Don Head wrote: >>>There are a *lot* of 486es out there which are useful in >>> >>this capacity. Some >> >>>of them will be diskless, in which case the ``distro'' >>> >>would be installed to >> >>>be a remote-bootable image on a better machine rather than as the >>>primary/only installation on a 386/486. >>> >>in which case the entire point, getting the installer and >>base to work >>on 386+, doesn't apply. >> > > I think it still does apply, actually. The stuff on the > bootable image still has to be executed on the processor, > so if it's an i386 or i486, the software has to be > compiled as such. So it's not like you can tar up a > Mandrake box and call it a bootable image for an i386.You'd have to put > together an entire filesystem for the i386 to use, and what better way to do > that than use the installer. > > Take an i386/i486 system, get the installer to work, install everything you > need, then tar up it's filesystem and you have yourself a bootable image. I > think that's by far the easiest way to make that work. Yeah, there's other > ways of doing it, but isn't that a lot easier? > > > Don Head > SAIR LCA, CIW-P, i-Net+, Network+, A+ > > Systems Administrator [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Web Designer [ 1 314 650-4056 ] > [ AIM - Don Wave ] [ ICQ - 18804935 ] [ Yahoo - Don_Wave ] > > >
well, when he was talking of a (possibly even diskless) node working off an installation on a 586 then at least you would be using the installer on the other and on that sys (unless you are fond of doing things the hard way) tarring up if non diskless a minimal boot environ before switching over. It would be an unnecessary pain to do it on the i3/4. Either way, you and Oden were not holding this like a sausage in front of a sled dog so either way you still have your work cut out :). (Daniel Robbins is, sad to say, recently out of work too. Get him to help ;p. j/k, not exactly his distro. :), two bad jokes in one parenthetical expression. I'm gettin' good...)
