Howard Eisenberger wrote: > > The lowmem 2.4 kernel from Slack 8.1 works on my test PC > with 8 meg ram, but bare.i does not.
That is my fault. I accidently included an old version of loadlin.exe. It does not recognize a bzimage. The correct loadlin.exe is available in the /kernels directory of Slackware 8.1. I have redone the slack81.zip package to include the correct loadlin (along with some other improvements). > It seems to me that the lowmem kernels don't have TCP support > (domain sockets), That is correct. The lowmem kernels are stripped down to the minimum and they lack many capabilities. > so I am now using bare.i The bare.i kernel is a good general-purpose kernel. The only important thing it lacks is SCSI support. > from 4.0. Slackware 4.0 used an early 2.2 kernel. The 2.2.19 kernel in Slackware 8.0 is superior. BTW, the 2.2.19 kernel is better for low-RAM systems than the 2.4.18 kernel in Slackware 8.1. I tried a 2.4.18 kernel with 4mb RAM and it was horrible -- the kernel takes so much RAM that even the startup scripts have to swap to HD. I haven't seen so much HD thrashing since I tried to run KDE with 16mb RAM. > So far, all the programs from the current distribution seem > to work. A 2.2 kernel should run just fine with Slackware 8.1. The only issues I can think of are: (1) for a journaling filesystem, you should use a 2.4 kernel (2) for RAID volume support, you should use a 2.4 kernel (3) for accelerated 3D graphics, you should use a 2.4 kernel (4) iptables needs a 2.4 kernel (use ipchains with 2.2) > The Linux kernels just keep getting bigger. This seems to be > a major stumbling block for old systems. The new kernels are bloated with capabilities that are useless for old PCs. You really need to recompile them to get the junk out (although even then they are still bulkier than earlier kernels). As far as stock kernels go, I think the 2.0.39 kernel is probably the best for old PCs. Unfortunately Slackware switched to a 2.2 kernel and never did a Slackware with a 2.0.39 kernel. I wanted to move BasicLinux a 2.0.39 kernel long ago, but I have been unable to find a reliable source of stock 2.0.39 kernels and modules. > Frankly, I wasn't that crazy about busybox in BL 1.7 - a lot > of the command switches seem to be missing. It could have been worse. BasicLinux includes full versions of some commands that are in busybox. For example, I included the real 'ls' because the busybox version was so limited. If I had used busybox more, I could have slimmed BasicLinux down to a single floppy; but I wanted BasicLinux to feel more like a real Linux. > Once I had BL installed to my harddrive, I replaced several > busybox commands with the full ones from the Slack 3.5 CD. I hope you didn't have any problems. Trying to replacing busybox commands can overwrite busybox itself and make every command in the busybox collection useless. I probably should have considered this when I designed the install-to-HD package (perhaps replacing all busybox commands with the real thing). > Now that I'm using the older kernel, I don't need the big > tarball. I can just grab the few small modules that I need. It's a pity that Slackware has moved away from that format. In every distro before 8.1, the modules were available individually in the /modules directory. However, in 8.1 there is no /modules directory, the only option is the full 8mb module package. Cheers, Steven 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
