--- Angel Martin Alganza <ama at ugr.es> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 12:35:27PM -0700, Chris M
wrote:
I really don't think it's realistic to
operate a
modern computer w/a non-windowed environment these
days. Many will disagree, and that's their
Of course many will disagree. I for one, use
several boxes w/o a gui
even installed on them. What about servers? What
do you want a gui on
a web server, an FTP server, a file server, a print
server?
True. Little need for a gui depending on what the
"computer" is being used for. It goes w/o saying that
my use of the word denoted a workstation.
But even for a workstation. What do I need a gui
for reading mail
(mutt), Unenet news (tin), IRC (irssi) or Jabber
(centralicq),
editing (Vim) and composing (LaTeX) documents or
programming ? Even
browsing I many times do with elinks.
Otay panky. Have it your way. LOL LOL
prerogative,
someone said something about
eye-candy,
I did. But I could go further, I not only don't
need (nor I want) eye
candy, but graphic acceleration, transparencies, or
even menus, icons
or applications bars, etc.
Ok, I respect your opinion. As long as you do mine.
but I think it
comes down to cheating yourself of
functionality. Additional resources are necessary
of
course, and if you're talking about a 486,
you're
I was thinking more about a 386. For slower systems
there is ELKS,
which I would like to have in production on my 8086,
8088 and 286
boxes. A 486 is powerful enough as to ran Debian
GNU/Linux or any of
the BSD. In fact, one of mine is running OpenBSD
with Apache and
PostgreSQL for a small web server on a 486DX2-66
64MB RAM and 2x4GB HDD.
Forget about ELKS. What about XENIX! YAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
(I think we're way off topic by the way).
going to want
to trim as much as possible (you
can't
tell me Debian w/a gui will run on one). What
most
I've just told you :-)
You didn't need to. It was simply my point. I had an
instructor who HATED anything MS$, but who preached
Linux w/a religious fervor. ALL YA NEED IS THAT OLD
486! Ok, fine, but if you want to run a respectable
windowing OS, you'll going to need some more power.
Before ever even touching a Linux cd I figured that
must have been the case.
impressed me
(and the diehards will call this all
opinion) with the Unix boxes I had seen in the
early-mid 90s was their ability to do windows, and
do
them right.
Sure. They do it, and they do it very well. But
even most impressive
is the server/client nature of X. Why should i be
forbidden to run,
let say Iceweasel, or The Gimp, or whatever program
I like to on a more
powerful box, but display it on a Pentium 90 or 60,
or even a 486 or a
386 as a lean X terminal if I can do so?
You are not forbidden. You officially have my
blessing :)
Not for
anything (man I hate that expression) but
hasn't the version following sarge been out for 6+
months, and UIM it was based on the 2.6 kernel?
Is is Debian GNU/Linux 4.0, akaa Etch, released
three days ago :-)
Thought I even had it on DVD somewhere.
No wonder, I also had it a few months ago, while it
was still the
testing branch. :-)
I goofed. I was referring to sarge, which, correct me
if I'm wrong (again) is based on the 2.6 kernel. I
made a mistake and I said so.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121