For the *LAST* time, please, what Linux distro for an old PCwith 48 MB RAM?
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: For the *LAST* time, please, what Linux distro for an old PC with ?48 MB RAM?
Next: herrenmode kaufen 07 herrenmode kaufen outlet herrenmode kaufen marken herrenmode kaufen mannheim jahre herrenbekleidung bestellen
From: Jean-David Beyer on 20 Jul 2008 06:47 raylopez99 wrote: > > You remind me of me when I try Unix--I have to pull out a book to use it. > It is the same when I used to use Windows 95. I had a dozen or more of Microsoft's $50 books and they were always several releases of the software behind. I think there were abuot 5 of them for Microsoft Office Professional, and a dozen on using their Visual C++ development suite, and so on. The main times I open a manual is when I need to change something in _iptables_ firewall, the _bind_ name server, or the _sendmail_ mail transfer agent. Most Windows users do not run a name server or a mail transfer agent, so they need never do this, and they take whatever firewall they get with Windows, or get one ready made and use it. The reason I have to use the manual is that I need to change them less than once a year and in the interval, I forget the nitty grittys. > Or type 'man' and try and read fast as several pages of text fly by on > the screen. That is ancient history. All versions of the man command over the last 10 years or more are implicitly piped through the _less_ command if you are on a terminal (but not if you send it to a printer). > > You ever think perhaps that if 99% of the world is not using Linux, that > maybe, just maybe, 99% of the world has got it right? Food for thought. > Indigestion. I think rarely matters to most people what they use for an OS, so they just take whatever comes with their computer. Most people do not know they have a choice. Of the 2 % or so who really care, half of them probably run Linux because of somewhat better performance, greatly improved security, a nicer development environment, and so on. -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 06:35:01 up 8:15, 4 users, load average: 4.50, 4.23, 4.08
From: Michael Black on 20 Jul 2008 10:56 On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jean-David Beyer wrote: > raylopez99 wrote: >> >> You remind me of me when I try Unix--I have to pull out a book to use it. >> > It is the same when I used to use Windows 95. I had a dozen or more of > Microsoft's $50 books and they were always several releases of the software > behind. I think there were abuot 5 of them for Microsoft Office > Professional, and a dozen on using their Visual C++ development suite, and > so on. > > The main times I open a manual is when I need to change something in > _iptables_ firewall, the _bind_ name server, or the _sendmail_ mail transfer > agent. Most Windows users do not run a name server or a mail transfer agent, > so they need never do this, and they take whatever firewall they get with > Windows, or get one ready made and use it. The reason I have to use the > manual is that I need to change them less than once a year and in the > interval, I forget the nitty grittys. > >> Or type 'man' and try and read fast as several pages of text fly by on >> the screen. > > That is ancient history. All versions of the man command over the last 10 > years or more are implicitly piped through the _less_ command if you are on > a terminal (but not if you send it to a printer). >> >> You ever think perhaps that if 99% of the world is not using Linux, that >> maybe, just maybe, 99% of the world has got it right? Food for thought. >> > Indigestion. > > I think rarely matters to most people what they use for an OS, so they just > take whatever comes with their computer. Most people do not know they have a > choice. Of the 2 % or so who really care, half of them probably run Linux > because of somewhat better performance, greatly improved security, a nicer > development environment, and so on. > > And what we're seeing is lots of people learning Windows at a very early age. They get the rudiments so they can play those games and write that school project, at a time when they are open to new things. They know nothing else when they get to adulthood, and they are starting to hit adulthood now. Why should they change? A computer is not the same thing as a telephone, but at this point it becomes similar in use. Most people use it for relatively simple things, they don't want to learn new things. The mass has in effect come to the computer world, and they've come after Windows arrived. Microsoft hasn't dominated by itself, there is a willing mass of people wanting, not necessarily what Microsoft is selling, but that uniformity and familiar world. I thought I came late when I finally got a computer in 1979, lack of money keeping me from it until then. But it was such a different world, all those different computers, all those different operating systems, and a different type of person being in the majority. They wanted to learn, and they realized one operating system might not be the best choice. Michael
From: TJ on 21 Jul 2008 08:50 Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote: > On Jul 20, 4:18 pm, Whirled Peas <p...(a)earth.org> wrote: >> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 07:55:49 -0700, raylopez99 wrote: >>> My objective >>> is not for this machine but for the target machine, which is a Pentium >>> II - 200 MHZ (not my machine, but a friend's). >>> RL > > > Use the Atari OS > Which one? TOS only works on Motorola 68000 family CPUs, and the 8-bit OS uses a 6502 processor and proprietary chips. I don't think either will work on a Pentium. Oh, wait - you're trying to be funny. You failed. TJ TJ
From: TJ on 21 Jul 2008 18:29 JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2008-07-21, TJ <TJ(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote: >>> On Jul 20, 4:18 pm, Whirled Peas <p...(a)earth.org> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 07:55:49 -0700, raylopez99 wrote: >>>>> My objective >>>>> is not for this machine but for the target machine, which is a Pentium >>>>> II - 200 MHZ (not my machine, but a friend's). >>>>> RL >>> >>> Use the Atari OS >>> >> Which one? TOS only works on Motorola 68000 family CPUs, and the 8-bit >> OS uses a 6502 processor and proprietary chips. I don't think either >> will work on a Pentium. >> >> Oh, wait - you're trying to be funny. You failed. > > Actually, if you hadn't just fallen off the turnip truck yesterday > you would know that "the Atari OS" also had an x86 version that > was around about the same time that a 200Mhz machine was something > that might be considered current. > > [deletia] > And if you weren't still riding on that truck you'd know that while Atari made and sold some Intel-based machines in 1987 or so, they were far from 200 MHz. They used processors ranging from 8086 to 80386, running at 8-20 MHz. Those machines came with the GEM operating system, which while a major part of Atari TOS, was originally developed for Intel machines. TOS was an outgrowth of GEM, but not the same thing at all. BTW, I fell off the truck in 1985, not yesterday. TJ
From: Jean-David Beyer on 29 Jul 2008 07:24
I just noticed an interesting quote on the Internet: Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly. It just happens to be very selective about who its friends are. -- Kyle Hearn -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 07:20:01 up 8 days, 12:08, 4 users, load average: 4.75, 4.28, 4.14 |