*nix on "classic" systems

[Chris M]

--- Angel Martin Alganza <ama at ugr.es> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 12:35:27PM -0700, Chris M
> wrote:
>  
> >  I really don't think it's realistic to operate a
> > modern computer w/a non-windowed environment these
> > days. Many will disagree, and that's their
> 
> Of course many will disagree.  I for one, use
> several boxes w/o a gui
> even installed on them.  What about servers?  What
> do you want a gui on
> a web server, an FTP server, a file server, a print
> server?

 True. Little need for a gui depending on what the
"computer" is being used for. It goes w/o saying that
my use of the word denoted a workstation.

> But even for a workstation.  What do I need a gui
> for reading mail
> (mutt), Unenet news (tin), IRC (irssi) or Jabber
> (centralicq),
> editing (Vim) and composing (LaTeX) documents or
> programming ?  Even
> browsing I many times do with elinks.

Otay panky. Have it your way.  LOL LOL
 
> > prerogative, someone said something about
> eye-candy,
> 
> I did.  But I could go further, I not only don't
> need (nor I want) eye
> candy, but graphic acceleration, transparencies, or
> even menus, icons
> or applications bars, etc.

 Ok, I respect your opinion. As long as you do mine.
 
> > but I think it comes down to cheating yourself of
> > functionality. Additional resources are necessary
> of
> > course, and if you're talking about a 486, you're
> 
> I was thinking more about a 386.  For slower systems
> there is ELKS,
> which I would like to have in production on my 8086,
> 8088 and 286
> boxes. A 486 is powerful enough as to ran Debian
> GNU/Linux or any of
> the BSD.  In fact, one of mine is running OpenBSD
> with Apache and
> PostgreSQL for a small web server on a 486DX2-66
> 64MB RAM and 2x4GB HDD.

 Forget about ELKS. What about XENIX! YAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
(I think we're way off topic by the way).
 
> > going to want to trim as much as possible (you
> can't
> > tell me Debian w/a gui will run on one). What most
> 
> I've just told you :-)

 You didn't need to. It was simply my point. I had an
instructor who HATED anything MS$, but who preached
Linux w/a religious fervor. ALL YA NEED IS THAT OLD
486! Ok, fine, but if you want to run a respectable
windowing OS, you'll going to need some more power.
Before ever even touching a Linux cd I figured that
must have been the case.
 
> > impressed me (and the diehards will call this all
> > opinion) with the Unix boxes I had seen in the
> > early-mid 90s was their ability to do windows, and
> do
> > them right.
> 
> Sure.  They do it, and they do it very well.  But
> even most impressive
> is the server/client nature of X.  Why should i be
> forbidden to run,
> let say Iceweasel, or The Gimp, or whatever program
> I like to on a more
> powerful box, but display it on a Pentium 90 or 60,
> or even a 486 or a
> 386 as a lean X terminal if I can do so?

 You are not forbidden. You officially have my
blessing :)

> > Not for anything (man I hate that expression) but
> > hasn't the version following sarge been out for 6+
> > months, and UIM it was based on the 2.6 kernel?
> 
> Is is Debian GNU/Linux 4.0, akaa Etch, released
> three days ago :-)
> 
> > Thought I even had it on DVD somewhere.
> 
> No wonder, I also had it a few months ago, while it
> was still the
> testing branch. :-)

 I goofed. I was referring to sarge, which, correct me
if I'm wrong (again) is based on the 2.6 kernel. I
made a mistake and I said so.


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121