Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.hardware > #1904 > unrolled thread

Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.hardware

Contents

  Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? ddwr@hotmail.com - 2013-06-30 20:27 -0700
    Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? Antti Talsta <atalsta@gmail.com> - 2013-07-01 11:22 +0300
      Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? ddwr@hotmail.com - 2013-07-02 08:03 -0700
        Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? ddwr@hotmail.com - 2013-07-02 09:23 -0700
          Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2013-07-02 13:10 -0400
        Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? Antti Talsta <atalsta@gmail.com> - 2013-07-03 20:10 +0300
          Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? ddwr@hotmail.com - 2013-08-04 08:57 -0700
    Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2013-07-01 12:23 +0200
      Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> - 2013-07-01 13:46 -0700
    Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? ray carter <ray@zianet.com> - 2013-07-01 14:40 +0000
    Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? Kirk_Von_Rockstein <Kirk_Von_Rockstein@nowhere.invalid> - 2013-07-01 14:46 +0000
    Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> - 2013-07-02 00:49 +0200
    Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2013-07-02 01:19 +0000
      Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2013-07-02 12:05 +0200
        Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2013-07-02 10:44 +0000
          Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? Marcus <usenetaccount**REMOVETHISPART**@wilsoz.com.invalid> - 2013-07-02 07:22 -0500
          Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? Soupe du Jour <soupedujour2000@gmail.com> - 2013-07-02 13:01 +0000
            Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2013-07-02 10:59 -0400
              Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? Soupe du Jour <soupedujour2000@gmail.com> - 2013-07-02 16:44 +0000
        Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2013-07-02 10:48 -0400
    Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? ddwr@hotmail.com - 2013-08-04 08:57 -0700
      Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2013-08-04 13:59 -0700
        Re: Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it? ddwr@hotmail.com - 2013-08-06 08:17 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#1904 — Best Linux flavor and version number for an old PC with either a Pentium 3 or 4 in it?

I know nothing about Linux but have two old computers that I would like to dabble around in the OS with. One is a Pentium 4 with 1GB Ram and the other is a Pentium 3 with 320 of Ram. What would be the best flavor of Linux to put on them? Is ubuntu-12.04.2-desktop-i386.iso out of the question even for the Pentium 4? Is a version of puppy what I should try first. Being a complete novice will I get a good learning experience from a lighter flavor of Linux such as puppy?
Can someone point me to a good link to direct download what ever they suggest I try out on one or both the computers.
Thanks in advance!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1906

On 2013-07-01, ddwr@hotmail.com <ddwr@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Can someone point me to a good link to direct download what ever they
> suggest I try out on one or both the computers.  Thanks in advance!

Debian Wheezy works on both. Gnome 3 is probably too heavy even for the
P4 but XFCE or LXDE should work fine with 1GB memory. P3 is best used
only in text mode or if graphical environment is a must then use just a
window manager, for example Fluxbox.

Live images

http://live.debian.net/cdimage/release/stable+nonfree/i386/iso-hybrid/
debian-live-7.0.0-i386-lxde-desktop+nonfree.iso

http://live.debian.net/cdimage/release/stable+nonfree/i386/iso-hybrid/
debian-live-7.0.0-i386-xfce-desktop+nonfree.iso

Network install image

http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/7.1.0/i386/iso-cd/
debian-7.1.0-i386-netinst.iso

Sorry for linewrap

-- 
Antti Talsta

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1919

On Monday, July 1, 2013 2:22:43 AM UTC-6, Antti Talsta wrote:
> On 2013-07-01, ddwr@hotmail.com <ddwr@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Can someone point me to a good link to direct download what ever they
> 
> > suggest I try out on one or both the computers.  Thanks in advance!
> 
> 
> 
> Debian Wheezy works on both. Gnome 3 is probably too heavy even for the
> 
> P4 but XFCE or LXDE should work fine with 1GB memory. P3 is best used
> 
> only in text mode or if graphical environment is a must then use just a
> 
> window manager, for example Fluxbox.
> 
> 
> 
> Live images
> 
> 
> 
> http://live.debian.net/cdimage/release/stable+nonfree/i386/iso-hybrid/
> 
> debian-live-7.0.0-i386-lxde-desktop+nonfree.iso
> 
> 
> 
> http://live.debian.net/cdimage/release/stable+nonfree/i386/iso-hybrid/
> 
> debian-live-7.0.0-i386-xfce-desktop+nonfree.iso
> 
> 
> 
> Network install image
> 
> 
> 
> http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/7.1.0/i386/iso-cd/
> 
> debian-7.1.0-i386-netinst.iso
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for linewrap
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
 Antti Thank you for the links! can the debian-live-7.0.0-i386-lxde-desktop+nonfree.iso version fit on a CD or do I need a dvd? And when I burn the image to disc is it a bootable disc?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1920

On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 9:03:59 AM UTC-6, dd...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 1, 2013 2:22:43 AM UTC-6, Antti Talsta wrote:
> 
> > On 2013-07-01, ddwr@hotmail.com <ddwr@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Can someone point me to a good link to direct download what ever they
> 
> > 
> 
> > > suggest I try out on one or both the computers.  Thanks in advance!
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > Debian Wheezy works on both. Gnome 3 is probably too heavy even for the
> 
> > 
> 
> > P4 but XFCE or LXDE should work fine with 1GB memory. P3 is best used
> 
> > 
> 
> > only in text mode or if graphical environment is a must then use just a
> 
> > 
> 
> > window manager, for example Fluxbox.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > Live images
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > http://live.debian.net/cdimage/release/stable+nonfree/i386/iso-hybrid/
> 
> > 
> 
> > debian-live-7.0.0-i386-lxde-desktop+nonfree.iso
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > http://live.debian.net/cdimage/release/stable+nonfree/i386/iso-hybrid/
> 
> > 
> 
> > debian-live-7.0.0-i386-xfce-desktop+nonfree.iso
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > Network install image
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/7.1.0/i386/iso-cd/
> 
> > 
> 
> > debian-7.1.0-i386-netinst.iso
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > Sorry for linewrap
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > -- 
> 
> > 
> 
>  Antti Thank you for the links! can the debian-live-7.0.0-i386-lxde-desktop+nonfree.iso version fit on a CD or do I need a dvd? And when I burn the image to disc is it a bootable disc?

oh forgot can I format the HDD with it too before I do an install. Maybe showing how much i don't know but what format of the HDD do I need to install Linux on?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1922

On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, ddwr@hotmail.com wrote:


>
> oh forgot can I format the HDD with it too before I do an install. Maybe 
> showing how much i don't know but what format of the HDD do I need to 
> install Linux on?
>
Any decent distribution will give you the chance to partition the drive 
and format it as part of the install.  Or, once the install disc is 
booted, a limited subset of Linux utilities are there, including a tool 
for partitioning the disk and a tool to format it.

The only problem arises if you have something on the hard drive that you 
want to keep.  Then you likely have to go about it differently, using 
other tools that won't destroy the data but will make the existing 
partition(s) smaller so you have space for a Linux partition.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1923

On 2013-07-02, ddwr@hotmail.com <ddwr@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Antti Thank you for the links! can the
> debian-live-7.0.0-i386-lxde-desktop+nonfree.iso version fit on a CD or
> do I need a dvd? And when I burn the image to disc is it a bootable
> disc?

You'll need a DVD. Yes, it's bootable.

-- 
Antti Talsta

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1957

I finally got around to trying to boot my old Dell 4550 computer using the two Linux installer CDs I made and the computer would not boot it kept telling me that I needed to hit F1. When I burnt the CD was I to do something that would make it “Bootable”?
One flavor is Debia and the other is Kali

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1907

On Monday 01 July 2013 05:27, ddwr@hotmail.com conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.hardware...

> I know nothing about Linux but have two old computers that I would
> like to dabble around in the OS with. One is a Pentium 4 with 1GB Ram
> and the other is a Pentium 3 with 320 of Ram.

Both of those are well-supported, but 320 MiB of RAM is a bit on the 
meager side for running anything graphics-intensive.  I would even 
recommend upgrading to 2 or even 4 GiB on the Pentium 4 (if possible), 
although that isn't strictly necessary.

> What would be the best flavor of Linux to put on them?

That's a very difficult question to answer, because it all depends on 
what you want to do with them.  Underneath, it's all the GNU/Linux 
operating system, but there are different flavors in terms of how the 
system is organized - the two main ones are RedHat derivatives on the 
one hand and Debian derivatives on the other hand - and these days it is 
also custom to supply separate .iso files for the different graphical 
user interfaces, even though you can install multiple graphical user 
interfaces side by side and switch between them or even use them 
simultaneously if the machine has enough RAM - you must keep in mind 
that GNU/Linux is a UNIX clone and thus a multi-user operating system, 
which supports concurrent logins.

> Is ubuntu-12.04.2-desktop-i386.iso out of the question even for the
> Pentium 4?

No, it is not, but I would definitely recommend staying away from 
Ubuntu.  First of all, it's pretty dumbed down, and secondly, it now 
contains spyware and adware with the blessing of Canonical, the company 
behind Ubuntu.  This spyware and adware can be removed, but not by an 
absolute novice.

> Is a version of puppy what I should try first.

I wouldn't recommend Puppy either, because it defaults to running 
everything as the root user.  You definitely don't want that.  It's the 
equivalent of running everything with Administrator privileges in 
Microsoft Windows - which is what I suspect to be the platform you're 
coming from.

> Being a complete novice will I get a good learning experience from a
> lighter flavor of Linux such as puppy?

No, on the contrary.  A "lighter" flavor of GNU/Linux won't have all the 
tools and applications available to you, and most of the so-called 
"user-friendly" distributions actually aim to dumb you down and hide the 
underpinnings of the system from you.  If you really want to explore the 
operating systems, then that would definitely not a good place to start.

I would recommend any of the following...

   ° Debian Stable (alias "Wheezy") - see the advice given to you by
     Antti Talsta

   ° Mageia

   ° openSUSE

   ° PCLinuxOS

Note: PCLinuxOS comes as an installable live CD in different flavors, 
depending on the desktop environment chosen - yes, they also do the 
desktop flavor separation thing, but you can always pull in other 
graphical environments from the repositories.  A live CD means that you 
can run the system off of the optical drive without needing to install 
anything to your hard disk, although it will of course be slower if you 
use it this way, and it's not a recommended approach on machines with 
very low RAM capacity such as your Pentium III.

PCLinuxOS is a Mandriva spin-off, like Mageia, and it's very newbie-
friendly without preventing you from digging into the system or trying 
to dumb you down.  Given your hardware and your interest in digging 
deeper into the system, that might be a good place to start.  They even 
install the proprietary drivers and multimedia codecs for you out-of-
the-box - they might not be on the live CD itself, though, but they will 
be available once you've installed the system to your hard disk - while 
many/most other distributions require you to install those separately 
from a "non-free software" repository for legal reasons.  

(It /is/ safe and legal to install those on your own systems, but it is 
generally illegal for a distribution vendor to include those "out of the 
box" in their distribution, which is why they are generally available 
from a separate repository, which you must explicitly enable in your 
package manager.)

> Can someone point me to a good link to direct download what ever they
> suggest I try out on one or both the computers. Thanks in advance!

Well, some distributions offer direct links on their website, but the 
best way to go about this is to find a mirror geographically close to 
your location so as to maximize the download speed and limit the risk of 
download corruption.  Many universities have such ftp mirrors set up, 
and you will often find a mirror list via the website of the 
distribution vendor.

The first thing you should do after downloading an .iso file is check 
its integrity.  Normally, the mirror will have a text file containing an 
SHA and/or MD5 checksum, and you should run an SHA or MD5 checker on the 
downloaded copy of the .iso on your local system - there are several 
available as freeware for Windows - to see whether the checksums match.  
They /must/ be identical.

Then, you must burn the .iso to a CD or DVD, but not "as a file".  The 
.iso is an /image/ of a CD or DVD and must thus literally be "etched 
onto" the optical medium.  And lastly of course, you must ensure that 
your BIOS allows for booting from the optical drive. ;-)

When it comes to partitioning, there are different strategies and 
different views on what is best.  Personally I spread out the system 
across multiple partitions, but it is generally easier for newbies to 
use only one or two partitions for the system itself, plus a swap 
partition.  (A swap partition does not have a filesystem on it and is 
accessed directly from the kernel.)

The above in mind and sticking to the preferred approach for newbies, I 
would recommend a root filesystem (mounted at /) and a separate 
filesystem for user-owned files (mounted at /home), plus a swap 
partition.  The size of the swap partition is yet another subject of 
debate.  

If you are going to be hibernating the system - i.e. suspend-to-disk -  
then you need to make the swap partition about 2.5x the size of your 
RAM.  If not, then although it is always recommended to have a swap 
partition, the chances that you'll be hitting swap decrease dramatically 
as your RAM capacity grows.  For instance, on this system here - which 
is a 64-bit system, by the way - I have 4 GiB of RAM installed, and I 
have an 8 GiB swap partition.  I do on occasion hit swap by a few MiB, 
but it is rare.  However, on a machine with only 1 GiB of RAM, you will 
be hitting swap a lot more, and that will slow down the system, of 
course.  This is why I recommend increasing the RAM capacity, if 
possible.

On account of the machine with only 320 RAM, it is important that you 
understand that the graphical user interfaces on GNU/Linux are separate 
from the underlying operating system.  The GUI runs on top of the base 
system just as in the days of DOS and Windows 3.x, except that in the 
case of the latter, Windows also added cooperative multitasking and 
extension of the usable memory to DOS, whereas in GNU/Linux, the GUI 
does not provide for anything that the operating system itself is not 
already providing for.  

In other words, you can run a bare-bones text-only system on that 
Pentium III with 320 MiB of RAM, or you should use it with a lightweight 
graphical environment such as a window manager rather than a complete 
desktop environment.  FluxBox is a popular one.  IceWM is another.  Even 
Enlightenment will work, but that's already more of a desktop 
environment.

Lastly, when it comes to that partitioning as spoken of higher up, 
GNU/Linux does not care about whether the partitions are primary or 
whether they are logical partitions in an extended partition container, 
and it does not require any bootable flag on a partition either.

There are also different types of filesystems which you can use on your 
partitions - except the swap partition, because that one does not get a 
filesystem - but the default in most distributions these days will be 
ext4.  That's an excellent filesystem type.  Other usable ones are XFS, 
JFS, reiserfs, ext2 or ext3 (the predecessors of ext4), and btrfs (which 
is still somewhat experimental).  But whatever you do, don't try to 
install GNU/Linux on a partition formatted with NTFS or FAT, because 
those filesystems do not support the UNIX/POSIX file ownerships and 
permissions, which GNU/Linux needs.

Ample documentation is available on the Web, but you definitely already 
want to bookmark The Linux Documentation Project, at...

   http://www.tldp.org

Most of that documentation is already outdated, but it's a good place to 
start at trying to understand the system.  And if you really want to get 
into the "down and dirty" from the start, then you will also want to 
read this one...

   http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html.gz

-- 
= Aragorn =
  GNU/Linux user #223157 - http://www.linuxcounter.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1910

On 7/1/2013 3:23 AM, Aragorn wrote:
> [...]
> The first thing you should do after downloading an .iso file is check 
> its integrity.  Normally, the mirror will have a text file containing an 
> SHA and/or MD5 checksum, and you should run an SHA or MD5 checker on the 
> downloaded copy of the .iso on your local system - there are several 
> available as freeware for Windows - to see whether the checksums match.  
> They /must/ be identical.
> [...]

Just a friendly note:  best/safest one for Windows without any crapware
or malware wrapper is the free one from Microsoft which works on Win2K.
WinXP. Vista and Win7 (and servers and more). Instructions and download:

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/841290

Note the setting of "path" to include the new directory containing
the fciv (File Checksum Integrity Verifier) program after it's unpacked.

fciv's default is MD5 and it also does SHA1 checksumming.

Thad

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1908

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 20:27:15 -0700, ddwr wrote:

> I know nothing about Linux but have two old computers that I would like
> to dabble around in the OS with. One is a Pentium 4 with 1GB Ram and the
> other is a Pentium 3 with 320 of Ram. What would be the best flavor of
> Linux to put on them? Is ubuntu-12.04.2-desktop-i386.iso out of the
> question even for the Pentium 4? Is a version of puppy what I should try
> first. Being a complete novice will I get a good learning experience
> from a lighter flavor of Linux such as puppy?
> Can someone point me to a good link to direct download what ever they
> suggest I try out on one or both the computers.
> Thanks in advance!

If you go to distrowatch.com and look over the announcements for the last 
couple of weeks, I believe you will find a few current releases designed 
for older equipment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1909

On 2013-07-01, ddwr@hotmail.com <ddwr@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I know nothing about Linux but have two old 
> computers that I would like to dabble around 
> in the OS with. One is a Pentium 4 with 1GB Ram 
> and the other is a Pentium 3 with 320 of Ram. 
> What would be the best flavor of Linux to put on them? 
> Is ubuntu-12.04.2-desktop-i386.iso out of the question 
> even for the Pentium 4? Is a version of puppy what 
> I should try first. Being a complete novice will 
> I get a good learning experience from a lighter 
> flavor of Linux such as puppy?
> Can someone point me to a good link to 
> direct download what ever they suggest I try out 
> on one or both the computers.
> Thanks in advance!

You will have no problem running 
GNU/Linux on these older machines.
The main thing to keep in mind when running
older hardware with limited memory, video etc,
is to use the /light/ Window Managers and panels. 
DO NOT use Gnome or KDE, 
they use way to many resources, 
you will most likely be unhappy with the results 
using them on your listed hardware.
Locate/download LiveCd's that have the lighter window
managers already setup so you can play with them
and familarize yourself with these lighter WM's, 
panels and associated apps. 
A small list of very light windows managers to look at:
(other than those already mentioned in this thread)
Fluxbox, Openbox, IceWM, Jwm, Pekwm, Flwm, Fvwm, 
Enlightment, WindowMaker, OroboROX
...there are many others. 
You can install and configure any of these
Windows Managers on any GNU/Linux distro you decide upon.
Once you have decided on a /mainline disto/ to start
with, educate yourself on the use of the package management
system for that distro, install and configure
the window manager that best fits your purpose.

http://xwinman.org/intro.php
http://xwinman.org/
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Window_Manager

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1911

On 2013-07-01, ddwr@hotmail.com <ddwr@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I know nothing about Linux but have two old computers that I would like to dabble around in the OS with. One is a Pentium 4 with 1GB Ram and the other is a Pentium 3 with 320 of Ram. What would be the best flavor of Linux to put on them? Is ubuntu-12.04.2-desktop-i386.iso out of the question even for the Pentium 4? Is a version of puppy what I should try first. Being a complete novice will I get a good learning experience from a lighter flavor of Linux such as puppy?
> Can someone point me to a good link to direct download what ever they suggest I try out on one or both the computers.
> Thanks in advance!

My suggestion would be Mint Linux 13, 32 bit with the MATE interface.
On my netbook, it consumes currently about 290MB and I'm running a few
programs.

And it's supported until April 2017.

-- 
When in doubt, use brute force.
                -- Ken Thompson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1912

On 2013-07-01, ddwr@hotmail.com <ddwr@hotmail.com> wrote:

> One is a Pentium 4 with 1GB Ram....

Good enough.  That will get you running a full install of 32bit
Slackware linux with all the whistles and bells.  32bit slack is still
happy as a clam on i486 hardware.  I'm running it now on a 1.5MHz P4
with only .85G RAM and can watch youtube vids, no prob.  

nb

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1913

On Tuesday 02 July 2013 03:19, notbob conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.hardware...

> On 2013-07-01, ddwr@hotmail.com <ddwr@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> One is a Pentium 4 with 1GB Ram....
> 
> Good enough.  That will get you running a full install of 32bit
> Slackware linux with all the whistles and bells.  32bit slack is still
> happy as a clam on i486 hardware.  I'm running it now on a 1.5MHz P4
> with only .85G RAM and can watch youtube vids, no prob.

Uhm, notbob, the OP says that he has no experience with GNU/Linux 
whatsoever, and while running Slackware certainly does teach one all 
there is to know about GNU/Linux, it's not exactly something to bestow 
upon a newbie. ;-)

Slackware doesn't do any dependency handling, and by consequence, the OP 
might find himself in the equivalent of what's called "DLL Hell" in 
Microsoft Windows - which is what I suspect him to be coming from. ;-)

-- 
= Aragorn =
  GNU/Linux user #223157 - http://www.linuxcounter.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1914

On 2013-07-02, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:

> Uhm, notbob, the OP says that he has no experience with GNU/Linux 
> whatsoever.......

Uhm.... neither did I until I did.

Like everything in life, from walking to talking, it requires some
effort to learn.  No one springs fresh from the womb with an innate
knowledge of Macs and Windows.  Did the OP know what a dll is by
instinct?  Of course not.  No matter how simple, some effort to learn
is required.  Likewise, Slackware.  Is Slackware harder to learn than
screwbu?  I don't think so.  One jes needs to learn different things.

The only linux distro I ever saw that was completely braindead simple
to install was Caldera.  It started the install by opening up a game
of tetris for the user to play, then did a full install in the
background, leaving the installing user in ignorant video game bliss.
Hell, even installing Windows has become a freakin' nightmare.

Buy a book.  I did.  Running Linux.  I found it uselss after only a
couple chptrs, but it got me started.  I'd recommend The Linux Command Line
by W. Shotts.  His website is basically the book, online:

<http://linuxcommand.org/tlcl.php>   

Another website with almost everything one needs to get Slackware going:

<http://www.maketecheasier.com/install-and-run-slackware-13/2010/01/21>

The worn out phrase, "No pain, no gain" is unavoidably true.


nb

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1915

I've used Slackware in the past and found that it was a good learning
experience. If you want to learn then run Slack but if you are looking
for a machine to give to grandma maybe not.  I did feel the need to
throw one thing out there since it seems to be a common misconception.

Slackware has at least 4 different tracking managers you can use :


>swaret: Swaret is probably the most popular Slackware package
management application .... Unlike upgrades with the upgradepkg tool,
swaret can backup a package that it is upgrading and can rollback to
this older version. We can script swaret to automatically update the
Slackware distribution when a new version is released.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/swaret/

The others
>http://software.jaos.org/
>http://emerde.freaknet.org/
>http://portpkg.berlios.de/

On 7/2/13 5:44 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2013-07-02, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Uhm, notbob, the OP says that he has no experience with GNU/Linux 
>> whatsoever.......
> 
> Uhm.... neither did I until I did.
> 
> Like everything in life, from walking to talking, it requires some
> effort to learn.  No one springs fresh from the womb with an innate
> knowledge of Macs and Windows.  Did the OP know what a dll is by
> instinct?  Of course not.  No matter how simple, some effort to learn
> is required.  Likewise, Slackware.  Is Slackware harder to learn than
> screwbu?  I don't think so.  One jes needs to learn different things.
> 
> The only linux distro I ever saw that was completely braindead simple
> to install was Caldera.  It started the install by opening up a game
> of tetris for the user to play, then did a full install in the
> background, leaving the installing user in ignorant video game bliss.
> Hell, even installing Windows has become a freakin' nightmare.
> 
> Buy a book.  I did.  Running Linux.  I found it uselss after only a
> couple chptrs, but it got me started.  I'd recommend The Linux Command Line
> by W. Shotts.  His website is basically the book, online:
> 
> <http://linuxcommand.org/tlcl.php>   
> 
> Another website with almost everything one needs to get Slackware going:
> 
> <http://www.maketecheasier.com/install-and-run-slackware-13/2010/01/21>
> 
> The worn out phrase, "No pain, no gain" is unavoidably true.
> 
> 
> nb
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1916

On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:44:22 +0000, notbob wrote:


> 
> The worn out phrase, "No pain, no gain" is unavoidably true.

It's certainly possible to learn without beating one's head against the 
wall. 

I would never recommend Slackware for a new user. It's much better IMO to 
ease people into a new OS. There is always a ton of things they can learn 
if they wish, but not everyone needs to do so.

I try to encourage people to learn how their computer works so they're 
less ignorant than J. Random Windowsuser, but not everyone enjoys that 
type of thing. I know a number of people who just want a tool to get 
their work done and they appreciate GNU/Linux because it's stable, 
reliable, and doesn't have the malware problems that Windows does.

Later on, when they're comfortable with the fact that they can do their 
tasks with GNU/Linux, I often suggest that they might like to experiment. 
VirtualBox and VMWare Player are great for this, as are live CD/DVDs or 
USB sticks. They can try any number of distros and see if they like one 
better than the others.

I loan out O'Reilly books and try to show people how rich an ecosystem 
Unix is. There's no limit to what you can do or how far you can go.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1918

On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Soupe du Jour wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:44:22 +0000, notbob wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The worn out phrase, "No pain, no gain" is unavoidably true.
>
> It's certainly possible to learn without beating one's head against the
> wall.
>
> I would never recommend Slackware for a new user. It's much better IMO to
> ease people into a new OS. There is always a ton of things they can learn
> if they wish, but not everyone needs to do so.
>
It's in the clause, whenever a "what's the best Linux distribution" the 
obvious ones get mentioned, some obscure ones, the latest fad 
distribution, and it's obligatory that someone mentions Slackware.

If someone had plenty of computer experience, out of the mainstream, then 
SLackware is fine.  If they don't think themselves computer copetent, then 
SLackware may not be okay.  On the other hand, as I just mentioned, there 
was "Linux Slackware for Dummies" a decade ago, so some of Slackware's 
reputation is unwarranted.

I had Debian on for a few minutes before I realized it wasn't what I 
wanted.  And I went to Slackware simply because I found a copy of that 
Dummies book with a torn cover at a clearance price.  I'd ignored it 
previously, I could't get beyond the name.  On the to other hand, I either 
hand't seen the warnings about "Slackware isn't for Beginners" or ignored 
them, too often people make statements like that without giving it any 
thought, indeed they may just be repeating something someone else said. 
They said the same thing 35 years ago, "BASIC is the programming language 
for  beginners" but I had no problem with machine language right out of 
the starting gate.

Now I don't seriousluy think the poster will go with Slackware, but it 
really is never completely out of the running. Besides, it turns 20 on 
July 17th, a giant birthday bash is planned.  The oldest still running 
distribution.

    Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1921

On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:59:32 -0400, Michael Black wrote:


> It's in the clause, whenever a "what's the best Linux distribution" the
> obvious ones get mentioned, some obscure ones, the latest fad
> distribution, and it's obligatory that someone mentions Slackware.

Yes, it always comes up when people are asked about their favorite 
distros. I just don't think it's appropriate for most newbies. 


> 
> Now I don't seriousluy think the poster will go with Slackware, but it
> really is never completely out of the running. Besides, it turns 20 on
> July 17th, a giant birthday bash is planned.  The oldest still running
> distribution.

That just means there are a lot of masochists out there. :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1917

On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Aragorn wrote:

> On Tuesday 02 July 2013 03:19, notbob conveyed the following to
> comp.os.linux.hardware...
>
>> On 2013-07-01, ddwr@hotmail.com <ddwr@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One is a Pentium 4 with 1GB Ram....
>>
>> Good enough.  That will get you running a full install of 32bit
>> Slackware linux with all the whistles and bells.  32bit slack is still
>> happy as a clam on i486 hardware.  I'm running it now on a 1.5MHz P4
>> with only .85G RAM and can watch youtube vids, no prob.
>
> Uhm, notbob, the OP says that he has no experience with GNU/Linux
> whatsoever, and while running Slackware certainly does teach one all
> there is to know about GNU/Linux, it's not exactly something to bestow
> upon a newbie. ;-)
>
There was "LInux Slackware for Dummies" a decade ago.

A distinction needs to be made between "no Linux experience" and "no real 
computer experience whatsoever".  I went with Slackware back in 2001, I 
had no real experience with Unix or Linux, I had no problem.  But I'd also 
had computers since 1979, and no experience with MS Windows.

> Slackware doesn't do any dependency handling, and by consequence, the OP
> might find himself in the equivalent of what's called "DLL Hell" in
> Microsoft Windows - which is what I suspect him to be coming from. ;-)
>
He certainly couldn't watch his DVds on the computer.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.hardware

csiph-web