On Sun, Dec 23, 2001, Dan Robinson wrote: > > I'm a Linux pre-newbie, as I'm sure you'll notice. Someone gave me a > TI TravelMate 5000 laptop computer (for parts for a different model, > but this one works better). It has no CD drive. A friend spent about > 4 hours installing Debian, (w/o GUI, which I avoid) using a network > connection. It still has major problems, which I may have made worse > by trying to use DOS in it's partition. > > I'm wondering about the possibilities of starting over, preferably > preserving the partitions and LILO. How many floppies and files it > would take to get a Linux system (kernal, shell, more?) that could > then tranfer other files from floppies? Then what's the MINIMUM it > would it take to get a reasonably functioning system for editing, > email and the web?
Dan, Part of this depends if you want a typical minimum "reasonably functioning system for editing, email, and the web," such as that provided by a distribution, which is going to general make some assumptions about usage, or if you are willing (and technically proficient enough) to essentially roll your own distribution, giving you the flexibility (that's one of the hallmarks of Free Software and Linux, after all) to seriously reduce the size. For this, you might want to look into Linux from Scratch (www.linuxfromscratch.org). > Until a few months ago I was on the net in DOS on a 386, using > software that would have worked on a 286. I only "upgraded" because > the software was falling behind, not staying compatible with other Considering you can put together really solid Athlon (1GHz) systems with plenty of RAM (512MB) and disk space (40GB) for ~$400 (sans monitor), you might want to think about upgrading just for reliability of components if nothing else (though possibly, at least in high energy cost areas, simply the energy savings of new equipment, if left on 24/7 as mine (and I think other's) is, could justify the upgrade). > systems. At times I wonder how much I've really gained since CPM when > I ran my own BBS, at first without a hard drive. I noticed recently > that my DOS system disk has about 198K in six files. Then there are > many utilities, few of which I've ever used, or even know what > they're for (and I don't care for Ws, now in two contexts). In Linux > circles I hear mainly about needing gigabytes. I'm wondering if > there's a basic Linux system, or other open source systems, within a > couple orders of magnitude to DOS in size. Otherwise, can someone > tell me how Linux is that much better, or are programmers getting > sloppier in writing code? I think the comparison between the Linux systems that are many orders of magnitude greater in disk space usage than the DOS systems you are comparing them to is skewed by the fact that the Linux systems are providing vastly more software capabilities (full compiler/development suites for multiple languages, full networking capabilities with many different servers: ftp, http, irc, ssh, lpr, smtp, etc.), XFree86, etc.) and that is reflected in the usage. I mean, if you really want minimum space, a more accurate comparison to DOS might be something like a Linux rescue disk, which is less than 1.44MB, and you can look into if you're interested. I like Tom's Root Boot disk at http://www.toms.net/rb/. For small linux installations, you might also look into: 1. The Linux Terminal Server Project at http://www.ltsp.org/ 2. http://www.embedded-linux.org/ 3. http://www.linuxdevices.com/ 4. http://www.uclinux.org/ (not probably applicable for your needs, but just for your general info) HTH, Daniel > Dan Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Eugene OR 97401 http://www.efn.org/~danrob/ > > Capitalism is the ultimate pyramid scheme, > dependent on ever-growing economy, > therefore on ever-growing population, > therefore on ever-growing resources. Oops! > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Daniel A. Freedman Laboratory for Atomic and Solid State Physics Department of Physics Cornell University
