On 30 Aug 2006 04:50:23 -0000, Anonymous via Panta Rhei > Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear. Linux is not an acceptable answer. > Machine limitations are a major part of that, but other considerations > that I am not at liberty to discuss are also a factor. > > Changing OS is not an option no matter what. I have made poor choices due > to financial limitations and now am locked into those choices for at least > another 9.85 years. <whine>(and yeah, it sucks to be me.)</whine> > > On the other hand, I have seen reports of people successfully running 0.7 > on a Windows 98 computer with little difficulty. Because of this, I do not > comprehend the apparent reluctance to divulge the requested help.
I don't think there's any 'reluctance,' I think it's just that no one does that, so they're not particularly inclined to offer advice on how to run something on an OS they don't have. Have you looked at the support wiki (I haven't)? Also, have you described the symptoms of the problem in detail on this list (at a quick glance I don't see such, and I'm not going to bother hunting in detail when the anonymization makes it harder)? And I confess I'm quite confused by your hardware problems -- if you had a weird peripheral that Linux didn't like, that wouldn't surprise me, but I really can't imagine a computer that can run 98 but not Linux, at least as far as basics like network and non-accelerated graphics go. And it can't be a problem of not enough disk / memory / cpu -- Freenet is *way* more demanding than any minimalist Linux distro, and likely most non-minimalist ones if you at least chose a wm that's lighter than KDE or Gnome. My personal choice would be Enlightenment, but there are plenty of others, some of them exceedingly lightweight. (And yes, I've installed Linux on weird "windows-only" hardware. It can be a pain, but it can be done. Don't get me started on Toshiba laptops...) Evan