"Howard Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> On the other hand, the compressed zip file for Phat Linux (read about
> and get it at: www.phatlinux.com) is about 200 Megs and you need about
> 500 Megs free space for a practical, useable installation. Now, how
> big was win9x again?
I suspect you're getting a hell of a lot more services for that 200-500 Meg
though! A comparison with a fully loaded NT system with apps, file and print
services and IIS might be more in order. Linux can certainly be made much
thinner than that if you want to, just not that particular distribution.
I've played with serveral that run off of a single floppy.
> [...] Thus, Phat and
> similar versions of Linux are installed ``on Top of'' dos, just like
> windows 3.1 was. While you think you are running linux, Dos is running
> and thinks you are running a specific dos program on the huge file image.
Not exactly. It would be more correct to think of DOS as a program loader in
this case. Once running, DOS is not responsible for anything and Linux is
fully in charge. Think of it more as Linux "taking over" and using the
loopback file system as its root.
> [...] I dont
> see much of a real advantage in these kinds of programs that try to
> coexist with Microsoft: We all know the problems of installing another
> pseudo-OS or shell ``on top of'' dos from your years with win 3x.
The hope is that this will let users install and try out Linux in a
non-intrusive manner, and hopefully upgrade to a "real" installation later.
Don't forget, partitioning is pretty scary stuff for a lot of folks!
Loopback installations (and UMSDOS, see below) allow an existing DOS/Win
system to be used for a test spin without any significant risks.
> And,
> if you really have 500 megs of free space on a disk partition, it is
> not big deal to use one of the freeware disk resizers and make that
> space into an independently format-able partition.
Well, Corporate IS might frown on this, but yes: resizing is pretty
straightforward ONCE YOU'VE DONE IT a few times. Just try to explain it to a
relative newbie -- mentioning that there IS the potential for things to go
awry -- and see how enthused they are to try out Linux! Again, these
installations cater to the curious.
> My guess is that
> the ``real'' Linux filesystems will work better and more trouble free.
DEFINITELY! Give a "native" installation a whirl when you can. Loopback is
pretty straightforward, and uses native Linux filesystems. If you can't
afford 2-500MB, there are smaller "UMSDOS" distributions that co-exist with
the FAT filesystem. The cool thing is that once Linux is running, there is
full support for long filenames and other features in 20-100 MB. The
downside is performance and the relative fragility of FAT filesystems
compared to others.
On a 386 with 8MB and up, Linux is definitely worth checking out. Smaller
distributions work VERY well on old hardware, and can provide a surprising
amount of power in a small package, including full TCP/IP and internet
support. The great thing is that they still run the "real" applications. IF
it will run given the constraints, you're running the same package that runs
on a high-end server. Compared to stripped down applications and servers,
this is a real benefit. If you've got the resources, DOSEMU can be run,
providing a DOS window to run your familiar apps while letting Linux do
multitasking in the background (see http://www.dosemu.org). For the diehard
DOS aficionado, this might ease transition.
For those with pre-386 systems, ELKS (Embedded Linux Kernel Subset - aka
Linux 8086) at http://www.elks.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ might be useful eventually.
It's not ready for mainstream use today, but I'm looking forward to the day
when I pull that old IBM XT out of the closet and fire up Linux on it!
- Bob
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
