Re: Linux on old laptop - still trying...

[Ben Scott]

On 6/6/06, Tech Writer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

As a side note...  I have been a little surprised at how much disk and
memory I need for a reasonable flavor of Linux.


 Most Linux distributions tend to keep pace with technology.
Unfortunately, that means their system requirements have risen almost
as fast as those of Micorosoft Windows.  Red Hat says 256 MB RAM and
800 MB disk space are the *minimums* for their current distribution.
It used to be you install a working Red Hat system in less than 100 MB
of disk.  Even Debian, famous for it's flexibility and light
requirements, will just barely be satisfied by your hardware (32 MB
RAM minimum).

 I think others are correct in that the right path is to look for a
distribution tailored for older hardware.  All the "modern",
general-purpose distributions are going to be targeting bigger iron
than what you have.  In particular, that link Bill Ricker posted to
linux.com looked promising.

-- Ben
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Speed of Java (was: Linux on old laptop in two stages)

[Tom Buskey]

On 6/6/06, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  I'm mildly curious about things like GCJ (http://gcc.gnu.org/java/),which aim to compile Java-the-language to machine code for the hostplatform (e.g., i386), rather than compiling to machine code for
Java-the-machine.  In particular, I'm wondering what kind of impact,if any, it has on performance and memory usage.I think Fedora (and OpenOffice) used GCJ to compile alot of the java apps associated with it.  They got a big speedup and eliminated the need for a JVM for those apps.

Re: Linux on old laptop - memory

[Tom Buskey]

The Toshiba P150 I had could only cache 64MB of RAM in the CPU.  If you had more, none of it was cached.  However, 80MB, even w/o the cacheing was still better then 64MB.  I think the cache issue is a P150 thing.
On 6/6/06, Tech Writer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This old Gateway 2100 Solo laptop doesn't hold much memory, and I'm notexactly sure what type of memory module it is.  This is what I've gatheredso far...Page:  
http://www.memoryx.net/gaso21seme.html  States that the Gateway Solo 2100 system can only take 80MB:  Gateway Solo 2100 Series Memory  Maximum Memory 80MB  Memory Slots 2 (2 banks of 1)  non-removable base memory 16MB
With an offer for:  32MB Gateway Solo 2100/2200 Memory Module (p/n 500023)Page:http://support.gateway.com/s/Mobile/Solo_Series/SOLO2100/0041.shtml
  Shows the two modules I currently have:  16 megabyte (MB) 5V 4Mx4 8ICs 60ns no parity memory module  Part number MEMSIM044AAWWPeg- Original Message -From: "Michael ODonnell" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Linux on old laptop - still trying...>>> Somebody on this channel (maybe even me) can probably> provide you with some additional RAM if we can figure> out what sort you need.  For example, I have a couple
> of 64Mb SODIMMs available now that I've replaced them> with 256Mb versions in my little laptop...>> ___> gnhlug-discuss mailing list> 
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
___gnhlug-discuss mailing listgnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

OpenOffice and JVM, was Java Speed

[Ted Roche]

On Jun 7, 2006, at 8:52 AM, Tom Buskey wrote:

I think Fedora (and OpenOffice) used GCJ to compile alot of the  
java apps associated with it.  They got a big speedup and  
eliminated the need for a JVM for those apps.


On recent installs of OpenOffice, some members of another forum I  
hang out on complained about startup speed. It turns out that Base  
(the database/Access twin) needs the Java Runtime Engine. Tools |  
Options | Java lets you turn off the option to start the JRE at  
startup. In my highly non-scientific, non-reproducible, anecdotal but  
well-meaning tests, startup could be reduced from 22 seconds to 4  
seconds in this manner. Just a tip for those willing to muck with it.


Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Linux on old laptop - memory

[Ben Scott]

On 6/7/06, Tom Buskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

The Toshiba P150 I had could only cache 64MB of RAM in the CPU.  If you had
more, none of it was cached.  However, 80MB, even w/o the cacheing was still
better then 64MB.  I think the cache issue is a P150 thing.


 It's actually the chipset (northbridge).  Various Intel chipsets
have had various limits on how much RAM they could cache.

-- Ben
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Dealing with multiple layers of routers

[Bill Freeman]

Where I'm working we have a Netgear router attached to the DSL modem,
to which all the wired users are connected, with NAT and DHCP serving
up 192.168.0.xxx addresses.

One of the things wired to the Netgear is the "internet" port of a
Linksys wireless-G router (probably too new to install Linux on it),
which serves up a wireless network on 192.168.1.xxx.

This works pretty well.  Everyone can get to the internet.  The local
print server/disk server is on the wired network, so everyone can use
it.  Folks on the wired network can access services running on wired
machines.

But, of course, folks on the wired network can't access services on
machines connected to the Linksys (even using a wired connection to
it).  The trouble is that we would like to offer the latest development
version of our web app running on our wireless development machines to
the marketing folks on the wired network.

Sure, it's easy to configure a particular port accessed at the "internet"
port of the Linksys to go to a specific machine on the wireless network,
but we would like to have multiple marketing folks able to access multiple
developer's machine's servers.  And we don't want to re-configure the
router everytime we want to change who serves what.  And spur of the
moment instigation of an ssh session from a marketing machine to a specific
developer machine is desired.

I think that what I need to do is disable NAT and firewall on the Linksys.
(We would still be protected from the internet by the firewall in the
Netgear.)  If that's possible.  Then would I be able to configure the
Netgear's DHCP server to tell the wired folks to route to 192.168.1 via
the IP that the Linksys has on the 192.168.0 network?  Or woould it be
possible to hide the static route from 192.168.0 to 192.168.1 entirely
in the Netgear's internal routing rules?  (The wireless folks already
go to the Linksys for routing to 192.168.0, since it's not within their
local network's netmask.)  Or am I likely to have to hand configure all
the wired guys with a static route to 192.168.1?

Or I guess I might be able to connect the routers via downstream ports on
both, using a cross over cable.  Then I either need to disable DHCP on
the Linksys (that I'm sure that I can do), or arrange for both DHCP servers
to specify a 255.255.254.0 netmask, and the Netgear as the router to the
internet.  (I'd actually like to keep the wireless guys with 192.168.1
addresses and the wired guys with 192.168.0 addesses, but this is a much
softer requirement.)

I'd appreciate comments and (some of the) suggestions.

Bill

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers

[Travis Roy]

One of the things wired to the Netgear is the "internet" port of aLinksys wireless-G router (probably too new to install Linux on it),
which serves up a wireless network on 192.168.1.xxx.I would check the dd-wrt website and see if you can install linux on it, you might luck out.What I would do is find a linksys G router that you can install dd-wrt on (if this one turns out to be one you can't). 
You never said anything about the netgear, if it's a small one similar to the linksys I would replace the netgear with a dd-wrt linksys and put the wireless on the DMZ and do it that way.Just a thought anyway. Might be worth it in time savings. The other option if the netgear supports a DMZ port is to put the linksys in bridge mode and hang it off the DMZ port on the netgear.

Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers

[Bill Freeman]

> >
> >
> > One of the things wired to the Netgear is the "internet" port of a
> > Linksys wireless-G router (probably too new to install Linux on it),
> > which serves up a wireless network on 192.168.1.xxx.
> 
> 
> 
> I would check the dd-wrt website and see if you can install linux on it, you
> might luck out.

This is almost certainly a V5 Linksys, so Linux won't fit.  Not that I'm
probably welcome to re-flash it anyway.
 
> What I would do is find a linksys G router that you can install dd-wrt on
> (if this one turns out to be one you can't).

I will probably get around to playing with this on one of my personal V4
WRT54GSs, but I'm disinclined to give one of these to the company, given
how hard it has been for me to find them.  (I'd really like to own a V3,
the last max memory model, but I haven't seen one.)
 
> You never said anything about the netgear, if it's a small one similar to
> the linksys I would replace the netgear with a dd-wrt linksys and put the
> wireless on the DMZ and do it that way.

I'm not sure how the DMZ helps.  Then both routers are exposed to internet
traffic directly, so must run firewalls and NAT.  Then how does the wired
guy on 192.168.0.100 access the tomcat server on 192.168.1.109?

> Just a thought anyway. Might be worth it in time savings. The other option
> if the netgear supports a DMZ port is to put the linksys in bridge mode and
> hang it off the DMZ port on the netgear.
> 

The linksys has a DMZ port, but, again, I don't see how this helps.  Everyone
can already access the internet.

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers

[Neil Schelly]

On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:09 pm, Bill Freeman wrote:
> I think that what I need to do is disable NAT and firewall on the Linksys.
> (We would still be protected from the internet by the firewall in the
> Netgear.)  If that's possible.  Then would I be able to configure the
> Netgear's DHCP server to tell the wired folks to route to 192.168.1 via
> the IP that the Linksys has on the 192.168.0 network?  Or woould it be
> possible to hide the static route from 192.168.0 to 192.168.1 entirely
> in the Netgear's internal routing rules?  (The wireless folks already
> go to the Linksys for routing to 192.168.0, since it's not within their
> local network's netmask.)  Or am I likely to have to hand configure all
> the wired guys with a static route to 192.168.1?
>
> Or I guess I might be able to connect the routers via downstream ports on
> both, using a cross over cable.  Then I either need to disable DHCP on
> the Linksys (that I'm sure that I can do), or arrange for both DHCP servers
> to specify a 255.255.254.0 netmask, and the Netgear as the router to the
> internet.  (I'd actually like to keep the wireless guys with 192.168.1
> addresses and the wired guys with 192.168.0 addesses, but this is a much
> softer requirement.)
>
> I'd appreciate comments and (some of the) suggestions.


I've got setups like this and even in my home. That said, I've got wireless 
and wired users in the same subnet in that case.  I would suggest just 
plugging a normal port in each router together. That way, you're using the 
wireless router itself as more of a wireless hub (access point) instead of as 
a router.

If you want to split up the subnet between wired and wireless users, you may 
have to get more creative.  You could certainly give static DHCP assignments 
to MAC addresses that you know are in the wireless segment for example.  
-N
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers

[Tom Buskey]

On 6/7/06, Bill Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Where I'm working we have a Netgear router attached to the DSL modem,to which all the wired users are connected, with NAT and DHCP servingup 192.168.0.xxx addresses.One of the things wired to the Netgear is the "internet" port of a
Linksys wireless-G router (probably too new to install Linux on it),which serves up a wireless network on 192.168.1.xxx.This works pretty well.  Everyone can get to the internet.  The localprint server/disk server is on the wired network, so everyone can use
it.  Folks on the wired network can access services running on wiredmachines.I've set one up like this:++  +--+    +---+  +--+| router |---| FW |-| linksys |---| ethernet switch |
++  +--+    +---+  +--+   Internet    LANMy router & firewall had 192.168.1.1 and .2The LAN was 
10.0.0.xThe firewall did NAT.   It also served to the LAN:DHCP to the linksys & everything on that sideThe linksys did not do DHCP.I did not use the 5th port on the linksys.  If I did, I think I chaged it so it was on the same lan as the other 4.  The linksys was a 
v2.2 wrt54g

Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers

[Michael ODonnell]

> I will probably get around to playing with this on one of my
> personal V4 WRT54GSs, but I'm disinclined to give one of these
> to the company, given how hard it has been for me to find them.
> (I'd really like to own a V3, the last max memory model, but I
> haven't seen one.)

I'm interested to hear that you wish you could own a V3 because
when I look at the charts shown here:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRT54G

...I don't see important differences between the V3 and V4.
Are the charts misleading?
 
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers

[Lloyd Kvam]

On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 12:09 -0400, Bill Freeman wrote:
> Where I'm working we have a Netgear router attached to the DSL modem,
> to which all the wired users are connected, with NAT and DHCP serving
> up 192.168.0.xxx addresses.
> 
> One of the things wired to the Netgear is the "internet" port of a
> Linksys wireless-G router (probably too new to install Linux on it),
> which serves up a wireless network on 192.168.1.xxx.
> 
> This works pretty well.  Everyone can get to the internet.  The local
> print server/disk server is on the wired network, so everyone can use
> it.  Folks on the wired network can access services running on wired
> machines.
> 
> But, of course, folks on the wired network can't access services on
> machines connected to the Linksys (even using a wired connection to
> it).  The trouble is that we would like to offer the latest development
> version of our web app running on our wireless development machines to
> the marketing folks on the wired network.
> 
> Sure, it's easy to configure a particular port accessed at the "internet"
> port of the Linksys to go to a specific machine on the wireless network,
> but we would like to have multiple marketing folks able to access multiple
> developer's machine's servers.  And we don't want to re-configure the
> router everytime we want to change who serves what.  And spur of the
> moment instigation of an ssh session from a marketing machine to a specific
> developer machine is desired.
> 
> I think that what I need to do is disable NAT and firewall on the Linksys.
> (We would still be protected from the internet by the firewall in the
> Netgear.)  If that's possible.  

Sounds good to me.

> Then would I be able to configure the
> Netgear's DHCP server to tell the wired folks to route to 192.168.1 via
> the IP that the Linksys has on the 192.168.0 network?  Or woould it be
> possible to hide the static route from 192.168.0 to 192.168.1 entirely
> in the Netgear's internal routing rules?  

I would expect this to work.  The netgear router is the default for
everyone in 192.168.0.0/24.  The netgear knows to reach 192.168.1.0/24
via 192.168.0.xxx - the linksys ip address on the 192.168.0.0 sub net
from the internal entry.

I lent out my linksys router, so I can not test this - I do not have a
production system at risk here so I could test with impunity.

Presumably you are controlling the DHCP assignments so that your Name
Server knows how to resolve names to numbers and DNS is not tied into
those routers.

> (The wireless folks already
> go to the Linksys for routing to 192.168.0, since it's not within their
> local network's netmask.)  Or am I likely to have to hand configure all
> the wired guys with a static route to 192.168.1?
> 
> Or I guess I might be able to connect the routers via downstream ports on
> both, using a cross over cable.  Then I either need to disable DHCP on
> the Linksys (that I'm sure that I can do), or arrange for both DHCP servers
> to specify a 255.255.254.0 netmask, and the Netgear as the router to the
> internet.  (I'd actually like to keep the wireless guys with 192.168.1
> addresses and the wired guys with 192.168.0 addesses, but this is a much
> softer requirement.)
> 
> I'd appreciate comments and (some of the) suggestions.
> 
> Bill
> 
> ___
> gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
-- 
Lloyd Kvam
Venix Corp.
1 Court Street, Suite 378
Lebanon, NH 03766-1358

voice:  603-653-8139
fax:320-210-3409

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers

[Python]

On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 12:09 -0400, Bill Freeman wrote:
> Where I'm working we have a Netgear router attached to the DSL modem,
> to which all the wired users are connected, with NAT and DHCP serving
> up 192.168.0.xxx addresses.
> 
> One of the things wired to the Netgear is the "internet" port of a
> Linksys wireless-G router (probably too new to install Linux on it),
> which serves up a wireless network on 192.168.1.xxx.
> 
> This works pretty well.  Everyone can get to the internet.  The local
> print server/disk server is on the wired network, so everyone can use
> it.  Folks on the wired network can access services running on wired
> machines.
> 
> But, of course, folks on the wired network can't access services on
> machines connected to the Linksys (even using a wired connection to
> it).  The trouble is that we would like to offer the latest development
> version of our web app running on our wireless development machines to
> the marketing folks on the wired network.
> 
> Sure, it's easy to configure a particular port accessed at the "internet"
> port of the Linksys to go to a specific machine on the wireless network,
> but we would like to have multiple marketing folks able to access multiple
> developer's machine's servers.  And we don't want to re-configure the
> router everytime we want to change who serves what.  And spur of the
> moment instigation of an ssh session from a marketing machine to a specific
> developer machine is desired.
> 
> I think that what I need to do is disable NAT and firewall on the Linksys.
> (We would still be protected from the internet by the firewall in the
> Netgear.)  If that's possible.  

Sounds good to me.

> Then would I be able to configure the
> Netgear's DHCP server to tell the wired folks to route to 192.168.1 via
> the IP that the Linksys has on the 192.168.0 network?  Or woould it be
> possible to hide the static route from 192.168.0 to 192.168.1 entirely
> in the Netgear's internal routing rules?  

I would expect this to work.  The netgear router is the default for
everyone in 192.168.0.0/24.  The netgear knows to reach 192.168.1.0/24
via 192.168.0.xxx - the linksys ip address on the 192.168.0.0 sub net
from the internal entry.

I lent out my linksys router, so I can not test this - I do not have a
production system at risk here so I could test with impunity.

Presumably you are controlling the DHCP assignments so that your Name
Server knows how to resolve names to numbers and DNS is not tied into
those routers.

> (The wireless folks already
> go to the Linksys for routing to 192.168.0, since it's not within their
> local network's netmask.)  Or am I likely to have to hand configure all
> the wired guys with a static route to 192.168.1?
> 
> Or I guess I might be able to connect the routers via downstream ports on
> both, using a cross over cable.  Then I either need to disable DHCP on
> the Linksys (that I'm sure that I can do), or arrange for both DHCP servers
> to specify a 255.255.254.0 netmask, and the Netgear as the router to the
> internet.  (I'd actually like to keep the wireless guys with 192.168.1
> addresses and the wired guys with 192.168.0 addesses, but this is a much
> softer requirement.)
> 
> I'd appreciate comments and (some of the) suggestions.
> 
> Bill
> 
> ___
> gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

-- 
Lloyd Kvam
Venix Corp

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers

[Travis Roy]

I'm interested to hear that you wish you could own a V3 becausewhen I look at the charts shown here:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRT54G...I don't see important differences between the V3 and V4.Are the charts misleading?
He's probably thinking of the WRT54GS, the memory amounts go down after that.

Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers

[Bill Freeman]

Lloyd Kvam offered opinions and advice, thanks.

> Presumably you are controlling the DHCP assignments so that your Name
> Server knows how to resolve names to numbers and DNS is not tied into
> those routers.

The name server here is "Hey, Jim, what's your IP address today", so
it won't have any trouble tracking the configuration.

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers

[Bill Freeman]

> 
> 
> > I will probably get around to playing with this on one of my
> > personal V4 WRT54GSs, but I'm disinclined to give one of these
> > to the company, given how hard it has been for me to find them.
> > (I'd really like to own a V3, the last max memory model, but I
> > haven't seen one.)
> 
> I'm interested to hear that you wish you could own a V3 because
> when I look at the charts shown here:
> 
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRT54G
> 
> ...I don't see important differences between the V3 and V4.
> Are the charts misleading?

The chart that I read showed the V4 to have half as much of each
kind of memory as the V3.  No other important differences.  Or
my memory (in my head) may be failing if you have to go back
further to get a full memory WRT54G.

Bill


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers

[John Abreau]

Bill Freeman wrote:

> 
> The chart that I read showed the V4 to have half as much of each
> kind of memory as the V3.  No other important differences.  Or
> my memory (in my head) may be failing if you have to go back
> further to get a full memory WRT54G.
> 

Where did you find that chart? The one I looked at a few months ago
showed V5 having half the memory of V4, and V4 having the same as
V3 and earlier.

-- 
John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix
ICQ 28611923 / AIM abreauj / JABBER [EMAIL PROTECTED] / YAHOO abreauj
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9
PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers

[Jeff Kinz]

On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:03:00PM -0400, John Abreau wrote:
> Bill Freeman wrote:
> > The chart that I read showed the V4 to have half as much of each
> > kind of memory as the V3.  No other important differences.  Or
> > my memory (in my head) may be failing if you have to go back
> > further to get a full memory WRT54G.
> 
> Where did you find that chart? The one I looked at a few months ago
> showed V5 having half the memory of V4, and V4 having the same as
> V3 and earlier.

John, I saw the same chart you did.  I think Bill did too, but he must
have used 'C' at some point in the past and mentally translated it to
 0 thru 4, rather than 1 thru 5.  :)


-- 
Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA.
Speech Recognition Technology was used to create this e-mail

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Linux on old laptop - still trying...

[Jon maddog Hall]

Peg,

[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> As a side note...  I have been a little surprised at how much disk and
> memory I need for a reasonable flavor of Linux...  For some reason,
> I'd always thought I'd easily find an interesting Linux that would do as
> much, without requiring so much effort to get it up-and-running.

Ah, you have run into the issue of "Linux is not Linux", or "What 'Linux'
are you talking about?"  Also, what is your definition of "reasonable"?  And
where do you err in the sense of making it easy to install for 95% of the
people who are installing it on new (2.6 GHz, 128MB, 40GB Disk) systems vs
people installing it on smaller, older (and even non-Pentium) systems?  Do you
need BOTH emacs and vim, or would just vim do?

A lot of people think of "Linux" as an amorphous blob, and do not think about
the fact that various packages are put together various ways with
different target markets.  We call these packages "distributions".

The contents of these "distributions" (Red Hat, SuSE, etc.) might even have
a conflicting set of libraries, making it impossible for a binary created on
Red Hat to run on SuSE, and vice versa.  Or a distribution might leave out
a critical library that was used to build the application on another
distribution.  We have the Linux Standard Base of the Free Standards Group
to help us work this issue out.

The major distributions (including Ubuntu) allow you to install to "modern"
systems fairly easily.  You will be able to install Ubuntu using a "text" or
"server" based install but also by choosing the packages carefully.

On the other hand, you could use a distribution of Linux made for "small
machines" (such as DSL), which supply a smaller subset of packages, or tailor
your installation by using a distribution like Gentoo or "Linux From Scratch".
Someone less technically savvy than you (or with less curiosity or patience)
could pay someone to install a "reasonable" copy of Linux to their laptop, then
make a backup of that for future use.

Finally:

> Before this exercise began, the old laptop ran Windows-98, giving me email,
> a web browser, an old version of MS-Word, and even a few games for the kids..

I have a very nice copy of Red Hat Linux 5.2 (cira 1995) that might
go on your machine without a whimper.  But the hardware probing of Linux was
not as good as it is right now, so you might have to give it some "hints".

On the other hand, you could try installing the latest version of VISTA
from Microsoft and see how well it fits.

Operating systems move on to fit the "average" system of the day.  At least
with "Linux" you have alternatives for those older, smaller machines.

Warmest regards,

maddog

P.S.  I appreciate your tenacity.
-- 
Jon "maddog" Hall
Executive Director   Linux International(R)
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. 
Voice: +1.603.672.4557   Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A.
WWW: http://www.li.org

Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association

(R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries.
(R)Linux International is a registered trademark in the USA used pursuant
   to a license from Linux Mark Institute, authorized licensor of Linus
   Torvalds, owner of the Linux trademark on a worldwide basis
(R)UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the USA and other
   countries.

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

UVCIA meeting on June 21 will feature FOSS

[Python]

Bill McGonigle is listed as leading the discussion.  Ted Roche will be
on the panel.

http://uvcia.org/
(The meeting has not yet made it to the web site.)

UVCIA is the Upper Valley Computer Industry Association.  It meets in
West Lebanon on a monthly schedule.  Breakfast is served.  They will
charge $45 for admission.

The announcement email is in a difficult HTML format.  I copied and
pasted from the email source and tried to clean it up a bit.



Free Open Source (FOSS): Are there options for your business?
How can the use of FOSS software supercharge your enterprise
Please join a panel of local Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) experts
for a discussion of what's new in the field. Each panelist will briefly
describe how he uses FOSS software to supercharge his enterprise. After
that, the panel will discuss a series of issues that are frequently
asked about Free/Open Source Software, and will help the audience
understand these questions:

* What is Free/Open Source Software?
* Why would I want to use Free/Open Source Software?
* How can I improve my profits by using Free/Open Source Software?
* What's changed in the past few years?

The panel will then switch to a Q&A session, answering questions and
engaging discussion with the audience members.

Moderator
Bill McGonigle
President
BFC Computing
www.bfccomputing.com

Panel

David Clifton
Systems Administrator
Fluent Inc
Lebanon, NH 03766
http://www.fluent.com

Scott Helper
Web Developer
Scott is a web developer using PHP
who also does systems administration
and security.


Jonathan Linowes
Principal
ParkerHill Technology
Lyman, NH
http://www.parkerhill.com

Ted Roche
Technical Lead
Ted Roche & Associates
Contoocook, NH
http://www.tedroche.com

Todd Underwood
Chief Operations and Security Officer
Renesys
Hanover, NH
http://www.renesys.com


DETAILS
Special Meeting: Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Time: 7:30am - 10:00am
Location: The Fireside Inn for directions check out
http://www.afiresideinn.com
Cost: $45 which includes breakfast
Check or Cash accepted at the door (no credit cards please - checks can
be made out to UVCIA)

Reservations can be made by e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reservations are much appreciated so that appropriate chairs, food and
beverage can be made available.

-- 
Lloyd Kvam
Venix Corp

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers

[Ben Scott]

On 6/7/06, Bill Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I think that what I need to do is disable NAT and firewall on the Linksys.


 Supposedly, this is possible with some LinkSys routers.  My WRT54G
v2 with LinkSys firmware 4.20.7 has it under Setup -> Advanced Routing
-> Operating Mode.  Setting that to "Router" (instead of "Gateway")
will disable NAT and have it act like an "ordinary" router.
Supposedly -- I've never tried this myself.


Then would I be able to configure the Netgear's DHCP server to tell the wired
folks to route to 192.168.1 via the IP that the Linksys has on the 192.168.0
network?  Or woould it be possible to hide the static route from 192.168.0 to
192.168.1 entirely in the Netgear's internal routing rules?


 That would all depend on the Netgear.  It will have to support
manually-defined static routes, and be able to handle forwarding
packets back out the interface they came in on.  The Netgear's IP
stack may generate lots of ICMP redirect messages in this case, too.
It sees packets going out the same way they came in, and properly
tries to sell the sending host there's a better way.

 It would be more efficient, from IP's point of view, to just define
static routes on the clients.  It's a bigger administrative headache,
of course.  You can supposedly hand out static routes via DHCP,
although I've never tried it.


Or I guess I might be able to connect the routers via downstream ports on
both, using a cross over cable.  Then I either need to disable DHCP on
the Linksys (that I'm sure that I can do) ...


 This is what I would usually recommend, instead of the routed
configuration described above.  Just bridge everything together, using
only the WAP parts of the LinkSys, and ignoring the router parts.  Or,
perhaps better still, replace the Netgear router+switch unit with the
all-in-one LinkSys router+WAP+switch unit.

-- Ben
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

[JOBS] Open Source Open Standards

[Greg Rundlett]

Open and freely available technology standards are a good thing.  They 
are especially important to developers of free software.  Open standards 
create wider interoperability and 'freedom' that free software 
developers like.  Free and open standards are critically linked to free 
and open technology.  [See 
http://consortiuminfo.org/bulletins/may06.php#feature 
 for a recent 
article on this]


About 10 years ago, the HTML 2 markup standard was approved by the W3C.  
As we all know, HTML as a standard data format has allowed people across 
the globe to author billions of documents that can be parsed, indexed, 
searched, retrieved and read with all kinds of software.   (Do you 
Google?)  Just this month the International Standards Organization (ISO) 
approved the Open Document Format (ODF) as a standard for office file 
formats.  The ISO approval reinforces the already approved ODF standard 
formed by OASIS[1] member companies.  The open source project 'Open 
Office' implements the ODF file format.  For developers on the Open 
Office project, the ISO approval means easier adoption of their hard 
work by national governments that may require such approved status as a 
condition for technology policymaking.


Prediction: In much less than a decade, ODF is going to have an even 
greater positive impact on the information society compared with the way 
that HTML has over the past 10 years.  For starters, ODF opens 
'authorship' to anyone who knows how to use a computer/word processor 
whereas only a small fraction of 'authors' know how to generate HTML 
documents.  Suddenly the barrier to authoring just got a lot lower.  Of 
course today there are so many more people connected to the Internet.  I 
could go on with this discussion, but the point is that really 
groundbreaking positive work is being done by OASIS and other standards 
bodies that helps to shape the technical age that we live in.


Want to work on combining open standards and open software?  If you 
would like to use your skills as an Open Source developer and/or system 
administrator, OASIS is looking for you.  We have an infrastructure that 
runs on LAMP with Debian GNU-Linux.  We use open source development 
methodologies and tools such as IM, IRC, wikis, SVN and mailing lists.  
We run Content Management and other applications on top of Zope, Python, 
PHP and Perl.  We use MySQL and Apache.  All in support of the formation 
of some of the most important standards affecting the Internet and 
technology today.


http://www.oasis-open.org/jobs/sr-webdeveloper.php 
 (the sysadm 
position is not posted yet)
Candidates who can work onsite will be considered preferentially but all 
interested are encouraged to apply.
If you have considerable talent and would like to put it to good use, 
then please contact greg.rundlett AT oasis-open DOT org.


[1] Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards 
http://www.oasis-open.org 


___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: [JOBS] Open Source Open Standards

[Greg Rundlett]

btw, i know there is a jobs list, but i've posted it there twice, and somehow my message got the wrong encoding or content type, and ended up as a bunch of unreadable characters.  As a last ditch effor to get the word out, I used a different client and sent to the discuss list -- using the obvious subject token.