Pardon the tardiness. This mail got lost on another system I'd sort of misplaced.... on Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 04:13:29AM -0800, Dan Robinson (danrob@efn.org) wrote: > > I'm a Linux pre-newbie, as I'm sure you'll notice. Someone gave me a > TI TravelMate 5000 laptop computer (for parts for a different model, > but this one works better). It has no CD drive. A friend spent about 4 > hours installing Debian, (w/o GUI, which I avoid) using a network > connection. It still has major problems, which I may have made worse > by trying to use DOS in it's partition. You've installed GNU/Linux over a DOS partition? Hmm...Doable but not recommended. > I'm wondering about the possibilities of starting over, preferably > preserving the partitions and LILO. You're likely better repartitioning. Is there anything else on the system? > How many floppies and files it would take to get a Linux system > (kernal, shell, more?) that could then tranfer other files from > floppies? The base filesystem used to be, IIRC, a 15 MB tarball. That's a good ten floppies. If the system has a _floppy_ drive and PCMCIA port, it might be recommended to install from a boot floppy plus network. Though I'd strongly suggestyou have someone around who's done this sort of thing before. Many areas have GNU/Linux user groups with installfests, might be useful to hook up with some people and _show up early_. You've got a fairly complex install path in front of you. > Then what's the MINIMUM it would it take to get a reasonably > functioning system for editing, email and the web? Text mode only -- take your pick of vi, emacs, pico, jed, etc., mutt, and w3m, lynx, or links. With other system support, ~60 MiB or less, likely. > Until a few months ago I was on the net in DOS on a 386, using > software that would have worked on a 286. I only "upgraded" because > the software was falling behind, not staying compatible with other > systems. At times I wonder how much I've really gained since CPM when > I ran my own BBS, at first without a hard drive. What you've gained depends on your needs. DOS's networking capabilities were somewhat, er, limited. You can get a _functioning_ GNU/Linux system on a 1.7MB floppy (Tom's Root Boot: http://www.toms.net/rb/), and expanding from there (Trinux: 3 floppies, LNX-BBC: 60 MiB small-format CDROM with about 110 MiB of actuall software). In general, a GNU/Linux tends to be considerably "fatter" than a DOS system (pre-legacy MS Windows), but you're getting far more capabilities. System size for a well-fleshed out installation is reasonably comperable to a legacy MS Windows system, but bang-for-byte, you're doing far better for the typical GNU/Linux system. This rule of thumb starts falling off when you get to GUI apps, where it seems that the overhead of graphics tends to fatten a system no matter what the underlying OS is. Other issues tend to, IMO, favor free software though, including a focus on modular development. > In Linux circles I hear mainly about needing gigabytes. I'm wondering > if there's a basic Linux system, or other open source systems, within > a couple orders of magnitude to DOS in size. Otherwise, can someone > tell me how Linux is that much better, or are programmers getting > sloppier in writing code? It's a bit of both. First off, storage (both memory and disk) is bloody cheap. I'm going to be upgrading a server tomorrow (now being Jan 17, not Dec 23) with an 80 GB drive, for about $240, as a stopgap measure before we can get a new RAIDed system up with 4x60GB disks, while we throw in 1 GB of RAM. The total bill on this is well under $1500. The systems are part of a network installation that support several hundred websites. That is, the cost amortized across these sites is about $5/site. The travel and labor costs (figure about $200/hr * 2) is going to be more than the cost of hardware, by several times. Granted, this is server-side stuff, not desktop apps, but you see the math. On the desktop, it's possible to buy entirely serviceable used hardware for $300-$500 (if not less). New systems start well under $1000. For these prices, the hardware required to run some of the newer, more "bloated" apps is pretty darned cheap -- again, cheaper than the programmer time that might go into slimming things down. There's also a lot of functionality in the bloat. You can argue over what of it is actually truly _useful_, but there's a lot in the latest GNU/Linux systems that wasn't in legacy MS Windows two or three years ago (or even now). That said, it's possible to run usable systems on ancient hardware (ten or more years old) if one sticks to console tools, or even, with judicious choice, a number of X applications. Once again, there's choice. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
Attachment:
pgpCjFsdrWMYe.pgp
Description: PGP signature