Installing without XWindows
I want to resurrect my old desktop computer.
It currently has Windows 98, but I want to completely change it to Linux. I plan to dedicate it to software development in java, c/c++, etc.
It has 8GB and 32MB RAM. The RAM is so small that I want to install knoppix without any kind of XWindows (KDE, etc). All I want is to install bash, all of its console-based programs, and other development tools that come with Knoppix (gcc, etc).
Please advise. Thank you.
P.S. I understand there is no 'mail' program in Knoppix. Are there other missing shell programs?
Re: Installing without XWindows
Quote:
Originally Posted by akie
I want to resurrect my old desktop computer.
It currently has Windows 98, but I want to completely change it to Linux. I plan to dedicate it to software development in java, c/c++, etc.
It has 8GB and 32MB RAM. The RAM is so small that I want to install knoppix without any kind of XWindows (KDE, etc). All I want is to install bash, all of its console-based programs, and other development tools that come with Knoppix (gcc, etc).
Please advise. Thank you.
P.S. I understand there is no 'mail' program in Knoppix. Are there other missing shell programs?
First, RAM is very cheap. You could likely upgrade to all that an older computer will accept for just slighlty more than the price of a big Mac & fries.
Otherwise, what do you want for advice? Just install Knoppix & then customise away. Partition about 4 Gig for operating system, 500 Meg for swap & the rest for /home (data). Always keep your data separate from you O/S in case of a crash. You needn't actually remove kde, just set up to boot to console or your favorite lightweight gui.
Re: Installing without XWindows
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrashedAgain
First, RAM is very cheap. You could likely upgrade to all that an older computer will accept for just slighlty more than the price of a big Mac & fries.
Actually, old ram is quite expensive (unless you can find used surplus stuff). Even with PC100 and PC133 ram, it is often so expensive to buy additional RAM that it would cost as much or more than buying newer RAM and replacing a CPU and Motherboard. The computer in question is so old that it likely predates PC100 memory, and it might be hard to buy the right memory for it. On top of that we don't know the MB limitations. While akie said that the CPU has a bank of 8 and a bank of 32, we don't know that it has available slots for more, so he might be limited to removing the 8 and adding 32 (the board might support larger, it might not), so it doesn't seem wise to suggest that he spends money for what might be as little as a 24 meg upgrade.
What wasn't posted was the make and model. Some systems of this vintage (Dell for example) used memory that had very strange timing requirements. This drives the cost of the memory even higher, and makes it much harder to find the right memory at any cost. "Standard" memory does not work in many of these systems (been there, done that).
Lots of people come here asking for help and advice. lets not let that advice turn into "you should buy a new computer" or "you should spend whatever it takes to upgrade your system". I think it would be far better to assume that the user knows there are upgrade options (particularly in this case where the owner shows he knows the system has two different sizes of memory), but has reasons for not going that route. I would hope that someone can offer positive answers to the questiions asked rather than telling people who come here that they should upgrade very old equipment.
Re: Installing without XWindows
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Kuhman
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrashedAgain
First, RAM is very cheap. You could likely upgrade to all that an older computer will accept for just slighlty more than the price of a big Mac & fries.
Actually, old ram is quite expensive (unless you can find used surplus stuff). Even with PC100 and PC133 ram, it is often so expensive to buy additional RAM that it would cost as much or more than buying newer RAM and replacing a CPU and Motherboard. The computer in question is so old that it likely predates PC100 memory, and it might be hard to buy the right memory for it. On top of that we don't know the MB limitations. While akie said that the CPU has a bank of 8 and a bank of 32, we don't know that it has available slots for more, so he might be limited to removing the 8 and adding 32 (the board might support larger, it might not), so it doesn't seem wise to suggest that he spends money for what might be as little as a 24 meg upgrade.
What wasn't posted was the make and model. Some systems of this vintage (Dell for example) used memory that had very strange timing requirements. This drives the cost of the memory even higher, and makes it much harder to find the right memory at any cost. "Standard" memory does not work in many of these systems (been there, done that).
Lots of people come here asking for help and advice. lets not let that advice turn into
"you should buy a new computer" or
"you should spend whatever it takes to upgrade your system". I think it would be far better to assume that the user knows there are upgrade options (particularly in this case where the owner shows he knows the system has two different sizes of memory), but has reasons for not going that route. I would hope that someone can offer positive answers to the questiions asked rather than telling people who come here that they should upgrade very old equipment.
OK, didn't know that old RAM was expensive. He doesn't say that it has a bank of 8 & a bank of 32, he says "8GB and 32MB RAM" which I assumed was 8Gb Hard Drive & 32 meg RAM. Together with the Win 98 installation that would place the machine on par with my old 266 which had 2Gb & (I think) 32 Meg original RAM & win98. RAM upgrade for that one was dirt cheap as of about a year ago. That one would run KDE (it was slow but it would run) after upgrade to either 64 or 128 RAM.
Anyway, I don't think there is anything 'negative' about my advice, he has the HD space to do a full HD install, no need to compromise with a poormans & no need to worry about 'installing too much' since Knoppix is an 'all or nothing' procedure.
I see no need to go for straight Debian, Knoppix (or preferably Kanotix) makes a good base for a Debian based system, installation is simple & all the hardware detection & setup is done. Once the system is on, it can be customised to suit the users preferences just as easily as Debian Sarge because it IS a Debian based system. akie says he intends to use it for development work so I assume he is at least somewhat familiar with computers in general & perhaps Linux as well so I didn't think there was any reason to elaborate on apt-get & adding or removing applications.
IMHO, the best way to find out how it will go is just do it. Knoppix HD installation is so easy if it screws up just redo it, ditto for if it doesn't work out, just replace the installation with another distro or (whispered very softly) go back to win98.
Re: Installing without XWindows
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrashedAgain
OK, didn't know that old RAM was expensive. He doesn't say that it has a bank of 8 & a bank of 32, he says "8GB and 32MB RAM" which I assumed was 8Gb Hard Drive & 32 meg RAM. ....
oops, you are right, I misread that as 8 meg and 32 megs, but it is clear now that he has an 8 gig drive and 32 meg of memory. And that being the case it might indeed be PC100/133 memory, although it might be older memory. Still, old memory is more expensive than current memory and it is seldom cost effective to upgrade old systems unless you can do it with "spare parts". Beter that he tries to work with what he has until he gets a new system.
