2:23 a.m.
Could somebody advice me if it is a good idea to do so.
I have an Intel 486 DX4-S mechine with 504MBs of HDD
and 16MB's of RAM. it is hardly running windows 98 and Internet. (very slow and with a
lot of crashes and stucks).
could someone advice me to put FC1 on it and test???
May I try it? hope your advice from the list. I want to enjoy the power of Linux in
different ways
ThX in advance
Mohan
7:20 a.m.
Could somebody advice me if it is a good idea to do so.
I have an Intel 486 DX4-S mechine with 504MBs of HDD
and 16MB's of RAM. it is hardly running windows 98 and Internet. (very
slow and with a lot of crashes and stucks).
could someone advice me to put FC1 on it and test???
May I try it? hope your advice from the list. I want to enjoy the
power of Linux in different ways
You'd probably have better luck with a more minimalist distro as a
machine of that kind isn't going to have the resources required to run
most of the stuff that comes with Fedora. I'm not every sure if Fedora
comes with i386 packages still. (Anyone know? I don't feel like checking.)
Do you have any other Linux computers? If you do then you can run your
programs on them and use your older machine as a terminal using XDMCP,
VNC, or whatever. That'd mean that you could get by with a very basic
install of Linux and X without needing much in the way of extra software
installed. It'd also probably run your programs much faster than your
486. If you want this to be a desktop machine I'd suggest going that route.
As an alternative, if the 486 has a cd drive then I'd suggest trying a
cd-based distro. You could use your hard drive just for saving your own
files to. Again it might take some work to find one that'll run on such
a limited machine but I expect it's doable. Look at Morphix maybe.
--
Michael <mogmios(a)mlug.missouri.edu>
http://kavlon.org
10:51 a.m.
Michael wrote:
You'd probably have better luck with a more minimalist distro as
a
machine of that kind isn't going to have the resources required to run
most of the stuff that comes with Fedora. I'm not every sure if Fedora
comes with i386 packages still. (Anyone know? I don't feel like checking.)
All packages, except the kernel are i386. Instrucion ordering is
optimized for P4 (if I recall correctly), os things will run even slower
on i486. Kernel is available only as i586 (for older Pentium and AMD
processors) and i686. i386 version of glibc package (starting with FC3)
apperently has i486 instructions (so it is not usable on real i386, but
should run just fine on an i486). For whatever reason packagers are
still marking it as i386!? This glibc anomaly was introduced because
i486 instructions are required for NPTL support (there's no NPTL
implementation using i386-only instruction set, apperently it would be
too slow to be usable?). Since glibc is distributed as only i386 (in
reality i486) and i686, this way installations on older Pentium and AMD
processors also get NPTL (this solved bunch of bugs with Berkely DB that
simply assumes NPTL is available and packages that depend on it, such as
Cyrus IMAPD, on older AMD and i586 processors).
So, if he manages to jump over kernel obstacle, he should be fine. He
might try installing on newer machine, reinstalling all i686 packages
with i386 versions (such as glibc) if the newer machine was i686,
recompiling the kernel (he'll need i486 kernel) and than moving disc to
old machine.
Basically possible, but lots of work involved.
P.S.
On the sidenote, since i586 is minimal supported platform, I don't know
why packages are still built as i386, and not as i586.
--
Aleksandar Milivojevic <amilivojevic(a)pbl.ca> Pollard Banknote Limited
Systems Administrator 1499 Buffalo Place
Tel: (204) 474-2323 ext 276 Winnipeg, MB R3T 1L7
1:26 p.m.
Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
On the sidenote, since i586 is minimal supported platform, I
don't know
why packages are still built as i386, and not as i586.
*Very* frequently asked question in some quarters. The short answer is
that it doesn't appear to be worth it.
There were very few instructions added to the instruction set between
the 386 and the 686, and apparently most of those that were added
aren't the sort of instructions that noticably accelerate programs.
The exceptions, the instructions that do help performance, give better
control of spinlocks and multi-threaded code. That does help, especially
on multi-processor kit, but the code that uses those instructions tends
to be abstracted into glibc, which *is* compiled for the different
processors. [1]
In the meantime, some surprisingly recent kit (VIA CPUs, for example)
don't include all the 686 support.
The Fedora development crew have repeatedly said that they would be very
interested to see benchmarks that prove a particular program would
benefit from different compile settings. [2] But they do expect these
benchmarks to be rigourous: same kit, the same location on the drive (if
relevant), system rebooted between runs, just different compile flags.
As you say, these days the programs are *optimised* for Pentium 4s:
apparently this works well for most other modern x86 CPUs.
James.
[1] Remember that all these programs are cross-platform: they can't rely
on running on an Intel-compatible processor, so the Right Thing is
usually to push this sort of thing into an OS library.
[2] That includes things like changing -O2 (compile for speed, at least
on small program segments) to -Os (compile for size, which will use
caches better). Stuff that really can change performance levels.
--
James Wilkinson | "The US Air Force is removing harmful "greenhouse"
Exeter Devon UK | gases from the cooling systems of intercontinental
E-mail address: james | ballistic missiles. This will minimise damage to the
@westexe.demon.co.uk | ozone layer in the event of a nuclear holocaust."
| -- The Guardian.
2:34 p.m.
James Wilkinson wrote:
Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
>On the sidenote, since i586 is minimal supported platform, I don't know
>why packages are still built as i386, and not as i586.
*Very* frequently asked question in some quarters. The short answer is
that it doesn't appear to be worth it.
There were very few instructions added to the instruction set between
the 386 and the 686, and apparently most of those that were added
aren't the sort of instructions that noticably accelerate programs.
The exceptions, the instructions that do help performance, give better
control of spinlocks and multi-threaded code. That does help, especially
on multi-processor kit, but the code that uses those instructions tends
to be abstracted into glibc, which *is* compiled for the different
processors. [1]
In the meantime, some surprisingly recent kit (VIA CPUs, for example)
don't include all the 686 support.
The Fedora development crew have repeatedly said that they would be very
interested to see benchmarks that prove a particular program would
benefit from different compile settings. [2] But they do expect these
benchmarks to be rigourous: same kit, the same location on the drive (if
relevant), system rebooted between runs, just different compile flags.
As you say, these days the programs are *optimised* for Pentium 4s:
apparently this works well for most other modern x86 CPUs.
James.
[1] Remember that all these programs are cross-platform: they can't rely
on running on an Intel-compatible processor, so the Right Thing is
usually to push this sort of thing into an OS library.
The thing is, thay haven't pushed it into OS library. And I don't see
any plans on releasing those libraries in i586 versions. glibc is built
as i386 and i686 only. The only package that is exception from
i386/i686 rule is the kernel which is built as i586/i686 (why not build
it as i386 with i486 for NPTL, instead of i586, when the rest of the
system is built that way anyhow?). Because of this there were some very
nasty problems in FC2 when running (some) programs that depend on
Berkely DB library. Namely Cyrus IMAPD RPMs were unusable on anything
but i686. I found references that for FC3, they compiled glibc with
i486 instruction set to resolve the problem (however, glibc RPM still
claims to be i386?!).
The problem is that NPTL is considered "must have" on Red Hat systems
for some time now. NPTL is available only for i486 and above (for long
time it was only i586 or even i686 and above, don't remember correctly).
So there is a clash. Base build architecture (i386) can't accomodate
a "must have" feature of distribution. Many people found out this the
hard way when FC2 was released. Some programs simply did not work on
i586. Also worth mentioning is that there will never be support for
NPTL using i386-only instruction set (so it isn't something like "we'll
wait until it is backported", that port is not going to happen, ever).
It would be kinda cleaner also. There would be only i586 packages, plus
several core OS libraries and kernel with both i586 and i686 packages.
So that would be only two architectures, instead of the current mix that
contains 3 1/2 architectures: i386, glibc quazy-i386 (which is poluted
with i486 instructions for NPTL support), i586 (kernel only, glibc
should have been built with i586 too, but it wasn't), and i686.
As for VIA processors, I haven't suggested using i686, but i586 as base
build architecture (with instruction ordering optimized for current P4s
for packages that don't have i686 version, and for i586/P4 for packages
that have both i586/i686 versions). Actually, in reality the result was
exactly the opposite of what you suggested might happen. Because
distribution was mainly built as i386, on FC2 some packages do not work
on some of the supported processors. If distribution was mainly built
as i586, there would be no problems.
--
Aleksandar Milivojevic <amilivojevic(a)pbl.ca> Pollard Banknote Limited
Systems Administrator 1499 Buffalo Place
Tel: (204) 474-2323 ext 276 Winnipeg, MB R3T 1L7
3:50 p.m.
The problem is that GCC is not (or at least wasn't when I tested it
on gcc 2.96) smart enough to optimize for processor X while restricting
to Y instruction set when Y is different from both X
and 386. Ie if you use "-mcpu=i686 -march=i586" (ie optimize for 686
but restrict to Pentium instruction) it generates code
who runs at exactly the same speed that if you had typed "-mcpu=i686
-march=i386". When I say exactly I mean within 0.1% or 0.2% margin (ie
within noise limits) and for EVERY test. The usual thing when
playing with compiler parms was that on at least one of my tests
one of the flags providing at least a 2 or 3% difference. Not
there. Complete equality. At this point the logical deduction is that
gcc "downgraded" to 386 mode because it was unable to generate
code using the 686 timetable and 586 instructions.
As I said I tested the above on gcc 2.96 and haven't repeated the
experience on gcc 3.x
So except for marketing purposes it doesn't make sense to try
to compile "normal" packages with 586 as the minimal processor.
The packages where there will be a difference are those who
rely either on hand-written assembler like the kernel or glibc.
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 21:34, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
James Wilkinson wrote:
> Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
>
>>On the sidenote, since i586 is minimal supported platform, I don't know
>>why packages are still built as i386, and not as i586.
>
>
> *Very* frequently asked question in some quarters. The short answer is
> that it doesn't appear to be worth it.
>
> There were very few instructions added to the instruction set between
> the 386 and the 686, and apparently most of those that were added
> aren't the sort of instructions that noticably accelerate programs.
>
> The exceptions, the instructions that do help performance, give better
> control of spinlocks and multi-threaded code. That does help, especially
> on multi-processor kit, but the code that uses those instructions tends
> to be abstracted into glibc, which *is* compiled for the different
> processors. [1]
>
> In the meantime, some surprisingly recent kit (VIA CPUs, for example)
> don't include all the 686 support.
>
> The Fedora development crew have repeatedly said that they would be very
> interested to see benchmarks that prove a particular program would
> benefit from different compile settings. [2] But they do expect these
> benchmarks to be rigourous: same kit, the same location on the drive (if
> relevant), system rebooted between runs, just different compile flags.
>
> As you say, these days the programs are *optimised* for Pentium 4s:
> apparently this works well for most other modern x86 CPUs.
>
> James.
>
> [1] Remember that all these programs are cross-platform: they can't rely
> on running on an Intel-compatible processor, so the Right Thing is
> usually to push this sort of thing into an OS library.
The thing is, thay haven't pushed it into OS library. And I don't see
any plans on releasing those libraries in i586 versions. glibc is built
as i386 and i686 only. The only package that is exception from
i386/i686 rule is the kernel which is built as i586/i686 (why not build
it as i386 with i486 for NPTL, instead of i586, when the rest of the
system is built that way anyhow?). Because of this there were some very
nasty problems in FC2 when running (some) programs that depend on
Berkely DB library. Namely Cyrus IMAPD RPMs were unusable on anything
but i686. I found references that for FC3, they compiled glibc with
i486 instruction set to resolve the problem (however, glibc RPM still
claims to be i386?!).
The problem is that NPTL is considered "must have" on Red Hat systems
for some time now. NPTL is available only for i486 and above (for long
time it was only i586 or even i686 and above, don't remember correctly).
So there is a clash. Base build architecture (i386) can't accomodate
a "must have" feature of distribution. Many people found out this the
hard way when FC2 was released. Some programs simply did not work on
i586. Also worth mentioning is that there will never be support for
NPTL using i386-only instruction set (so it isn't something like "we'll
wait until it is backported", that port is not going to happen, ever).
It would be kinda cleaner also. There would be only i586 packages, plus
several core OS libraries and kernel with both i586 and i686 packages.
So that would be only two architectures, instead of the current mix that
contains 3 1/2 architectures: i386, glibc quazy-i386 (which is poluted
with i486 instructions for NPTL support), i586 (kernel only, glibc
should have been built with i586 too, but it wasn't), and i686.
As for VIA processors, I haven't suggested using i686, but i586 as base
build architecture (with instruction ordering optimized for current P4s
for packages that don't have i686 version, and for i586/P4 for packages
that have both i586/i686 versions). Actually, in reality the result was
exactly the opposite of what you suggested might happen. Because
distribution was mainly built as i386, on FC2 some packages do not work
on some of the supported processors. If distribution was mainly built
as i586, there would be no problems.
--
Aleksandar Milivojevic <amilivojevic(a)pbl.ca> Pollard Banknote Limited
Systems Administrator 1499 Buffalo Place
Tel: (204) 474-2323 ext 276 Winnipeg, MB R3T 1L7
--
Jean Francois Martinez <jfm512(a)free.fr>
5:19 p.m.
Jean Francois Martinez wrote:
The problem is that GCC is not (or at least wasn't when I tested
it
on gcc 2.96) smart enough to optimize for processor X while restricting
to Y instruction set when Y is different from both X
and 386. Ie if you use "-mcpu=i686 -march=i586" (ie optimize for 686
but restrict to Pentium instruction) it generates code
who runs at exactly the same speed that if you had typed "-mcpu=i686
-march=i386". When I say exactly I mean within 0.1% or 0.2% margin (ie
within noise limits) and for EVERY test. The usual thing when
playing with compiler parms was that on at least one of my tests
one of the flags providing at least a 2 or 3% difference. Not
there. Complete equality. At this point the logical deduction is that
gcc "downgraded" to 386 mode because it was unable to generate
code using the 686 timetable and 586 instructions.
As I said I tested the above on gcc 2.96 and haven't repeated the
experience on gcc 3.x
So except for marketing purposes it doesn't make sense to try
to compile "normal" packages with 586 as the minimal processor.
The packages where there will be a difference are those who
rely either on hand-written assembler like the kernel or glibc.
Um. You seem to be assuming that the extra instructions in the Pentium
will improve performance, and that therefore gcc is deficient. Might it
not simply be that the (few) extra instructions really aren't that
useful in improving performance?
(Incidentally: which CPU were you using? I understand that not all of
the new instructions provide a performance benefit on later processors:
they tend to get broken back down to the same micro-ops.)
The logical conclusion that Red Hat's engineers came to (and they're far
more knowledgable about the whole thing than I am) is simply that none
of the extra instructions that the Pentium makes available (and there
aren't that many) are very useful in improving performance. The major
exception comes in atomic locking instructions for NTPL. And that (for
very good binary and source level compatibility reasons) is done in
glibc, which *is* compiled to i586 or i686.
See, for example,
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-June/msg00232.html
and linked posts.
James.
--
James Wilkinson | "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind,
Exeter Devon UK | indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad."
E-mail address: james | -- Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times
@westexe.demon.co.uk |
10:18 a.m.
James Wilkinson wrote:
The major
exception comes in atomic locking instructions for NTPL. And that (for
very good binary and source level compatibility reasons) is done in
glibc, which *is* compiled to i586 or i686.
Actually, glibc is combiled as i386 or i686, with i386 version using
i486 instructions in NTPL related functions (so, while rpm package
claims to be i386, in reality it is i486). It would probably be less
complicated and cleaner if it was simply built as i586. But that is
just my opinion...
I guess I was always weak in political stuff, and from what other wrote
in this (and other) threads, i386 vs i586 distro seems to belong to that
category.
--
Aleksandar Milivojevic <amilivojevic(a)pbl.ca> Pollard Banknote Limited
Systems Administrator 1499 Buffalo Place
Tel: (204) 474-2323 ext 276 Winnipeg, MB R3T 1L7
12:31 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 05:20 -0800, Michael wrote:
> Could somebody advice me if it is a good idea to do so.
> I have an Intel 486 DX4-S mechine with 504MBs of HDD
> and 16MB's of RAM. it is hardly running windows 98 and Internet. (very
> slow and with a lot of crashes and stucks).
> could someone advice me to put FC1 on it and test???
> May I try it? hope your advice from the list. I want to enjoy the
> power of Linux in different ways
You'd probably have better luck with a more minimalist distro as a
machine of that kind isn't going to have the resources required to run
most of the stuff that comes with Fedora. I'm not every sure if Fedora
comes with i386 packages still. (Anyone know? I don't feel like checking.)
Well last time I checked there were not any "mainstream" distros that
did (at least for 486SX) so I put FreeBSD 4.8 on my laptop to when I
wanted to play with a "unix like" operating system on it.
It worked but was slow on my 486SX-33 with 24MB RAM. The last distro I
had installed on it was Debian 2.2.
Regards,
Paul
4:42 a.m.
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 05:20 -0800, Michael wrote:
> Could somebody advice me if it is a good idea to do so.
> I have an Intel 486 DX4-S mechine with 504MBs of HDD
> and 16MB's of RAM. it is hardly running windows 98 and Internet. (very
> slow and with a lot of crashes and stucks).
> could someone advice me to put FC1 on it and test???
> May I try it? hope your advice from the list. I want to enjoy the
> power of Linux in different ways
It should do well with a test based install of RH 7.3 or maybe even RH
9.
I would not try any of the fedora installs on it, simply because of the
limited memory and old processor.
Some people have gotten Fedora to work on the older and slower systems,
but it takes a lot to make it work, and even more patience to put up
with its speed.
RH 7.3 OTOH would work well, and if you are using it as a file server or
a firewall box, can handle it well.
You'd probably have better luck with a more minimalist distro as
a
machine of that kind isn't going to have the resources required to run
most of the stuff that comes with Fedora. I'm not every sure if Fedora
comes with i386 packages still. (Anyone know? I don't feel like checking.)
Do you have any other Linux computers? If you do then you can run your
programs on them and use your older machine as a terminal using XDMCP,
VNC, or whatever. That'd mean that you could get by with a very basic
install of Linux and X without needing much in the way of extra software
installed. It'd also probably run your programs much faster than your
486. If you want this to be a desktop machine I'd suggest going that route.
As an alternative, if the 486 has a cd drive then I'd suggest trying a
cd-based distro. You could use your hard drive just for saving your own
files to. Again it might take some work to find one that'll run on such
a limited machine but I expect it's doable. Look at Morphix maybe.
--
Michael <mogmios(a)mlug.missouri.edu>
http://kavlon.org
11:55 a.m.
On Sunday 30 January 2005 03:23, Kumara wrote:
Could somebody advice me if it is a good idea to do so.
I have an Intel 486 DX4-S mechine with 504MBs of HDD
and 16MB's of RAM. it is hardly running windows 98 and Internet. (very slow
and with a lot of crashes and stucks). could someone advice me to put FC1
on it and test???
May I try it? hope your advice from the list. I want to enjoy the power of
Linux in different ways ThX in advance
Mohan
It might. It CAN'T run i586 or i686 rpms though. I would advice older
software, like RH6.2 (it is painful, but does at least have the kde and gnome
desktop). Most kernel 2.6.x based distros only build the kernel for i586+ and
that most kernel <2.6 build for i386+. Besides, old software is for old
hardware and is better for low RAM and low HD space. My old i486 still runs
Win95! The 'power of linux' that was written for this old thing is kernel
~1.x-2.0!
12:50 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 12:55 -0500, Steven Pasternak wrote:
It might. It CAN'T run i586 or i686 rpms though. I would advice
older
software, like RH6.2 (it is painful, but does at least have the kde and gnome
desktop). Most kernel 2.6.x based distros only build the kernel for i586+ and
that most kernel <2.6 build for i386+. Besides, old software is for old
hardware and is better for low RAM and low HD space. My old i486 still runs
Win95! The 'power of linux' that was written for this old thing is kernel
~1.x-2.0!
That said, it will run ALL FC3 RPMs. It will NOT run KDE, Gnome or -
probably - any desktop BUT it could probably be use as a linux firewall
and/or router.
________________________________________________________________________
Total Quality Management - A Commitment to Excellence
http://www.TQMcube.com
10:30 p.m.
Thanks a lot, i got some idea
Thanks
Mohan
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Cary Hart" <Fedora(a)TQMcube.com>
To: "For users of Fedora Core releases" <fedora-list(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: Could an Intel 486 wake up with FC3
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 12:55 -0500, Steven Pasternak wrote:
> It might. It CAN'T run i586 or i686 rpms though. I would advice older
> software, like RH6.2 (it is painful, but does at least have the kde and
gnome
> desktop). Most kernel 2.6.x based distros only build the kernel
for
i586+ and
> that most kernel <2.6 build for i386+. Besides, old software
is for old
> hardware and is better for low RAM and low HD space. My old i486 still
runs
> Win95! The 'power of linux' that was written for this
old thing is
kernel
> ~1.x-2.0!
>
That said, it will run ALL FC3 RPMs. It will NOT run KDE, Gnome or -
probably - any desktop BUT it could probably be use as a linux firewall
and/or router.
________________________________________________________________________
Total Quality Management - A Commitment to Excellence
http://www.TQMcube.com
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
1:01 p.m.
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Steven Pasternak wrote:
On Sunday 30 January 2005 03:23, Kumara wrote:
> Could somebody advice me if it is a good idea to do so.
> I have an Intel 486 DX4-S mechine with 504MBs of HDD
> and 16MB's of RAM. it is hardly running windows 98 and Internet. (very slow
> and with a lot of crashes and stucks). could someone advice me to put FC1
> on it and test???
> May I try it? hope your advice from the list. I want to enjoy the power of
> Linux in different ways ThX in advance
> Mohan
It might. It CAN'T run i586 or i686 rpms though. I would advice older
software, like RH6.2 (it is painful, but does at least have the kde and gnome
desktop). Most kernel 2.6.x based distros only build the kernel for i586+ and
that most kernel <2.6 build for i386+. Besides, old software is for old
hardware and is better for low RAM and low HD space. My old i486 still runs
Win95! The 'power of linux' that was written for this old thing is kernel
~1.x-2.0!
I have a 486 laptop running RH7.3 as a firewall. It's quite happy running
kernel-2.4.20-37.7.legacy, iptables, no X. That version of GNOME was the
last "lightweight" one, though. If you need X on your hardware, XFCE is
the way to go. There are other distros that are designed for older/slower
hardware too, but I couldn't refer you to one at this point.
See also www.rule-project.org. They have low-memory installers for RH8
and RH9. They are supposed to be working on an FC-based version, but I
haven't seen much progress recently.
You can't install FC on anything less than an i586 now without rebuilding
pieces of it (no i386 kernel, for example), and it looks like FC4 will
abandon even that.
--
Matthew Saltzman
Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
10:32 p.m.
Thank you very much for your reply
Mohan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Saltzman" <mjs(a)ces.clemson.edu>
To: "For users of Fedora Core releases" <fedora-list(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Could an Intel 486 wake up with FC3
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Steven Pasternak wrote:
> On Sunday 30 January 2005 03:23, Kumara wrote:
>> Could somebody advice me if it is a good idea to do so.
>> I have an Intel 486 DX4-S mechine with 504MBs of HDD
>> and 16MB's of RAM. it is hardly running windows 98 and Internet. (very
slow
>> and with a lot of crashes and stucks). could someone advice
me to put
FC1
>> on it and test???
>> May I try it? hope your advice from the list. I want to enjoy the power
of
>> Linux in different ways ThX in advance
>> Mohan
> It might. It CAN'T run i586 or i686 rpms though. I would advice older
> software, like RH6.2 (it is painful, but does at least have the kde and
gnome
> desktop). Most kernel 2.6.x based distros only build the kernel
for
i586+ and
> that most kernel <2.6 build for i386+. Besides, old software
is for old
> hardware and is better for low RAM and low HD space. My old i486 still
runs
> Win95! The 'power of linux' that was written for this
old thing is
kernel
> ~1.x-2.0!
I have a 486 laptop running RH7.3 as a firewall. It's quite happy running
kernel-2.4.20-37.7.legacy, iptables, no X. That version of GNOME was the
last "lightweight" one, though. If you need X on your hardware, XFCE is
the way to go. There are other distros that are designed for older/slower
hardware too, but I couldn't refer you to one at this point.
See also www.rule-project.org. They have low-memory installers for RH8
and RH9. They are supposed to be working on an FC-based version, but I
haven't seen much progress recently.
You can't install FC on anything less than an i586 now without rebuilding
pieces of it (no i386 kernel, for example), and it looks like FC4 will
abandon even that.
--
Matthew Saltzman
Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
1:30 p.m.
Matthew Saltzman wrote:
You can't install FC on anything less than an i586 now without
rebuilding
pieces of it (no i386 kernel, for example), and it looks like FC4 will
abandon even that.
I doubt it. Apparently at least some of the VIA CPUs that are being sold
today don't count as a 686 as far as gcc is concerned.
Incidentally, a 486SX doesn't include an FPU, and Fedora kernels (not
surprisingly) don't include emulation code. One other thing for the
Original Poster to remember.
James.
--
James Wilkinson | Please do not put sandwiches in the disk drive.
Exeter Devon UK |
E-mail address: james |
@westexe.demon.co.uk |
2:03 p.m.
James Wilkinson wrote:
Incidentally, a 486SX doesn't include an FPU, and Fedora kernels
(not
surprisingly) don't include emulation code. One other thing for the
Original Poster to remember.
He'll have to recompile kernel anyhow, and FPU emulation code is part of
kernel. However, OP had 486, so he'll be fine with or without emulation
code enabled in kernel. There was somebody else who replied who had
486SX in an laptop.
--
Aleksandar Milivojevic <amilivojevic(a)pbl.ca> Pollard Banknote Limited
Systems Administrator 1499 Buffalo Place
Tel: (204) 474-2323 ext 276 Winnipeg, MB R3T 1L7
2:53 p.m.
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, James Wilkinson wrote:
Matthew Saltzman wrote:
> You can't install FC on anything less than an i586 now without rebuilding
> pieces of it (no i386 kernel, for example), and it looks like FC4 will
> abandon even that.
I doubt it. Apparently at least some of the VIA CPUs that are being sold
today don't count as a 686 as far as gcc is concerned.
You're right, I misread the devel kernel changelog. It's i586smp that's
being dropped from core.
Incidentally, a 486SX doesn't include an FPU, and Fedora kernels (not
surprisingly) don't include emulation code. One other thing for the
Original Poster to remember.
James.
--
Matthew Saltzman
Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
10:11 p.m.
Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, James Wilkinson wrote:
> Matthew Saltzman wrote:
>
>> You can't install FC on anything less than an i586 now without
>> rebuilding
>> pieces of it (no i386 kernel, for example), and it looks like FC4 will
>> abandon even that.
>
>
> I doubt it. Apparently at least some of the VIA CPUs that are being sold
> today don't count as a 686 as far as gcc is concerned.
You're right, I misread the devel kernel changelog. It's i586smp
that's being dropped from core.
>
> Incidentally, a 486SX doesn't include an FPU, and Fedora kernels (not
> surprisingly) don't include emulation code. One other thing for the
> Original Poster to remember.
>
> James.
>
>
Thanks to all who contributed to this thread. The exchanges were quite
informative.
7:38 p.m.
On Monday 31 January 2005 02:30 pm, James Wilkinson wrote:
Matthew Saltzman wrote:
> You can't install FC on anything less than an i586 now without rebuilding
> pieces of it (no i386 kernel, for example), and it looks like FC4 will
> abandon even that.
I doubt it. Apparently at least some of the VIA CPUs that are being sold
today don't count as a 686 as far as gcc is concerned.
Incidentally, a 486SX doesn't include an FPU, and Fedora kernels (not
surprisingly) don't include emulation code. One other thing for the
Original Poster to remember.
James.
Minor point, but the OP said that he has a 486DX4-S cpu, which was a far more
powerful critter than the 486SX stuff. The 486DX4-S was an AMD product; the
"S" indicates that the cpu used intel-style power management (whatever that
means).
I once had a 486DX4-120 on an AOpen motherboard, and it was stronger than
houses -- virtually crash free under DR-DOS, Windows 3.11 and even Win 95. It
benchmarked at about the same as a Pentium 90. I suppose that it is possible
to run one of the text-only 486-specific Linux distros on it, but it would
take far more patience than I have.
-- cmg
7010
days inactive
7025
days old
19 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Aleksandar Milivojevic -
Carroll Grigsby -
David Cary Hart -
David Curry -
James Wilkinson -
Jean Francois Martinez -
Jeff Vian -
Kumara Jayaweera -
Matthew Saltzman -
Michael -
Paul -
Steven Pasternak