Re: distro for 486 with 32 MB ram
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 15:58 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> 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.
Yes, the BSDs are very similar, except http://www.freesbie.org/
But then, that won't work on your 486 very well... if at all.
--
greg, greg@gregfolkert.net
Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's
Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive
product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at
the playfield. -- Thane Walkup
Reply to: