Magazine retrospectives

From: Brett <danjo_at_xnet.com>
Date: Sun May 18 02:56:46 1997

On Sat, 17 May 1997, Sam Ismail wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 1997, Captain Napalm wrote:
> > > I used to run my linux box on 4megs. Worked fine (with a decent swap
> > > space). There's no need for the bloat which windows and its ilk covets.
> > > What next? A 500meg operating system?
> > >
> > Which version of Linux were you running? Sounds like either the 0.9x
> > series or maybe the 1.0 series. I would be slighty hesitent to run 1.2 in
> > 4M and 2.0 in 8M (2.0 really bloated up).
>
> Yeah, it was a version less than 1.00. I haven't played with Linux for a
> while and didn't know that the kernal has fattened up since 1.0. I guess
> I better stop bragging to people that I can run linux in less than 4
> megabytes.

I don't know Sam, I ran Linux 1.2.13 in 4 MB for quite some time. It got
REAL SLOW when I ran X-Windows but hell, it did run! Now I got 2.0.29 and
8 MB and run Linux in a couple of Virtual Consoles and DOSEmu in another
(only when I need too!) and have one machine for a comm server (386DX40
with NO keyboard and NO video card - can NT even do that?!?!?!? I mean I
know it won't run on a 386 with 8 MB but without Kb and Video??), my work
machine (386DX33), and the *family* machine (486DX66) running WFW 3.11 all
connected on the Internet (using IPMASQ) and running Samba to make WFW
happy.

I am pretty sure I can get 2.0.29 to run in 4 MB and a WHOLE LOTTA SWAP
8-)

BC
Received on Sun May 18 1997 - 02:56:46 BST