Was ok for text/batch type processing. I would say that would be about it.
On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, David Fries wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 02, 1998 at 06:40:24PM +0100, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Rene Zikken wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I suppose you don't have any memory left for the
> > > message text :-)
> >
> > Read about the next message down :) I have actually run X on a
> > computer with 2 megs of ram. Now the question is can you run 2.1.x on
> > a 2 meg machine, I thought it had some limit at 4 megs, and if you
> > can't run it, why not?
>
> I have run linux on a 386sx-16 with 8 megs of ram, I wouldnt call that
> speed acceptable.
>
> I tried linux (slackware 2.3, late 1.1.x kernels) on a 486sx-25 with 2
> megs a couple of years ago. After 10 minutes and it only had gotten 5-6
> daemons up and running and was swapping itself to death I turned the poor
> thing off.
>
> I'm glad that other guy managed to get it running... I'd say that 4 megs
> would be a definate minimum.
>
> -----
> Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
>
Jaime Fournier
AIX SYSADMIN
jafour1@austin.ibm.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu