«

this quote is from Evans Leung of Sat, 23 Aug 2003 22:16 :
>
> got given a PII 233, 128MB RAM and 4GB SCSI HD plus CDROM.
>
> i want to install linux on it, what distro will run the best with the
> above specs?
>
> main thing i want to run is web (apache), a webmail program and may be a
> firewall.
>
> is there a small enough distro? i have got Mandrake 9.1 and Redhat 9 but
> i want a smaller distro as i don't have that much diskspace.

The hard disc space is probably ok, it is the RAM and CPU that will be more
limiting.

If you haven't used Linux before, a distro like Mandrake or Redhat would be
better to start with.

During install, choose 1 or 2 alternative window managers (eg Ice or
enlightenment) as well as KDE and gnome. Try them out, you might find KDE
and gnome are a bit heavy for your hardware, and you get better performance
out of one of the other window managers.

HTH

Peter

Peter <> wrote in
news::

> this quote is from Evans Leung of Sat, 23 Aug 2003 22:16 :
>>
>> got given a PII 233, 128MB RAM and 4GB SCSI HD plus CDROM.
>>
>> i want to install linux on it, what distro will run the best with the
>> above specs?
>>
>> main thing i want to run is web (apache), a webmail program and may
>> be a firewall.
>>
>> is there a small enough distro? i have got Mandrake 9.1 and Redhat 9
>> but i want a smaller distro as i don't have that much diskspace.
>
> The hard disc space is probably ok, it is the RAM and CPU that will be
> more limiting.
>
> If you haven't used Linux before, a distro like Mandrake or Redhat
> would be better to start with.
>
> During install, choose 1 or 2 alternative window managers (eg Ice or
> enlightenment) as well as KDE and gnome. Try them out, you might find
> KDE and gnome are a bit heavy for your hardware, and you get better
> performance out of one of the other window managers.
>
> HTH
>
> Peter

If you only intend on a webserver, webmail, and a firewall installing X
is not even necessary. Those specs are plenty for a server only doing
that, just as long as it isn't serving many people. The server here only
looks after 6 people, and it has smaller specs than that with no trouble.



--
Tim
- <insert witty signature here>

this quote is from Lennier of Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:26 :
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:47:09 +1200, Skippy wrote:
>> Would Redhat 9/Mandrake9 Work on a P75/486 alright if X wasnt installed
>
> Yes - even on an i486!
>
> Linux was originally designed to run on an intel 80386 chip.

Yes, but it is worth pointing out that performance is noticably impaired
with older hardware.
Technically, Linux can run on a 386 and needs only 2MB of RAM ...
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Installati...l#REQUIREMENTS
But I suspect getting that to go would require some skill, and it would be
rather limited in what it could do.


Peter

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:26:11 +1200, Lennier wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:47:09 +1200, Skippy wrote:
>
>> Would Redhat 9/Mandrake9 Work on a P75/486 alright if X wasnt installed
>> ???
>
> Yes - even on an i486!
>
> Linux was originally designed to run on an intel 80386 chip.

Except I believe Mandrake at least is compiled for Pentium or better, and
won't run on older chips. You could of course recompile everything, but
then what have you gained from Mandrake? Certainly not ease of
installation ...

Richard

"Uncle StoatWarbler" <alanb+> wrote in message
news.. .
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 21:11:24 +1200, Peter wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, but it is worth pointing out that performance is noticably impaired
> > with older hardware.
> > Technically, Linux can run on a 386 and needs only 2MB of RAM ...
> > http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Installati...l#REQUIREMENTS
> > But I suspect getting that to go would require some skill, and it would
be
> > rather limited in what it could do.
>
> At one stage I had SLS running on a 2Mb 386sx16 with 30Mb hard drive.
>
> It took about a week to compile a kernel. I still have a Compaq 486sx25
> laptop kicking round with linux on board. It makes a prtety good firewall.
>
>

You might like to check your time settings, you seem to be an hour ahead

Lennier wrote:

>
> But if a person has not used Linux before, then not installing X is most
> probably not a realistic option.
>
> Lennier
>


Actually I disagree, the more reading and 'hands on' work you do, the
more understanding you gain.

Sure, it may take longer than the click, click, click option, but you
learn a lot more during that process.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:02:38 +1200, Gordon wrote:

>
> GUI's use up memory and clock cycles like there is no more tomorrow.

They use more memory yes. Well designed ones don't suck too many cycles.

However there are a lot of ill-designed GUIs. Switching off the eye candy
make a big difference (I'm using X on a 48Mb p166 for instance)

--
There are 2 sorts of email opt-in lists:
1: opt-in with archived, provable confirmation.
2: Fraud

> If you only intend on a webserver, webmail, and a firewall installing X
> is not even necessary. Those specs are plenty for a server only doing
> that, just as long as it isn't serving many people. The server here only
> looks after 6 people, and it has smaller specs than that with no trouble.


Would Redhat 9/Mandrake9 Work on a P75/486 alright if X wasnt installed ???

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:47:09 +1200, Skippy wrote:

> Would Redhat 9/Mandrake9 Work on a P75/486 alright if X wasnt installed
> ???

Yes - even on an i486!

Linux was originally designed to run on an intel 80386 chip.

Lennier

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:40:35 +1200, m00se wrote:

>> But if a person has not used Linux before, then not installing X is
>> most probably not a realistic option.
>>
>> Lennier
>>
>>
>>
> Actually I disagree, the more reading and 'hands on' work you do, the
> more understanding you gain.
>
> Sure, it may take longer than the click, click, click option, but you
> learn a lot more during that process.

Agreed, and agreed.

However, having the GUI available reduces the steepness of the learning
curve, IMHO.

Lennier