Re: XLEL: Best Dist?

[Nate Reindl <fiction@sdf.lonestar.org>]

On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 09:46:23PM -0600, Scott C. Linnenbringer wrote:
> True, but anyone who wants to use a 486SX in the first place probably
> does not want it as a production system. It'll be a mere toy, at that.

Well, something like that is suitable for a firewall placed on a dialup 
connection, which would consider it a production machine.

> As for ease of use, nothing, not even FreeBSD, is easier to use than
> Slackware. Enough said, Slackware is equal or easier to install than
> FreeBSD.

Eh... it all really depends what you're used to.  If you're used to BSD 
systems, FreeBSD will be easier to use.  If you're used to SysV/GNU 
systems, Linux will be easier to use.

> I will not comment on Red Hat.

I won't either.  Let's let the Red Hat advocates argue this one.

> I use Debian, but it offers way too much for a small 486. As for software, 
> that's totally untrue. Most software in sid (unstable) is the latest, and 
> otherwise, software is late because the Debian folks want to do the gcc 3.2 
> transition right (and there are other logical reasons, too.)

I was speaking strictly stable, but that's alright.  And, note that I'm 
not necessairly putting down the dated software bit...

Though, I've found that tracking unstable can make some things break if 
you aren't careful, but that's only if you aren't careful ;)

> Bah. Slackware is just as easy to install as FreeBSD. In fact, it uses an 
> ncurses based install system VERY similar to FreeBSD and Debian. If you're 
> going to try Linux on a 486, Slackware is a very good option which won't 
> bloat the system to the point of unusability.

I agree here.  They are about equal.  I can set both systems up within a 
couple of hours if I don't have any distractions (read: IRC) to keep me 
away from the setup.

> Me too. :)

GENERIC kernels generally suck.  They have too much cruft compiled into 
them to keep them compatible with next to every machine they can feasibly 
run on.

> Slackware's package management system is very similar to ports. In fact, 
> Slackware uses BSD-style init scripts and other similarities which make it a 
> very viable option for a low end machine.

The closest thing I've seen in the Linux world that even remotely comes to 
touching BSD-style ports is Gentoo's portage system.

Slackware uses the pkgutils collection (pkg_add, pkg_delete, pkg_info, 
etc) for package management.  Though, you know what?  I could be wrong.  
The last release of Slackware I ran was 7.2, so things could've changed.

> XFCE is neato, but even that is too high-end for a 486SX, in my humble 
> opinion. Maybe fluxbox or blackbox, or, uh, good old twm.

No.  PWM.  It gives you tabs and a minimalist window manager as well.

> OpenBSD is also nice, too. I don't use BSD because I have never had the 
> desire, but I have used it and from what I have seen, it is neat, too.

OpenBSD is nice, yes.  Too bad their PPPoE method sucks.  It's entirely 
user-land, and the most throughput you can get is 2-3Mbit/s tops.

NetBSD can easily pull network max.  FreeBSD can too, I believe...

> Don't even entertain the thought of putting Red Hat on a 486SX.

This is, of course, unless you plan to install some severely-outdated 
release like 4.0 or similar.

-- 
Nate Reindl, silug.org's very own anarchist
"the US isn't a capitalistic country though.. we're a dictatorship. We're
all under control by corporations." -- smj, on capitalism in the US

-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.