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

Reply via email to