On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 12:22:28PM -0400, mark wrote: > Well, I just read about RH "opening up the development process" to > outsiders, over on ZDNet. *Then* I read the "system requirements" for 10: > 200MHz for *non-graphical*, 400MHz for graphical...*minimum*.
Which puts it in the range of 4-5 year old hardware, and closer to 7 years old for text mode. Let's get real - you're simply not going to get leading edge features on ancient hardware. I picked up a Athlon XP 2000+ earlier this year for under $400, and they're even cheaper now. > Does RedHat think they're the next M$? As you may have *read* from the article, you'll quickly see that Red Hat doesn't develop the vast majority of the software it distributes. How you can think that Red Hat is anything like Microsoft is beyond me. Now, I suspect that Red Hat wants $40B in the bank :-). Do you honestly expect Red Hat to take the code from unknown developers and optimize the heck out of it to run on old hardware? And then distribute that for free? Reality check time... > Now, up until a month or so ago, I was running 7.3 w/ KDE, w/ kernel & lib > updates, etc. 7.3 came out, what, a year and a half ago?...and I'm running > an AMD K-6 233 (ok, mine's "overclocked" to 250 <g>, for the SDRAM...). > No problem. I put IceWM in place of KDE, and it runs like a champ. > > Now I've just upgraded to 9, same deal (though the once or twice I tried > KDE, it ran slower than Lose95 on a '486). Non-graphical is jes' fine. Then run non-graphical. I don't run a GUI on my 128MB K6-2/350 at all, nor do I expect to on my XP 2000+ even though it's got about 352MB memory. > To me, one of my arguments is that you don't *have* to upgrade your hardware > until it physically gives up the ghost. It's M$ that makes you have to > upgrade hardware, every time you get a new release. You have that wrong. It's *YOU* that demands the new features. I'm still running Windows ME on my P233 laptop with 64MB. Nobody's forcing me to run the latest software or upgrade the hardware. It does the job I wanted to do when I bought it, and it's still more than capable of doing that job. If you don't need the new release, then don't upgrade. Sometimes you have to tell the difference between "need" and "want". > Especially in the > middle of the most major recessino since the Depression, when companies are > running tight, and home users are strapped for cash, most can't afford to > buy new hardware. Then don't. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade. > And RedHat's answer is...? Run Enterprise Linux. It's based on rock solid, proven code with a lighter footprint than the latest and greatest bleeding edge stuff. Solid, secure, and maintained. If you don't want the latest features, then it does the job. If you are demanding the latest features, then you should have to expect to upgrade. You can't drive 80 miles per in your model T no matter how much tweaking or optimization you do. -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
