> 2) Can older distros (they are the only one's that can effectively run on > older machines), benefit those who don't have a working knowledge of Linux > or even, believe it or not... computers? And one more thing, which distro > could everyone agree would be effective in recycling a computer and to > learn Linux?
"Older computers need older Linux software" That's a myth. With the exception of Mandrake that's compiled for i686 now, most modern distros can run on older hardware. It is also alot easier to update (and in some cases easier to secure) newer distros as they are actively supported and don't take days or weeks to update in some cases. Sure Gnome 1.4 and KDE 3 aren't going to run on a 486 but they aren't the only options. Even if you have an old video card that is not supported by Xfree86 4.x, most distros worth their salt include 3.36 so that older machines can still be used. Granted there are distros that are better designed and are less work to setup on older hardware. They still come with newer software, though. Assuming that you need an older version of Linux for an older machine is a fallacy that was brought from Windows world. The reason I bother mentioning this is that older distros are insecure and if not upgraded properly will just create more insecure systems on the net. Microsoft based computers are bad enough that we don't need to increase the number.
