> Judging from our experiences and those I read about in this list every day, Linux is
> "very intolerant" of every single brand of computer made, including all the big
> names. Our problems have occurred on both big-name machines, e.g., Compaq, and
> home-made, e.g., Yokohama Storm Door and Motherboard Works, Ltd. Just whose "kit" is
> acceptable to Lord Linux? And whose specs are relevant? Is Linux the tail which
> deigns to wag the cybernetic dog?
I must say that I don't see that type of commentary on this list. I have so
far installed Linux quite successfully on three Gateway computers that were
purchased directly from GW2K. No special requests, just "ordered from the
menu" as it were. No hitches.
BTW, one big advantage I see in Linux is that I was able to make decent use of
a 486DX2/66 with 8Mb of RAM. And, in spite of the fact that so many caution
against it, I was running X11 on it. Sure, it wasn't quite as zippy as the
100MHz Pentium machine I have now, or even the 60MHz Pentium I have at home,
but it ran tolerably. From what I hear, though (never tried it myself), you
can't do that with Windows '95, for on a 486 it runs intolerably slow...
-Michael
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
