OT: "Best" Linux Distro?

On 12/3/05, Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp at gjcp.net> wrote: In my case, it's because modern and semi-modern distros won't even install on hardware with too little memory. I'm happy to max out the hardware to the memory limit, but sometimes, that's not enough. Case in point - I have a PS/2-e (as seen here - http://www.nothingtodo.org/classiccmp/ps2e.htm ). The max memory one can install is 16MB, which I've done. It's running RedHat 5.x and has been for over 5 years because newer distros won't install with that little memory. Another case is a pile of 486-based "network PCs" built into a keyboard base - 4 30-pin SIMMs slots... runs plenty fast, but unless I can find some 4-chip 8MB SIMMs (yes they exist - they are just really odd), I'm stuck with 4 x 4MB and in the same boat as the PS/2-e It's not about CPU power - even a 16MHz 386 is a lot of power for a non-GUI single-user UNIX machine... bloatware, from any vendor, obsoletes machines long before they become too tired to function. While I'm not arguing that there have been improvements in kernels over the years, to wring decent performance out of any machine, having enough memory lying around that you don't have to swap is a pretty good performance boost. That means that machines that max out at 16M or 64M or anything "small" by modern standards are not going to be able to run modern software without looking old and tired. You end up going with something from that machine's "golden age" just to get any useful work done. -ethan