Teen Programmers Unite  
 

 

Return to forum top

Where could I find an OLD Linux release?

Posted by FatalDragon [send private reply] at May 07, 2002, 02:20:29 PM

I have an old computer that is 100MHz w/ 32MB RAM, so I put RedHat Linux 7.0 on it. The computer still worked, and I liked the Linux, but it ran EXTREEMLY choppy and slow. So I was thinking that if I could find an older release of RedHat, Mandrake, ect that it might run faster on the computer. When I say older Linux release, I mean a release form aroun '97, '98. So does any one know of a place I could download, or buy an older release, or if it would even run faster?
ThanX!

Posted by FatalDragon [send private reply] at May 07, 2002, 02:40:59 PM

And also, is "Blue Katana Linux" the exact same as Mandrake?

Posted by metamorphic [send private reply] at May 07, 2002, 03:45:35 PM

Could try Debian without X win (AKA a la command line mode)

Posted by vladimir_l [send private reply] at May 07, 2002, 04:04:23 PM

Yeah Debian 2.2r5 works OK if you live in UK you can get it from www.cheeplinux.co.uk for 12.99( 7 cd version ) or you can download it.If you have above 286 it will run.You could probably get X aswell ( I dont run X at all on Debian ).You could also try Beehive linux or some old version of Slackware ( like 4.0 , I got the cdroms of some man for free so they should be hard to get , or you could download it).

Certainly Debian is har to install and run , it took me 10 times to learn from past mistakes.

-Vlad

Posted by metamorphic [send private reply] at May 07, 2002, 04:12:33 PM

go to the linux distro list http://ldl.sourceforge.net/index.php3?action=3

and see all the distro's there are some good 'mini' distro's on offer.

Posted by unknown_lamer [send private reply] at May 07, 2002, 05:25:34 PM

Um, the Linux kernel can't run on a 286...it needs a 32-bit processor and the 286 is a 16-bit processor so...

Posted by FatalDragon [send private reply] at May 07, 2002, 05:59:54 PM

Will things like the GCC still work if you dont install X Windows? If not, are there any compilers, ect that will run with out X Windows?
Because Im installing Slackware 7.0 at the moment, I had tried to install it before but it didnt work, so Im tring again...

Posted by Psion [send private reply] at May 07, 2002, 06:41:38 PM

I've never heard of a compiler that requires XWindows.

Posted by gian [send private reply] at May 07, 2002, 07:08:06 PM

Just use a minimal window manager (such as Wmaker) instead of Gnome or Kde.

Posted by FatalDragon [send private reply] at May 07, 2002, 09:12:50 PM

Well, I actuly got it installed for once, and LiLo worked! But there's no X Windows, but I kinda like it that way for now. I may try Wmaker some time, do you still have to install GNOME or KDE with it? What are the other minimal window managers? I saw about 4 other beside GNOME and KDE, but I dotn think all were window managers.
About the compiler, I think your right, because I was able to run Emacs, and Jed, and I believe both had compile commands.
Thanx for the sujestions!

Posted by gian [send private reply] at May 07, 2002, 10:59:49 PM

Gnome and KDE are not window managers... They are a set of libraries and programs that fit in with a window manager.

For Redhat, just choose the "Xwindows" package, but uncheck the KDE and Gnome ones.

Posted by unknown_lamer [send private reply] at May 08, 2002, 09:21:30 AM

Windowmaker doesn't quite count as a "basic" wm. It's settings can be tweaked so that it uses around 200 or 300KB of ram, but you can also make it do a lot of nifty stuff like any other windowmanager (see http://unknownlamer.org/art/wmaker-themes.html). For a more minimalist wm, I would suggest pwm or ratpoison.

Posted by Mycroft [send private reply] at May 08, 2002, 05:12:53 PM

I wouldn't go with an older distro, I'd go with a low req. up to date version. Maybe one without Xwindows, or you could use a low system req. windows manager and not KDE or Gnome.

Posted by FatalDragon [send private reply] at May 08, 2002, 09:30:40 PM

Well, for now Im not going to use X Windows, just the Bash Shell, mainly so I can learn how to operate in that kind of enviroment and learn the various commands. But later I might try using a minimalist window manager.

Posted by unknown_lamer [send private reply] at May 10, 2002, 02:12:50 PM

Has you ever looked at how large bash is? Bash on my machine uses 2MB per shell! Eeek. Maybe because I have all of those aliases, functions, variables, and command completion commands (run 'help complete' from withing bash...complete is a very useful tool and Debian sets up a lot of them for you). You might want to try ash instead of bash if you want to go really minimalist (but then you lose nice things like autocomplete).

You must be logged in to post messages and see which you have already read.

Log on
Username:
Password:
Save for later automatic logon

Register as a new user
 
Copyright TPU 2002. See the Credits and About TPU for more information.