Hi, Bryan & all of you out there who answered my letter,
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Bryan Scaringe wrote:
> I, too was concerned about this the first time I saw it.
> One thing that you must remember about Linux is what is
> and isn't Linux. Linux is just the Kernel. Nothing more,
> nothing less. Different distributions come with tools
> and applications, like XFree86. (Yes, X-Windows is an
> application, it's NOT a part of Linux.)
I agree.
>
> This in mind, Linux will still run happily on a 386 with
> 4 Megs of RAM. So why this message about 8 Meg minimum
> and required Swap Space? That is a function of the
> distribution. RedHat has been that way for some time now.
> It needs 8 Megs because of all the extras. That is not
> a Linux, minimum, It is a RedHat minimum. Remember
> back when you had that old PC with 1Mb of RAM, but that
> really cool game required 4Mb. Same thing (almost).
Now, let's think about that for a minute. I don't know anything
about RedHat besides the fact that I don't like it... So let's talk about
Slack, which IS my favorite... I guess the installing procedure hasn't
changed much, right? You boot the kernel you want (and I think the net.i
or bare.i from the first distribution are almost the same with those in
the last distribution), you root (color.gz IS the same as in the first
distribution). So now you have in memory a kernel (700k?), and a unzipped
root disk(lets say 2m). And now you login, you make your partitions and
run setup program. The first distribution sais no problem, the last
distribution sais there is a problem. So, is there a difference between
the two programs? No, there isn't. It's just a interface (not even
graphical, I would hate that...), and the rest of the memory should be
used for unzipping the files you want to install...
> So why make distributions that require 8 Meg minimum,
> rather than 4? Answer: That doesn't seem to be a stumbling
> block for MOST people. But it does mean that if you have
> a 4 Meg machine, you can't use that distribution.
>
> There are still several distributions that will work
> happily with 4Mb RAM.
>
> Now, the Linux kernel is growing in complexiy and size,
> but a carefully configured system, and a carefully configured
> kernel, could minimize the impact.
>
> Bryan Scaringe
>
>
> > Hi all,
> > I hope I'm not going to be very boring, but I really had a bad experience
> > with Linux yesterday...
> >
> > I had a 486DX2 machine with 8MB of Ram and 200MB of HDD, and tryied to
> > install Slackware 3.5 on it. Booted, rooted, and when I've runned 'Set
> > swap partitions' or 'Set target partitions', I got 'SetSwap can't fork'
> > and 'SetTarget can't fork'. After hours of struggling, I finally read the
> > message welcoming you: Yes, I've got to activate the swap partitions
> > before running 'setup' on a 8MB of Ram machine!
> >
> > I mean, Linux started as a 'small' operating system, with high
> > performances and low requirements (2MB of Ram???). I remember installing
> > Linux 1.2.13 on a 486SX, with 4MB of Ram, and compiling kernel, and all
> > the other stuff without problems. And here I am, one year later, trying to
> > install the latest Slack on a machine with double memory, processing speed
> > and having problems from the very beginning... I know that a OS should
> > develop, and that means growing, but is there anyone out there who's still
> > interested in optimizing???
> >
> > Have fun,
> > bogdan
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Ok, now don't get me wrong on this one. I love Linux, I love the
fact that is it free and I love you guys because you're part of this
wonderful family which is Linux's family. And if I wrote that letter, I
did it because I was concerned about this OS. I'm not looking into a gift
horse's mouth, like one of you said, but rather I'm thinking that I'm
talking with the guy who made that horse and I'm telling him that horse
needs stronger teeth in order to be better.
Anyway, sorry for taking your time and patiente.
Have fun,
bogdan
