Deskpro 560 with a Pentium 5 at CA>> 60 mhz. It ID's as a Pentium 5 and I checked. It really is CA>> a Pentium 5. DD> Ah - OK, that would make a acceptable CUI Linux machine. Maybe but it's a Compaq and I'm told there can be problems because of that (video is on the mb as is the `sound card' and IDE controller). I did not have this machine when I was looking for an 80386 install for LINUX. DD>>> It included general workstation stuff (comms, ppp dialup, DD>>> text based browser, text editor etc) and it fitted within DD>>> 100Mb of drive space. Its beauty was that it sat in a DD>>> directory on the FAT (16 or 32) drive without having to DD>>> repartition. CA>> There were several DOSLinux's but they didn't get very CA>> good reviews here on FIDO. WINLinux gets bad reviews most CA>> of the time here on FIDO. No comment on these? DD>>> The ZIPSlack image on Slackware 8 does not include the DD>>> text editor etc. CA>> How would you make changes to the configuration with no CA>> editor? DD> It does contain a text editor (I've looked further), just DD> not any of the ones I prefer to use. I guessed it had something. ;-) DD>>> I guess the main OS parts are taking up too much space DD>>> now. If one had more than 100Mb available one could DD>>> install the apps oneself. Same problem you will have with a normal 80386. Typical drive size was under 200 meg. DD>>> You could consider it (ZIPSLack 8) on your 16Mb Pentium x5 Maybe. It's a Compaq. DD>>> I no longer have my Slackware 4 CDROM however - it's got DD>>> lost somewhere between here and work. I can avail you of DD>>> ZIPslack 8 CA>> Somehow I just knew that one was in the parallel universe. CA>> ;-) DD> I plan to start my 386 experiments with Slackware 8 (the DD> latest publicly available Slackware). If it doesn't work DD> then I'll try that Slackware 2 CD at work. Decent of you to try it first before continuing to recommend doing it when others ask about it. I wish you luck. --8<--cut CA>> Not sure what the `average' is but I know MCA bus versions CA>> are a recent development. I'm no LINUX historian but there CA>> were video card problems and a few other problems that CA>> were significant and kept many from installing LINUX even CA>> on newer machines than the 80386s. DD> Slackware 4 (kernel 2.2.6) supported MCA - I think a prior DD> version did too. It may have been some driver that was absent for MCA or possibly for a certain `flavor' of MCA. The server-class for PS/2 had different hardware than the desktop PS/2's that I have here. Something only recently was released that made the PS/2 boys very optomistic about using LINUX. DD>>> True, Linux may not offer much to the DOS/Win3.1 user, DD>>> but they are very thin on the ground too (like working DD>>> 386s). CA>> WFWG seems to be a popular fall-back for LINUX users with CA>> DOS lying just under the veil of the WFWG GUI. DOSemu CA>> seems to be using up many webpages on the Internet. It may CA>> be camouflaged well but it's still being used. DD> I don't know anyone using WFWG anymore. Those of my DD> associates with low end hardware to play with, use LInux. I randomly began discussing DOS with three people on IRC recently. All three claimed to be LINUX users who dabbled in DOS. All three have WFWG installs. I've also read this in various places that WFWG was the second choice of many LINUX users because of it's built in networking capabilities to connect to their LINUX machine. DD> They keep their more modern/powerfull stuff for Win DD> whateverversion. This is a peculiar mindset (to me). To pamper the slower OS with the best hardware and hold back the faster OS on older slower hardware. I'm guessing that after a certain speed users don't care anymore how fast or faster a machine can be? (other than for bragging rights) > > , , > o/ Charles.Angelich \o , > <| |> __o/ > / > USA, MI < \ __\__ ___ * ATP/16bit 2.31 * .... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/ --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000) .