Re: distro for 486 with 32 MB ram
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 02:29:52PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 14:00 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> > I have a 486 with 32 MB ram, ISA bus NIC, currently running Sarge. Now
> > that Etch RC2 is out I'm starting to plan for the future of this box.
> > The Etch install manual says that it needs 64 MB ram. I know that Sarge
> > will continue to be supported for a while but I may as well start
> > planning.
> >
>
> > This box has two purposes:
> > a remote access to my main Athlon box
> > a toolbox: something that can get on the internet for email and
> > lynx incase something happens to the Athlon box and I
> > need to contact this list.
> > I want a distribution with security support since if I didn't want that
> > I could just stick with Woody.
> >
> > FreeBSD will run, does anyone have experience with it?
>
> FreeBSD is actually very nice for exactly what you describe. You could
> also run one of the floppy based linux variants designed for just such
> an occasion.
>
> So, as for FreeBSD, it rocks in so many ways it is hard to describe.
> Although, the mindset causes many a Linuxer heads to explode, as the
> paradigm shift has no clutch. It really does fell foreign, almost
> surreal and stepping back 5-10 years in the life of Linux. But also
> being ahead of the curve, like putting a supercar motor, transmission
> and suspension in a sand buggy rail job, putting economy tires and going
> to the drag races.
>
> The Super Car motor transmission and suspension are design for road
> racing, the buggy rail chassis is design for heavy off-road, the tires
> made for "average use on an econobox" and going to the Drags races.
> Don't forget the "no-clutch" learning curve. Well you have to be very
> careful driving that car. Same goes for FreeBSD.
Thanks,
I haven't found a floppy-based distro that has the security support.
Under normal opterating conditions, the 486 sits behind the Athlon's
firewall. However, in its toolbox function, it needs to be the
firewall.
What about OpenBSD and NetBSD? Same thing? I haven't looked too
closely at any of the BSDs, but I take it that its more like running raw
UNIX (e.g. debian without the policy, debs, apt, ...).
If I didn't need it as a tool box (and hense security audit), I'd
probalby take this opportunitiy to start from scratch (no, not boot
LFS), use the big box to cross-compile everything for the 486. Of
course, I'd have to learn to use GCC. I'm a python type.
Thanks for your response.
Doug.
Reply to: