Hi,
I have managed to install RedHat 7.1 on a i386 machine with 16mb ram. I installed redhat on a hardisk on a different machine , then upgraded the kernel to its i386 rpm which has got math co-processor enabled. After that I took the hardisk and put it on the i386 machine. And it worked!!

regards
Krishna

Krishna Shekhar
Network Administrator
Wiplash Wireless

At 11:31 AM 11/29/2002 +0100, you wrote:

----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----

>
> There is *no* safe version of Red Hat Linux that can be installed on a
> 386 with 8MB Ram. All versions that old have serious security holes.

Allright, that's a reason when the computer is 24h a day connected with Internet
but I also want to use RH Linux on a laptop i486 with 12MB of ram and
it will never be connected directly to Internet. So security holes won't be the
main reasen for NOT deciding a version.

>
> I believe your best bet at this stage is to replace the hardware with
> something manufactured in the last 5 years. Even a 5-year old system -
> which was typically a Pentium 200 or better - can be upgraded to 64MB
> Ram. I finally got rid of a 7-year old P166 with 48MB earlier this year
> for $20. A friend gave me a PentiumPro 200 with 64MB to give to another
> friend a few months ago. eBay has multiple systems that meet the
> requirements with a Buy-it-Now price of around $40-50 (which is around the
> price of a Red Hat Linux box set).
>
Allright, I think I can get a i486 100MHz with 24 megs of ram for E 22 (= $20).

But I still have a mini laptop with 12 megs I want to use...

Thanks, Bastiaan




--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list



---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 11/25/2002
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 11/25/2002


Reply via email to