Oliver Fromme wrote:
Ypu're out of luck then. Recent versions of FreeBSD
require floating-point support to be present, which a
486SX doesn't have. You must have at least a 486DX
processor, I'm afraid. Or install an old version of
FreeBSD which will emulate FP instructions, but then
you don't have security support anymore, which means
it's probably a bad idea to connect the machine to
the internet, i.e. you shouldn't use it as a router.
What release (best of which still support it)?
8 MB isn't much. You won'te be able to run sysinstall
with it, and a standard kernel won't be much fun either.
But it should be OK with a smaller custom kernel.
First thing is to find out how to do that :]
(i'll read the Handbook later someday)
> But doesn't FreeBSD configure things for specific hardware
> when installed on one computer? And does it work if
> install on a new generation 386?
The standard FreeBSD/i386 installation will work on
all supported x86 machines, from a 486DX upwards.
Sry, I meant:
And does it work if install on a new generation 386 FIRST?
Did that, and voila, "Missing operating system"
Personally I prefer to use a FreeBSD machine as a
router, because I dislike "black boxes". You never
know what bugs and security issues they might have,
and many vendors are not particularly quick when a
security hole needs to be fixed. It's not a very
good feeling when you know that exploits are
circulating in the net and your vendor doesn't
provide a new firware for your box.
Same here... feels good to have control, to be the king :]
The FreeBSD security folks are usually very quick
in providing security advisories and patches, and
if you know a bit about C programming, you can even
fix things yourself. Heck, even the fact that you
_can_ look at the source code if you want is very
big plus for FreeBSD.
I've read somewhere, that if I want to learn to hack computers, I need to get
some UNIX, because Windows isn't open source, and learning is near impossible.
That's when I've been directed to FreeBSD. Well, it was just a matter of time
until I found out that I still couldn't do anything with the source without
knowing C :]. OK, now I do.
But, nontheless, FreeBSD seemed like such a stable system, plus there are
comparisons of FreeBSD VS Windows in google, it's like 8 - 2. But those tests
(uh, comparisons from BSD fans?) were made back in 2000. Where's an up to date
comparison?
> Are you sure that the installation finished successfully?
> As I mentioned above, I think 200 MB isn't sufficient for
> a standard installation.
Yes yes 100%. First it failed with 150MB '/' and 64MB SWAP, then it woked with
170MB '/' and 32MB SWAP and less distribution sets. The thing is, it simply
can't boot up! Even the boot floppies aren't working.. they say 'No
/boot/loader' (kern1.flp) and some other error I dont remember (boot.flp). WTF?
> You could frame it and nail it to the wall.
LOL
_______________________________________________
freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
