On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:48 PM, irlandes <[email protected]>wrote:
> Sorry, but it looks like they need to try an older version of Puppy for > that minimal machine. Ubuntu was never designed for ultra-minimal > machines. Puppy was. Sorry to bring up a competitive distro, but the > truth is always best. > > Hi, Sorry, I couldn't resist. It is obvious that you did 'not' read my previous reply - https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-quality/2014-January/004804.html Kindly have a look at this: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1590614and http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1590614&page=16 Before making such statement ;) And yes, that was me who did that experiment so I am 1000% sure of what I am stating here :) I have seen a 265MB Laptop a month ago or so. Unfortunately, I had to use SliTaz because that machine had some complications and I couldn't install Ubuntu based system: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2193076 However, I am now working with good friend of mine on a system that is based on Ubuntu and will be even lighter than Lubuntu. Very light and very minimal and basic. We haven't yet chosen a name but hopefully soon, we will :) http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2130718 - the current name is taken so we can't use it. Not to mention the legal stuff :) BUT: While you can 'still' install Ubuntu based system on very low hardware machines, with 128MB, NO matter what system you use, with heavy websites like Facebook, YouTube and/or Gmail, your chances are very low. As pointed out, with 128MB, you can use CLI :) Thank you! -- Remember: "All of us are smarter than any one of us." Best Regards, amjjawad <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/amjjawad> Areas of Involvement <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/amjjawad/AreasOfInvolvement> My Projects <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/amjjawad/Projects>
-- Ubuntu-quality mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
