"Steven C. Darnold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bob George wrote: > > > > However, when someone indicates they're already given > > up once on Linux > > Following a failed GUI install.
John indicated he tried an unsupported configuration (video), and that while the basic install worked, it was X that did not. It is worth noting that many installs are graphical without being X, or run on a limited version of X. It varies by distribution. > > and only have a limited time to try it out, starting with > > a working system improves the odds they'll stick with it. > > Unless I am confused (which is certainly possible), the > system we are talking about is a Pentium 66. Despite the > fact that the worst secondhand Pentium sells for twice as > much as the best 486, a Pentium 66 is no better than a 486. > In fact, going by my handy chart of bogomips, my 486-100 > rates twice as high as that Pentium. Well, as the HOWTO (http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/mini/BogoMips-2.html#ss2.1) says, the second use for bogomips is "To see whether your system is faster than mine. Of course this is completely wrong, unreliable, ill-founded, and utterly useless, but all benchmarks suffer from this same problem. So why not use it?" Yes, I agree a P66 with 32MB RAM is hardly a racehorse these days. However, many distributions still support that sort of system just fine for a basic install. > Now, I sometimes do run a GUI on my 486, and it goes well. > But my GUI is extremely slim and finely tuned. I would hate > to think what a GUI do-everything-for-you installation routine > would do to my machine. It would turn to molasses. Again, it's the HARDWARE DETECTION capabilities of the INSTALL that are of interest in getting a system running quickly. Even if the install is a tad slow, it may still be a beginner's best chance of getting the beast up and running. Running, or not running a GUI afterwards is up to the user. Most distributions give either option. I'd sure hate the idea of a GUI sucking up power on my workgroup server, especially if it sits headless most of the time. But I might still use the smooth installation offered by many current distributions to get it running quickly, even if I don't put X on it. A reasonably technically adept computer user new to Linux should (hopefully) realize that one can fire up X as needed to access GUI-based tools until one gets to the point that they aren't needed, but that it's worth shutting X down when NOT needed on the server. > > I hope everyone GETS to the point "where the action is", > > but I can also understand why some might want a more gentle entry. > > Sure, if someone has a reasonable Pentium (Pro,MMX,II), they can > go for the gentle entry. But I can't imagine that a "user friendly" > desktop GUI on a Pentium 66 will be a very pleasant experience. Which wasn't the point of course! The point was to get an INSTALL of a small workgroup server up and running, NOT a desktop system with all the bells and whistles! I've done it myself plenty of times on low-end Pentiums and 486en. If one is prudent during package selection, the results can be quite satisfying. > > Even if one does a full-bloat GUI install of RedHat or Mandrake, > > one can still get to the the underlying innards easily. > > Most users I know who've started with a GUI Linux install start > > out using mindless point-n-click tools, but they eventually catch > > on to the power of working directly with the OS, at least at some > > level. Before you know it, they've got more xterms open than > > anything else. > > Even with my slim GUI, an xterm is noticeably slower than the CLI. > For example, 'ls -R' from my / directory takes less than one minute > from the CLI and more than four minutes from an xterm. Perhaps on > a fast Pentium, you don't notice the deadweight of the GUI, but on > a survPC you sure do. OK, good point so let me clarify: At this point I just wanted to make the point that LINUX IS LINUX. In general, no distribution is going to be prevented from doing anything any other can. Apache is Apache, Samba is Samba, be it on Debian, RedHat or any other. Choosing one or the other won't preclude a user from learning how the software works on any other distribution. The point about xterm to emphasize that the CLI is ALWAYS available. I'm not making an issue of the GUI. I think most folks realize there's a penalty. There's also a speed penalty for insufficient RAM, which is why I recommended 32MB or more. > This is the survPC list, so I tailor my advice to survPCs. However, > if I am talking to an ordinary user with a powerful computer and a > point-and-click background, I would naturally steer him toward the > latest-and-greatest, do-everything-for-you GUI. Well, there's been plenty of discussion over the years over what constitutes "SurvPC". At one point, there was a (very) vocal group here that insisted that SurvPC was DOS-only, and that Linux was off-topic. Others claimed that Pentiums were too powerful to be on-topic for the list. Whatever. John asked about an approach that would help him get going QUICKLY, so I've responded in with that in mind. He's got a low-end, but capable system for a small workgroup server by the sound of it. Many mainstream distributions should run just fine on it. My 99 cents worth. :) - 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
