Slashdot Mirror
Linux on Older Hardware
sparrow_hawk writes: "One of Linux's strengths has always been the wide variety of older/obsolete hardware it supports. However, most modern distributions seem to assume that the user has a brand-new machine with processor and RAM to spare. Linux Journal reports on the RULE project (Run Up2Date Linux Everywhere). They are trying to come up with a low-resource-requirement, easy-to-use Linux installation for use on older hardware, intended as an option when you install Red Hat Linux. The FAQ has more information."
There are a couple ways to get a modern Linux on your old 386 right now, although getting Red Hat to de-bloat would be very cool. I still use 6.2 on some old laptops because it was a nice, stable release, sorta modern apps, and works fine with 16 megs of RAM. But also look at Vector Linux, which has a 386 & 486 optimized distro with a 2.4 kernel & lots of small recent apps. You can get it on CD too. And also Small Linux, which will run in console mode in as little as 2 megs of RAM, and will do X-Windows with just 4 megs of RAM. The Small Linux kernel is only 2.0, though. But it's very cool to give someone an old 386 laptop with a Web browser, basically restored to some minimal usefulness.
By the way, if you check out Small Linux, you may notice that the home page talks about a .75 release. But you'll find a .81 release available for download. It's definitely improving (my first try with this distro & it just wouldn't even work, but now it actually runs if you're able to follow the instructions carefully).
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
I'm not trying to start an OS-flamewar, but seriously. NetBSD supports almost every piece of hardware out there. In addition, its a Very lean and mean distribution.
:)
:)
Its also quite easy to recompile the entire baby (if you've got enough diskspace, of course). It would take time on a 386 though.
Point is, there _is_ a free unix available that installs in almost no space. And, that unix is _great_.
(Note: FreeBSD might be more optimized for i386, but that distro has gotten a bit too bloated imho. at least compared to NetBSD
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
Also in the "works on small/old computers" topic, both SuSE and Mandrake seem to have some activity in this area. It's nice to see them listening to customers a little bit. I buy their boxed products, and really, really want them to speed up & shrink down. Check out my Usenet post about installing SuSE 7.3 on a 32 meg Pentium 1 (summary: it hurts, but it's possible). And for Mandrake, check out this Slashdot article about Mandrake's upcoming super-super-minimal install.
This kind of stuff is near & dear to my heart -- I have spent hours upon hours trying to squeeze installs onto old 486 laptops, mostly. Partly I wanted to learn Linux, but mostly I was just indignant that Windows would install & run okay, so I got very interested in making Linux compete. If you get any Linux working on old boxes, please please please document it somewhere that Google will find you. I'm constantly searching Usenet & the Web for other people's installation experiences.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
I have just accepted a donation for my school district of 32 Compaq Proliant p166 systems. Now should I fork over the cash to microsoft for 32 98SE licences or should I install my copy of Redhat 7.2? I really like this article. I have rescued over a hundred machines for my schools and children that would otherwise never have a computer. I'm using Linux because it is free as in cheap. There is a guy like me in every school district. Some are Macnazi's, some are MCSWannabE, and some, like me, depend on linux supporting old hardware. I have introduced well over 1000 kids in the past 3 years to Linux. They go home to their Macs and winboxes but a few come back and ask me to burn a copy of Redhat for them. For their old boxes. "And by the way do you have any cd drives" they ask. "My computer doesn't have one."
I think I'm doing the right thing.. but then.. I'm a Luddite and nothing but an albatross around the neck of the Linux community
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
NetBSD runs on EVERYTHING, with more packages, more complete, LONG LONG LONG before ANYTHING else (backhacked that is). Linux is not a step or two behind NetBSD, it's MILES behind when it comes to porting.
For that matter, IMHO, Linux (although it's almost the only UNIX I use now days) _STILL_ doesn't get "porting" the way the BSD community does. Make an app compile given a set of general expected things you expect to be there, and it COMPILES, and it RUNS.
Way too many Linux programmers think "if it compiles on Mandrake and on Debian, it's portable!" &*#*(@!&(*@!
ONLY NetBSD will get X running on the box you drag out of the closet and brush the dust of to read what it is.... Atari? MacSE? That wasn't my furnace, that was a PDP11? NetBSD is your friend.
OK, maybe X is a stretch, but, still, don't diss the dog that sniffed the trail!
Hello, I have just finished to read all your comments with great interest as the RULE project leader, I would like to answer some questions, and clarify some points.
1) Our project is *not* only for very old hardware. Many people (including myself) can afford much more than 16 MB of RAM, but are tired to see them all busy in drawing nice window borders. Nothing against those who like it, we just want another choice. And PLEASE look at what the LJ article says about internet appliances, PDAs and cell phones. Remember that most of what we want to do is about packaging, and smart configuration, something EVERY DISTRO CAN BENEFIT FROM (see faq #5).
2) somebody said "don'be so cheap, you can have PCs for 300 USD". I thank all those who immediately reminded to such *lucky* guys that 300 USD or lower is average YEARLY income in most of this planet.
3) The "use your 486 just as a thin terminal" doesn't work too well when the 486 is the most powerful PC around (or the only one...)
4) We know that specialized distro already exist. Debian and Slackware are good too, but we think, as explained in FAQ that is time that low needs must become characteristic of every MAINSTREAM distro. Even more, that a lightweight install must be fully functional as a desktop from the first boot. Today, whatever distro you install in the minimum configuration, you have still to tweak a lot of things, because it has always been thought for server use by already expert sysadmins.
5) To those who said "Moore law will vanify all your effort before you are finished" I can only say maybe, but if we don't start to do something, many Linux distros of 2003 will probably pretend 512 MB of RAM just to install, and 1024 to startx...
6) We ruin economy? If more people (not only those who can buy a 2 GHz 3-d game console and use it just as a typewriter) start getting a decent education, can start a modern business, and so on, is that bad for the economy? Especially considering that after getting a job with the practice they make on RULE computers, they *will* have the money to buy something to play quake? I have nothing against that, but "buy game level HW from the very start or nothing" is wrong.
(on the same theme, why one should be getting an IT education on old software? this would be another form of discrimination, and the reason why we don't consider tiny or similar projects a complete solution
7) We are not going to work on non x86 HW, there is too much work to do as it is already. You are welcome to do it, especially, let me repeat it, because MUCH OF OUR WORK will be reusable on other distros/platforms.
8) Our position w.r.t. Red Hat: they obviously know of the project, and some of their engineers are on the RULE list. We will make all RH compatible, in the sense that if your HW allows it you can start with the RULE setup, and add/upgrade with any standard RPM you want. If Red Hat will include it in its official CDs, very good, I do hope it, otherwise it will be available anyway, so what's the problem?
I hope to see you all soon on our mailing list. We need a lot of testers, and of smart configuration suggestion, from ALL linux users.
Ciao,
Marco Fioretti