LInux>>????

[technogeek_42]

can everyone help me what should i install to my pentium II of IBM computer which it uses only uses WIN nt and 95...>..>>> what linux should I use........

tnx:
SPYnX of Philippines
Go for goal Linux

[Stylish]

You want as little overhead as possible. And, typically, the biggest overhead (EDIT: for desktops) comes from the GUI.

In that light, I would suggest using Ubuntu with Fluxbox over the default Gnome.

Here is a post by someone which gives more information related to old hardware and GUI:
http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2006/12/18/alternate-desktop-managers-kde-xfce-enlightenment-fluxbox-ubuntu-6061-610/

[technogeek_42]

your link cant answer my question for the link but i want the pattern which is
WIN NT = what linux OS
WIN Xp = linux What

tnx

[John A]

Have you ever considered that there isn't necessarily a Linux operating system that corresponds with each Microsoft Windows release?

[technogeek_42]

i think their is....

[alaiysman]

You can install OpenSuSe for linux.

[slacke]

I don't exactly see what is the point of your question,
but I suggest that you have some old hardware with limitations and you want to replace your MS operating system(s) with linux.

I assume that you find some old machine and you want to try some linux on it.

If so:

1. You can have troubles with hardware limits, small hard drive space, small memory...
2. Or the Linux distro just woun't recognise your hardware (ethernet, soundcard ...).

I was once playing with old hardware and such limits...
I used the slackware...

But this is the hardest one...

If you are serious In this "Playing", I can guide you to get up your PC...

If you have some other reasons, forget it...
This is playing for only those who loves to solve technical problems but nightmare for those who want just "click and go"...

[technogeek_42]

ok i think this forum must end coz microsoft and LInux are in different OS... and it may coz head aches to others

tnx

[jbennet]

What the hell are you guys on about

"In that light, I would suggest using Ubuntu with Fluxbox over the default Gnome"
"You can install OpenSuSe for linux. "

Look at the original post!

"my pentium II of IBM computer"

No modern linux distro will run with a full X server in any usable way with 64mb or less of RAM.

A linux desktop needs 384-512mb for a good user experiece.

Just buy a new PC.

lastly

"WIN NT = what linux OS
WIN Xp = linux What "

Windows XP is a part of the NT family, I believe you are referring to NT4?

Thats a 10+ year old system. Linux didnt even exist in 1996.

[Stylish]

He asked "What should I install" and you answered "Buy a new pc".

And, as an addition, here is a quote from another forum:
memory takeup seems to be about 40mb on dsl with fluxbox.
That appears less than 384mb.. And even under 64mb. (I am unsure where you grabbed 64mb, most p2 systems can handle 256-512mb)

EDIT: Found a better list of OS's for old pcs: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=575456

ps: Are you serious?
Linux didnt even exist in 1996.
Because:The Linux kernel has been marked by constant growth throughout its history. Since the initial release of its source code in 1991 [..]
GUI came in around 1994.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux )

[jbennet]

memory takeup seems to be about 40mb on dsl with fluxbox.

Thats with DSL and Fluxbox. DSL uses a cutdown X server an ancient version of fluxbox
Fluxubuntu is bloatware.

and it was only by 1996 that linux was a) ported to other platforms b) supported multiple cpus and c) started getting commercial support

Wasnt until 98/99 that KDE and Gnome got invented

Until the late nineties linux was nowhere near able to pose a serious threat to windows. Most people didnt even know it existed until redhat came along.

[John A]

>No modern linux distro will run with a full X server
>in any usable way with 64mb or less of RAM.
First, where did the OP ever mention the amount of memory in the machine? Second, who ever said that a 'modern' Linux distro was required? It's not as if the OP is running a modern version of Windows on that thing...

>Thats a 10+ year old system. Linux didnt even exist in 1996.
Well, I'm having a hard time understanding the meaning of this sentence. Linux did exist in 1996, it did support GUI (XFree86), and it was certainly in a usable state for desktop use at that point. Regardless of that, I don't see why that's a good reason not to use it. You don't necessarily need a brand new computer to run 'modern' operating systems. Heck, I've run a Linux 2.6 desktop environment on a Pentium I and it was perfectly usable.