[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: RH 7.2 when?
- From: ABrady <kcsmart kc rr com>
- To: redhat-list redhat com
- Subject: Re: RH 7.2 when?
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:06:10 -0500
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:37:13 -0500 "Kevin Krieser"
<kkrieser_list footballmail com> imparted to us:
All of the following are still available and some or all will work:
7.0
6.2
6.1
6.0
5.2
5.1
5.0
4.2
I don't vouch for anything before that because I haven't used them.
Presumably they work fine, and they _are_ available. There's also a
distro for i286 out someplace, but I forget the name. There's stuff that
runs mostly from CD with only a little bit of disk space needed and low
RAM usage.
If the customer wants to make the tradeoff with older hardware, the
price they're going to have to pay is older, lower-end distributions. If
they want more up-to-date, they need to see that it isn't resonable to
expect that progress in the entirety of linux should be held back by
wanting to keep antiques around. Spend a small bit and get better
performance (I just got a 1.3GB drive, P-166, 32MB RAM desktop from Ebay
for $35 + shipping - total less than $70).
Now, why won't Redhat or somebody else release a version that works with
my Commode-door-64 and Vic-20, or my Atari-800?
> A problem is if a customer wants Redhat, being a major name
> distribution,
> but you have to support older custom boxes running 486 CPUS, 32MB, and
> as
> little as 512MB hard drives. To even get 7.1 installed on these, you
> have
> to deselect nearly everything, and choose a small initial swapfile.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: redhat-list-admin redhat com
> [mailto:redhat-list-admin redhat com]On Behalf Of Thomas Ribbrock
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 9:03 AM
> To: redhat-list redhat com
> Subject: Re: RH 7.2 when?
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 01:37:26AM -0400, Justin Zygmont wrote:
> > >
> http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2816836,00.html
> >
> > 64 MB RAM minimum, oh geez!
> >
> > and 2 GB of disk space????
>
> Well, it was already said a while ago that Red Hat Linux can no longer
> be
> recommended for low end machines (neither can any of the other "big
> players", I would assume). Fortunately, there are alternatives out
> there for
> those machines.
>
> Cheerio,
>
> Thomas
> --
> NEWSFLASH: http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html
> Thomas Ribbrock | http://www.bigfoot.com/~kaytan | ICQ#: 15839919
> "You have to live on the edge of reality - to make your dreams come
> true!"
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Redhat-list mailing list
> Redhat-list redhat com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Redhat-list mailing list
> Redhat-list redhat com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
--
Who are the Brain Police?
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]