[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486
From: |
Colin Mattoon |
Subject: |
Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486 |
Date: |
Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:05:44 -0800 |
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 01:25:57 +0100
Martin Stricker <address@hidden> wrote:<and I clipped>
> So my question at all of us is: Do we want to find one way to
> proceed with RULE, or could we split up our efforts into several
> distros*without* those nasty distro wars? Opinions and needs are
> different. If we proceed carefully I'm positive that the different
> subprojects will be able to help each other.
>
Well, maybe in the end the only answer that can be agreed upon is
simply to use a stock Debian or Slackware system if you need something
compatible with pre-Pentium processors and/or less than 64 MB RAM, and
run Red Hat or whatever else you like if you don't.
Understand that I wasn't attempting to start a distro war...I
really just wanted to explore the idea of starting with a distro that
already meets the hardware goals defined by the Rule-Project and
adding (for want of a better term) a "Red Hat compatibility layer."
This would meet some of the other Rule-Project goals: chiefly,
modernity and easy access to Red Hat binaries. Sort of like running
VMWare under Slackware "on the iron," and being able to run MS-DOS,
Windows, Red Hat, SuSE, etc., in VMWare. Technically, of course, it is
completely different, but conceptually similar: Slackware used just as
the foundation.
As far as which distro is "best," I don't claim to know, and I don't
care. What I do know is that, 1; Slackware will install on almost any
older PC while Red Hat will not, and 2; RPMs built for Red Hat are
often much easier to obtain than any other package format, but they're
usually difficult to install and track on a Slackware system.
Many Slackware users respond by telling you to "compile it
yourself." Since it can be a real pain to compile from source code
even on a Pentium 1 (when you can get the source code), I just thought
an amalgam of these two distros might be useful so that Red Hat
binaries can be easily installed and managed on a low tier Slackware
system. And that's really all I was trying to suggest. (Well except
for the self evident that every thing except Slackware
SUXXX!) {;-D)
Later,
Colin Mattoon
- Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486, (continued)
- Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486, Colin Mattoon, 2002/10/26
- Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486, Martin Stricker, 2002/10/27
- Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486, Colin Mattoon, 2002/10/28
- Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486, Liam Proven, 2002/10/28
- Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486, Colin Mattoon, 2002/10/29
- Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486, Martin Stricker, 2002/10/29
- Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486, Liam Proven, 2002/10/29
- Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486, Martin Stricker, 2002/10/30
- Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486,
Colin Mattoon <=
- Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486, Marco Fioretti, 2002/10/31
- Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486, Marco Fioretti, 2002/10/31
- Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486, Martin Stricker, 2002/10/31
- [Rule-list] Not so many rpms need i386, Richard Kweskin, 2002/10/30
- Re: [Rule-list] Not so many rpms need i386, Martin Stricker, 2002/10/30
- Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486, Liam Proven, 2002/10/29
- Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486, Marco Fioretti, 2002/10/31
- [Rule-list] "Red Hat" label effect, Richard Kweskin, 2002/10/31
- Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486, Martin Stricker, 2002/10/31
Re: [Rule-list] Red Hat No Longer Supports 486, Glen Lee Edwards, 2002/10/21