topic title: Distros I recommend
Posts: 4,164
rokytnji
Joined: 20 Feb 2009
#76
especially if it's the top distributions for older computers,
Those 2 words have had a meaning change since we dinosaurs were walking on the internet. On dialup. on 256MB of ram.

What is considered Ancient now is either atom n270, P4 single core, a gig of ram. Till I poke em in the eye with this.


========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://i44.tinypic.com/1t3fk7.jpg"
linktext was:"http://i44.tinypic.com/1t3fk7.jpg"
====================================
Posts: 1,139
masinick
Joined: 26 Apr 2008
#77
rokytnji wrote:
especially if it's the top distributions for older computers,
Those 2 words have had a meaning change since we dinosaurs were walking on the internet. On dialup. on 256MB of ram.

What is considered Ancient now is either atom n270, P4 single core, a gig of ram. Till I poke em in the eye with this.


========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://i44.tinypic.com/1t3fk7.jpg"
linktext was:"http://i44.tinypic.com/1t3fk7.jpg"
====================================
You can poke 'em all you want, Roki, because you can back up what you say with useful insight and also show some of that creative work.

Old? Dinosaurs?

I usually mention"dirt". We've been around together for a long time! (chuckle)
Posts: 850
fatmac
Joined: 26 Jul 2012
#78
:lol: I spy a floppy! :)

Edit: Hmm, do the youngsters even know what they are(?), I started out in the 5.25" era.
Posts: 1,139
masinick
Joined: 26 Apr 2008
#79
fatmac wrote: :lol: I spy a floppy! :)

Edit: Hmm, do the youngsters even know what they are(?), I started out in the 5.25" era.
The first floppy disks I used were 8" BEFORE the 5.25" and 3 1/2" ones.  On 40-45 year old mainframe and minicomputer systems, there were even 14" disk platters on a few of the early systems I used, but I didn't have day to day experiences with them, except I used a REALLY physically BIG (but capacity SMALL) 10 MB removable disk drive to port software between two DEC minicomputers - an older one with old disk interfaces, and a newer PC-sized one; we were testing new software drivers; it was a telco project that was being done BEFORE we had broad availability of the common interfaces like SCSI, USB, and other"modern" interface standards.  I don't think I even had Internet connectivity on those two old boxes, else I would have been porting the software over the NETWORK!

We did, at that time, have a pretty advanced Digital network; this was just before TCP/IP really took off.  Actually, I had many of those interfaces available to me even at that time: Ethernet at the office level for hardware connections, DECnet and TCP/IP for software connectivity over the Ethernet, and even the old AT&T uucp - UNIX to UNIX copy.  (That's another story: I was the architect for some gateway inter-connectivity projects to get all of these protocols to communicate with one another.  By the time we completed that work, within a year or two, TCP/IP was already beginning to take off, and of course, we were able to utilize that technology.  This was 35-40 years ago! :-)  SO MUCH has changed.  Just wait until the next generation wireless, loosely called"5G" emerges; it'll make wired connectivity unnecessary except for legacy work and things with high physical security requirements - and they'll have to be very high priority because 5G will become inexpensive and require a significant justification to use something else!
Posts: 850
fatmac
Joined: 26 Jul 2012
#80
Look forward to playing with 5G then...... ;)

(I was quite late to computers really, about '94 I think.)
Posts: 1,139
masinick
Joined: 26 Apr 2008
#81
@fatmac: '94 was early enough to get in near the"ground floor" of Linux distributions.

Several of the common, popular distributions available today were not even available then. Debian was available, but in it's infancy compared to where it is now.

Of the distributions available today, only Slackware, Debian, Red Hat, and SuSE were available, and the desktop environments we take for granted didn't exist until 1996 and 1997.
Posts: 850
fatmac
Joined: 26 Jul 2012
#82
My first Linux distros were Debian 2.1 & RedHat 4, but I didn't really get going until '99 when MS crashed for the last time on any of my computers. :lol:
Posts: 1,139
masinick
Joined: 26 Apr 2008
#83
fatmac wrote: My first Linux distros were Debian 2.1 & RedHat 4, but I didn't really get going until '99 when MS crashed for the last time on any of my computers. :lol:
In my case, I got my Linux initiation in November 1995, and it justified the FIRST ever personal purchase of a PC.  Costs by that time came in under $3000, but I probably still paid about $2800 after purchasing additional books, media, and other things needed.  My first PC was a Micron P100; it came installed with Windows for Workgroups 3.11 - one of the last Windows systems prior to Windows 95.

I ran that, plus Slackware - and I think I had a version somewhere between 1 and 2.  It worked right away, but it initially lacked the video drivers to provide GUI support past the most basic, low resolution until I was able to download a newer driver for Slackware.

Not only that, but it was a couple of years before I was able to secure anything beyond a modem-based low speed connection.  So back then I remember buying a few 3.5" disks, using my UNIX workstation and copying the files I needed and carrying them to the Micron PC.

I also purchased an upgrade to Windows 95 (which had been released in August 1995).  Until I got Slackware working at a higher resolution, initially Windows was easier to work with because it had better initial screen resolution, but once I got Slackware going, it was really nice, and FAST on that minimal system.

I was able to edit files faster on Slackware than I was on that UNIX workstation, connecting to my office over a modem, so when I worked occasionally from home during bad weather or to do a quick fix, I'd grab just the sections I wanted to change, edit them locally, then connect to the workstation or it's upstream server, edit the file in question, paste in the changes, and I'd be done.

Once I got a high speed network a few years later, such things were no longer necessary, but by that time I had many other systems and distributions I could work with.

I was elated to use Linux in those days; the"tactile feel" reminded me of the very earliest days of PC computing, making it fast and fun.

It wasn't anywhere near as easy to use as anything we have available today, but when you compared installing Slackware to installing either UNIX or Windows in that era, it was still significantly easier, and since I already had the UNIX workstation and server background, all I had to learn were the specific installation details.  I was already using many of the exact same GNU-based utilities on my UNIX workstation, so the migration was comparatively easy for me.  Nevertheless, I probably spent the better part of a week reading up on Slackware so I'd know how to set everything up correctly.  As a result, my very first attempt worked, and the only thing I had to do was find newer video drivers to support my hardware at it's maximum resolution - which was probably only 1024x768 back in those days, but much better than the 640x480 that I probably started with.

We've come SO FAR from this that it's almost hard to remember the things we routinely went through WAY BACK WHEN!  :-)
Posts: 1,139
masinick
Joined: 26 Apr 2008
#84
Years ago it was a challenge to install Debian or Slackware unless you happened to have a solid amount of software installation experience.  That is no longer the case.  Debian is one of the most improved distributions in terms of the installation and configuration of it's software.  Debian is certainly complex because it supports so many different architectures, applications, and workflows, but the complexity has been simplified considerably in the current versions.  When Debian added Live builds into it's choice of installation methods, that made things easier, but even if you choose a"netinst" - a network installation, it's not anywhere near as difficult as it once was.

Slackware retains an installation program that looks very similar to the original program, but it too has made life easier: the earliest implementations, as I recall them, required you to create one or two"floppy disk" images and use them to bootstrap the system.  I haven't seen that in a very long time.  But even if Slackware appears to be intimidating, I think it is within the grasp of many people who use antiX, and if not, there are easier to install distributions that are based on Slackware.

Even the Arch Linux distribution, a nimble, powerful distribution, has derivatives that are just as easy as several"mainstream" distributions, so there are a lot of great choices out there.

I suspect that most of us still like to spend a large percentage of our time using either MX or antiX; I certainly do, and I have less time than I once did to"distro hop".  But more than ever, it's easy to do so, and for those who want to try other distributions as a learning exercise, there are very few distributions available today that still qualify as"challenging" or"difficult" to install.  Even the most difficult ones can be mastered with diligence and reading articles and information about their installation and configuration before diving unprepared into them - and as you gain experience, it's often possible to get pretty far even without hours of planning and preparation, so I encourage those who like to try new things to try out other distributions and compare them to ours - and maybe bring a few good ideas back here - which is what many in our community have done over the years.
Posts: 850
fatmac
Joined: 26 Jul 2012
#85
Re new distros - I'm a fan of Vuu-Do, a Devuan spinoff, its kind of like AntiX is to Debian.
Posts: 667
jdmeaux1952
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
#86
Damn you, Charlie Brown. Now I'm feeling old. These are all past memories to me.
Posts: 1,139
masinick
Joined: 26 Apr 2008
#87
fatmac wrote: Re new distros - I'm a fan of Vuu-Do, a Devuan spinoff, its kind of like AntiX is to Debian.
Looks interesting; I'd not heard of it or seen it previously.  If it's like antiX, it's worth a look!  😀
Thanks!