Robert Steinmetz wrote:
>
> I installed BasicLinux on one of them (486 25mhz /12mb RAM)
> and have it working pretty well with icewm.
> BasicLinux seems to require several modifications and
> additions to get it to compile. One example is the Configure
> script will not work with the included version of echo.
The echo command in BasicLinux comes from BASH -- it is the
standard built-in. The following is from 'man bash':
---------------------------------------------------------------
echo [-neE] [arg ...]
Output the args, separated by spaces, followed by a newline.
The return status is always 0. If -n is specified, the
trailing newline is suppressed. If the -e option is given,
interpretation of the following backslash-escaped characters
is enabled. The -E option disables the interpretation of these
escape characters, even on systems where they are interpreted by
default. The xpg_echo shell option may be used to dynamically
determine whether or not echo expands these escape characters by
default. echo does not interpret -- to mean the end of options.
echo interprets the following escape sequences:
\a alert (bell)
\b backspace
\c suppress trailing newline
\e an escape character
\f form feed
\n new line
\r carriage return
\t horizontal tab
\v vertical tab
\\ backslash
\nnn the eight-bit character whose value is the
octal value nnn (one to three digits)
\xHH the eight-bit character whose value is the
hexadecimal value HH (one or two hex digits)
---------------------------------------------------------------
> After reading in this list about the slackware 8.1 for old
> computers, I'm wondering if that would be a better alternative.
Slackware 8.1 will probably work better with your wireless card.
> How much of a performance hit will there be?
There is a definite hit. It will be quite noticeable on a
486-25. You definitely shouldn't use the 2.4 kernel from
slack81. It is a big drag on the system. The 2.2 kernel
from slack80 is better (in fact my installation routine uses
a slim 2.2 kernel by default).
> Would it be reasonable to run X on this hardware?
On your hardware, BasicLinux is able to run X. It's not
lightning fast, but it's useable. I have not tried running
X from Slack81 on your level of hardware; however, I'm pretty
sure it would be very, very sluggish.
Cheers,
Steven
___________________________________________
http://www.volny.cz/basiclinux/slack81.html
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
