From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

Have a rather old Acer 57xx series i3 based
laptop. Belonged to my late brother - Vista
originally. Bought it for him.

REAL HDD, xVGA plug, one USB3, physical
wired network jack and built-in DVD.
Kinda big and heavy ... but as an old fart
it's easier to read the bigger screen.
Touch-pad IS kinda too small alas.

DID just order a new power supply - have NO
idea where the original is.

Booted - it wasn't Vista anymore but MX
"Liberetto".

Anyway, got a new power supply. The battery
is FRIED, but one is on order. Note it's
EASY to replace, NOT like in more modern
units.

Did the full disto update on Liberetto, so
the unit is pretty good now.

Short future, a Samsung 8xx series replacement
'HDD'. Not TOO expensive and ought to speed it
all up by 30-50%. Fun with 'DD' !

ANYway ... as old as this laptop is, with
a small/mid Linux it can STILL serve very
well. Don't be TOO eager to put hardware
into The Bin. The Problem is less often
the hardware and MORE with ultra-bloated
modern systems.

Hmm ... VirtualBox IS on it ... an XP VM
maybe, just for old times sake ? :-)


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2025-08-20 08:12, c186282 wrote:

Have a rather old Acer 57xx series i3 based
laptop. Belonged to my late brother - Vista
originally. Bought it for him.

REAL HDD, xVGA plug, one USB3, physical
wired network jack and built-in DVD.
Kinda big and heavy ... but as an old fart
it's easier to read the bigger screen.
Touch-pad IS kinda too small alas.

USB3 is not that old.

The spec is from 2008, but it appeared in the market in 2010 (says
chatgpt). Ok, a decade. Older than I thought. Time flies.

DID just order a new power supply - have NO
idea where the original is.

Booted - it wasn't Vista anymore but MX
"Liberetto".

Anyway, got a new power supply. The battery
is FRIED, but one is on order. Note it's
EASY to replace, NOT like in more modern
units.

Did the full disto update on Liberetto, so
the unit is pretty good now.

Short future, a Samsung 8xx series replacement
'HDD'. Not TOO expensive and ought to speed it
all up by 30-50%. Fun with 'DD' !

ANYway ... as old as this laptop is, with
a small/mid Linux it can STILL serve very
well. Don't be TOO eager to put hardware
into The Bin. The Problem is less often
the hardware and MORE with ultra-bloated
modern systems.

Not enough RAM kills usability of old systems.

Hmm ... VirtualBox IS on it ... an XP VM
maybe, just for old times sake ?  :-)

--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 20.08.2025 12:38 Carlos E.R. wrote:

Not enough RAM kills usability of old systems.

Not enough CPU power too.

Most current website are overloaded with crap and are rendered very
slowly on old machines.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 20/08/2025 12:30, Marco Moock wrote:

On 20.08.2025 12:38 Carlos E.R. wrote:

Not enough RAM kills usability of old systems.

Not enough CPU power too.

Most current website are overloaded with crap and are rendered very
slowly on old machines.

Yes. and crap MIPS per Watt.

However that is not an excuse to go out and waste money of bleeding edge
shit, unless you are A Gamer™

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...
--
“when things get difficult you just have to lie”

― Jean Claud Jüncker

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2025-08-20 13:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/08/2025 12:30, Marco Moock wrote:

On 20.08.2025 12:38 Carlos E.R. wrote:

Not enough RAM kills usability of old systems.

Not enough CPU power too.

Most current website are overloaded with crap and are rendered very
slowly on old machines.

Yes. and crap MIPS per Watt.

However that is not an excuse to go out and waste money of bleeding edge shit, unless you are  A Gamer™

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

My previous desktop computer was killed for:

* Nvidia refused to upgrade the proprietary driver for that card, so eventually had to switch to Nouveau

* VMware refused to run unless certain CPU instructions for
virtualisation existed. Virtualbox continued to run, but migration of
machines failed for me.

* Motherboard was maxed with 8 GiB, would not accept more.

* Swaping on rotating rust started sucking after some kernel/libc
update, because of fragmentation causing the disk heads to do a lot of seeking. The cure was switching to SSD.

My previous laptop had more issues:

* 4 GiB

* Slow CPU, fanless

* Too small display.


So I bit the bullet and purchased a desktop machine with 64 GiB and a
laptop with 32. I expect them to last 10 or 15 years.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 20/08/2025 12:52, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-08-20 13:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/08/2025 12:30, Marco Moock wrote:

On 20.08.2025 12:38 Carlos E.R. wrote:

Not enough RAM kills usability of old systems.

Not enough CPU power too.

Most current website are overloaded with crap and are rendered very
slowly on old machines.

Yes. and crap MIPS per Watt.

However that is not an excuse to go out and waste money of bleeding
edge shit, unless you are  A Gamer™

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

My previous desktop computer was killed for:

 * Nvidia refused to upgrade the proprietary driver for that card, so eventually had to switch to Nouveau

 * VMware refused to run unless certain CPU instructions for virtualisation existed. Virtualbox continued to run, but migration of machines failed for me.

 * Motherboard was maxed with 8 GiB, would not accept more.

 * Swaping on rotating rust started sucking after some kernel/libc
update, because of fragmentation causing the disk heads to do a lot of seeking. The cure was switching to SSD.

My previous laptop had more issues:

 * 4 GiB

 * Slow CPU, fanless

 * Too small display.

So I bit the bullet and purchased a desktop machine with 64 GiB and a
laptop with 32. I expect them to last 10 or 15 years.

Looking back at my desktops they generally last 5-10 years after I buy
them - usually secondhand.

This one is a 2015 model - It has at least 5 years more in it. It may
outlast me

Laptops are more frail and get harder treatment
--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Laptops are more frail and get harder treatment

Depends on which model you look at. I exclusively use secondhand
Thinkpads and there still is no single one that failed in any way. I
just bought an X280 (12') model from 2018 to use at work and expect that
it will at least work until I am retired in 4 years time. An
acquaintance of mine uses a 20+ year old Thinkpad as a kind of server
with iirc Damn Small Linux or something similar. Most "consumer level" notebooks otoh are imho not to be trusted. :)

-jw-
--
And now for something completely different...
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2025-08-20, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

ANYway ... as old as this laptop is, with
a small/mid Linux it can STILL serve very
well. Don't be TOO eager to put hardware
into The Bin. The Problem is less often
the hardware and MORE with ultra-bloated
modern systems.

Hear, hear.

Hmm ... VirtualBox IS on it ... an XP VM
maybe, just for old times sake ? :-)

Go for it. I'm running an XP VM on the Lenovo T410 I'm
typing this on. Although I develop Windows programs,
they're all back-end stuff - lots of TCP/IP, not much
GUI stuff. XP is still enough, and avoids all the
bloat and hassle of newer versions of Windows.
I give it 512MB of memory and 16GB of disk - it runs
just fine, and leaves plenty for the Linux side.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2025-08-20 15:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/08/2025 12:52, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-08-20 13:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/08/2025 12:30, Marco Moock wrote:

On 20.08.2025 12:38 Carlos E.R. wrote:

Not enough RAM kills usability of old systems.

Not enough CPU power too.

Most current website are overloaded with crap and are rendered very
slowly on old machines.

Yes. and crap MIPS per Watt.

However that is not an excuse to go out and waste money of bleeding
edge shit, unless you are  A Gamer™

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

My previous desktop computer was killed for:

  * Nvidia refused to upgrade the proprietary driver for that card, so
eventually had to switch to Nouveau

  * VMware refused to run unless certain CPU instructions for
virtualisation existed. Virtualbox continued to run, but migration of
machines failed for me.

  * Motherboard was maxed with 8 GiB, would not accept more.

  * Swaping on rotating rust started sucking after some kernel/libc
update, because of fragmentation causing the disk heads to do a lot of
seeking. The cure was switching to SSD.

My previous laptop had more issues:

  * 4 GiB

  * Slow CPU, fanless

  * Too small display.


So I bit the bullet and purchased a desktop machine with 64 GiB and a
laptop with 32. I expect them to last 10 or 15 years.

Looking back at my desktops they generally last 5-10 years after I buy
them - usually secondhand.

Mine last about 10 years in use. I try to, at least. I haven't done an
actual log.

This one is a 2015 model - It has at least 5 years more in it. It may outlast me

Laptops are more frail and get harder treatment

I handle my laptops very carefully, like eggs ;-)

My first laptop, purchased maybe 2009, died recently. The backlight
failed. So, not my handling. It was a heavy unit, the battery was exchangeable, with a click. Had a DVD drive. R/W? I don't remember.

The second one was very light, I bought it for travelling. It still
works, but the display is too small, and it is too slow. I use it for
watching movies, connecting the HDMI port directly to the sitting room display. It can not handle 4K movies, though. Not enough power for "real
time" conversion by VLC.

The third one has ample power and memory. I would have liked it bigger,
but I bought it also for travel. 315 mm wide screen.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 17:21:38 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

Although I develop Windows programs, they're all back-end stuff - lots
of TCP/IP, not much GUI stuff.

Why not just run all that on Linux, with its much more advanced
development environment, and get rid of Windows completely?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 8/21/25 2:51 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 17:21:38 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

Although I develop Windows programs, they're all back-end stuff - lots
of TCP/IP, not much GUI stuff.

Why not just run all that on Linux, with its much more advanced
development environment, and get rid of Windows completely?

Some shops/offices are just (mistakenly) dedicated
to Winders stuff. The bosses don't want to seem
"abnormal", WILL stick to the conventional 'standard'
no matter what so they can't be criticized.

Been there ... retired.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 20/08/2025 22:54, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me.

Indeed. But I need more than just that,
--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 21/08/2025 08:15, c186282 wrote:

On 8/21/25 2:51 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 17:21:38 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

Although I develop Windows programs, they're all back-end stuff - lots
of TCP/IP, not much GUI stuff.

Why not just run all that on Linux, with its much more advanced
development environment, and get rid of Windows completely?

  Some shops/offices are just (mistakenly) dedicated
  to Winders stuff. The bosses don't want to seem
  "abnormal", WILL stick to the conventional 'standard'
  no matter what so they can't be criticized.

All the staff are trained on it. All the specialised apps are written
for it.

It's what the service companies are prepared to support.

You don't like it, neither do I. But it is what it is

  Been there ... retired.

--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2025-08-20, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2025-08-20, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

[...]

Hmm ... VirtualBox IS on it ... an XP VM
maybe, just for old times sake ? :-)

Go for it. I'm running an XP VM on the Lenovo T410 I'm
typing this on. Although I develop Windows programs,
they're all back-end stuff - lots of TCP/IP, not much
GUI stuff. XP is still enough, and avoids all the
bloat and hassle of newer versions of Windows.
I give it 512MB of memory and 16GB of disk - it runs
just fine, and leaves plenty for the Linux side.

What build tools do you use in that setup?
--
Nuno Silva
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me.

How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network
protocols?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2025-08-21, Marco Moock wrote:

On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me.

How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network protocols?

You... install it? I guess not all OSes require bleeding edge hardware
to run the setup?
--
Nuno Silva
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 21/08/2025 10:51, Marco Moock wrote:

On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me.

How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network protocols?

Find an older version of some current Linux that supports 32bit I guess.

TCP/IP and Usenet haven't changed in 30 years really...
--
The higher up the mountainside
The greener grows the grass.
The higher up the monkey climbs
The more he shows his arse.

Traditional

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 21/08/2025 11:31, Nuno Silva wrote:

On 2025-08-21, Marco Moock wrote:

On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me.

How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network
protocols?

You... install it? I guess not all OSes require bleeding edge hardware
to run the setup?

A bleeding edge 1995 PC would be what? Early Pentium?

Moderately OK and better than a 486 .
32 bit *only* of course.

Unlikely to be able to deal with more than 4GB RAM

Probably fine if you are not running a GUI and possibly good enough if
you are.
--
The higher up the mountainside
The greener grows the grass.
The higher up the monkey climbs
The more he shows his arse.

Traditional

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2025-08-21 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/08/2025 11:31, Nuno Silva wrote:

On 2025-08-21, Marco Moock wrote:

On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me.

How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network
protocols?

You... install it? I guess not all OSes require bleeding edge hardware
to run the setup?

A bleeding edge 1995 PC would be what?  Early Pentium?

Moderately OK  and better than a 486 .
32 bit *only* of course.

Unlikely to be able to deal with more than 4GB RAM

Heh, maybe 16 megs.

Probably fine if you are not running a GUI and possibly good enough if
you are.

Windows 3.11, Win 95, as long as it did not crash. Linux was considered
an experiment.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 21/08/2025 12:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-08-21 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/08/2025 11:31, Nuno Silva wrote:

On 2025-08-21, Marco Moock wrote:

On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me.

How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network
protocols?

You... install it? I guess not all OSes require bleeding edge hardware
to run the setup?

A bleeding edge 1995 PC would be what?  Early Pentium?

Moderately OK  and better than a 486 .
32 bit *only* of course.

Unlikely to be able to deal with more than 4GB RAM

Heh, maybe 16 megs.

No GUI on that then...

Will the 32 bit kernel run in that?

My smallest 32 bit PI footprint is 32MByte

Oh. You are pessimistic. Very few boards supported less than 64Mbyte

Probably fine if you are not running a GUI and possibly good enough if
you are.

Windows 3.11, Win 95, as long as it did not crash. Linux was considered
an experiment.

Yes.
I remember staff running Linux back in the 90s. Stable at the command
line and server level, but no X windows
--
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.”

Thomas Sowell

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/08/2025 12:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-08-21 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

[...]

A bleeding edge 1995 PC would be what?  Early Pentium?

Moderately OK  and better than a 486 .
32 bit *only* of course.

Unlikely to be able to deal with more than 4GB RAM

Heh, maybe 16 megs.

No GUI on that then...

Maybe not with Linux, but a UNIX system of suitable vintage could.

My first PC (1994) was a Dell 486 with 16 MB. I installed UnixWare 1
on it (later updated to 2). X11 worked fine with either 1024x768
monochrome or 800x600 256 colours. Window manager was ctwm (a
modified twm with support for workspaces).
--
Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 21/08/2025 13:44, Geoff Clare wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/08/2025 12:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-08-21 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

[...]

A bleeding edge 1995 PC would be what?  Early Pentium?

Moderately OK  and better than a 486 .
32 bit *only* of course.

Unlikely to be able to deal with more than 4GB RAM

Heh, maybe 16 megs.

No GUI on that then...

Maybe not with Linux, but a UNIX system of suitable vintage could.

Oh yes. I remember bringing up X windows on a 386 with 4MB.
Interactive Unix IIRC.

Not really practical

My first PC (1994) was a Dell 486 with 16 MB. I installed UnixWare 1
on it (later updated to 2). X11 worked fine with either 1024x768
monochrome or 800x600 256 colours. Window manager was ctwm (a
modified twm with support for workspaces).

My first PC was an NEC V20 clone with a 20MB hard drive running IIRC Dos 2.2
--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 11:37:20 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/08/2025 10:51, Marco Moock wrote:

On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me.

How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network
protocols?

Find an older version of some current Linux that supports 32bit I guess.

TCP/IP and Usenet haven't changed in 30 years really...

That windows is closing. My work Linux box is 32-bit Debian because I have
to build 32-bit legacy software. To clarify, the hardware is 64-bit so it could run the 64-bit Bullseye distro, and gcc has flags to build 32-bit.
The problem comes with libraries.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2025-08-21, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-08-20, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2025-08-20, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

[...]

Hmm ... VirtualBox IS on it ... an XP VM
maybe, just for old times sake ? :-)

Go for it. I'm running an XP VM on the Lenovo T410 I'm
typing this on. Although I develop Windows programs,
they're all back-end stuff - lots of TCP/IP, not much
GUI stuff. XP is still enough, and avoids all the
bloat and hassle of newer versions of Windows.
I give it 512MB of memory and 16GB of disk - it runs
just fine, and leaves plenty for the Linux side.

What build tools do you use in that setup?

Borland C++ Builder 5 - although I did manage to get
MinGW working so I could build OpenSSL 3.x.

I'm not an IDE person - I first use vi[m] to maintain the
source code on the Linux side and build Linux binaries,
then ship it over to the Windows VM and build Windows
versions. I have makefiles for all versions, including
the original MS-DOS and Win16 versions (much of which
won't compile anymore, but that's no big loss).

IMHO Windows' usability peaked somewhere between 2000 and XP
and has been going downhill ever since. Fortunately, I can
still be productive on XP.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2025-08-21 14:44, Geoff Clare wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/08/2025 12:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-08-21 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

[...]

A bleeding edge 1995 PC would be what?  Early Pentium?

Moderately OK  and better than a 486 .
32 bit *only* of course.

Unlikely to be able to deal with more than 4GB RAM

Heh, maybe 16 megs.

No GUI on that then...

Maybe not with Linux, but a UNIX system of suitable vintage could.

Windows 3 was a GUI, and it certainly worked in that.

My first PC (1994) was a Dell 486 with 16 MB. I installed UnixWare 1
on it (later updated to 2). X11 worked fine with either 1024x768
monochrome or 800x600 256 colours. Window manager was ctwm (a
modified twm with support for workspaces).

--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 21:30:51 +0200
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

Heh, maybe 16 megs.

No GUI on that then...

Maybe not with Linux, but a UNIX system of suitable vintage could.

Windows 3 was a GUI, and it certainly worked in that.

There seems to be a peculiar notion that GUIs *have* to be insanely
bloated, glitzy, over-featured monstrosities that chew up a couple gigs
all by themselves. Windows 3.x or Mac System 7 would run perfectly well
in 4 MB, and with 8 MB had room to spare. Heck, even older vintages of
X11 (nobody's idea of a lightweight GUI) will run usably in a 16-32 MB.

But hey! It's certainly a convenient line of reasoning for modern GUI developers who *do* chew up more memory just to run a display server/
window manager than you'd find in a whole entire PC twenty years ago!

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2025-08-21 22:05, John Ames wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 21:30:51 +0200
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

Heh, maybe 16 megs.

No GUI on that then...

Maybe not with Linux, but a UNIX system of suitable vintage could.

Windows 3 was a GUI, and it certainly worked in that.

There seems to be a peculiar notion that GUIs *have* to be insanely
bloated, glitzy, over-featured monstrosities that chew up a couple gigs
all by themselves. Windows 3.x or Mac System 7 would run perfectly well
in 4 MB, and with 8 MB had room to spare. Heck, even older vintages of
X11 (nobody's idea of a lightweight GUI) will run usably in a 16-32 MB.

But hey! It's certainly a convenient line of reasoning for modern GUI developers who *do* chew up more memory just to run a display server/
window manager than you'd find in a whole entire PC twenty years ago!

GEM. It worked on my first PC (Amstrad PC) with 512 MiB. Ok, it was
useful for nothing, but it did run :-D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEM_(desktop_environment)
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 21/08/2025 10:51, Marco Moock wrote:

On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me.

How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network
protocols?

Find an older version of some current Linux that supports 32bit I guess.

It's trickier to find one that builds the kernel and packages for
i586 still. It runs modern Linux distros which still do, including
(Tiny)X Windows and lightweight software (which I prefer on newer
systems anyway).

But newer software is slower and uses more RAM for little benefit,
so using an old distro works better for many things. Hence Debian
v3 and kernel 2.4 running now.

TCP/IP and Usenet haven't changed in 30 years really...

True, though I have recently upgraded Tin on all my PCs after about
a decade with v2.0.1 since on my newer laptop running Debian stable
I noticed its newer Tin downloaded much less header/overview data
when entering large newsgroups (even without the new NNTP
compression feature, which the server I use doesn't support). I
also noticed some new bugs though, which the author quickly fixed,
while suggesting I try the overview caching feature which far
reduced data use again (after one _huge_ initial download of old
overview data for each group).

So actually from a technical POV Usenet access has changed a lot
lately on my end, and I can now use NNTP compression when
available (with Gmane), but it still works fine on a 30 year old
PC.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-08-21 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/08/2025 11:31, Nuno Silva wrote:

On 2025-08-21, Marco Moock wrote:

On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me.

How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network
protocols?

You... install it? I guess not all OSes require bleeding edge hardware
to run the setup?

A bleeding edge 1995 PC would be what? Early Pentium?

Moderately OK and better than a 486 .
32 bit *only* of course.

Unlikely to be able to deal with more than 4GB RAM

Heh, maybe 16 megs.

80MB actually, maxed out. Other Pentium 1 motherboards could take
much more, but only 24MB used now with a few windows open in X...

Probably fine if you are not running a GUI and possibly good enough if
you are.

Windows 3.11, Win 95, as long as it did not crash. Linux was considered
an experiment.

Win98 is installed too and runs well enough. Modern Linux in 80MB
RAM is probably an experiment from the Linux kernel dev's POV
today, but it was certainly meant to work properly in the past.

BasicLinux (based on Slackware 4) runs X on a PC with 16MB RAM: http://distro.ibiblio.org/baslinux/

Probably not possible to run X in 16MB RAM with current Linux
though. Even with a fully stripped-down custom kernel build, modern
Linux takes up way more RAM than it did back then.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

That windows is closing. My work Linux box is 32-bit Debian because I have to build 32-bit legacy software. To clarify, the hardware is 64-bit so it could run the 64-bit Bullseye distro, and gcc has flags to build 32-bit.
The problem comes with libraries.

FWIW my newer laptop runs 64-bit Devuan but with 32bit x86
multiarch so 32bit libraries are installed too and can be used to
build/run 32bit x86 software. So it runs a 64bit kernel and mostly
64bit software.

Still there can be quirks, so there's a good argument for just
going with a 32bit install if you're mainly using the box for
building/running 32bit software.

https://wiki.debian.org/CategoryMultiarch

Of course that still relies on Debian/Devuan supporting 32bit
packages. If they did stop, you would need to build all libraries
from source for x86. How nasty that task is depends on how many
dependencies you have for your 32bit builds.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 22 Aug 2025 09:57:36 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

That windows is closing. My work Linux box is 32-bit Debian because I
have to build 32-bit legacy software. To clarify, the hardware is
64-bit so it could run the 64-bit Bullseye distro, and gcc has flags to
build 32-bit. The problem comes with libraries.

FWIW my newer laptop runs 64-bit Devuan but with 32bit x86 multiarch so
32bit libraries are installed too and can be used to build/run 32bit x86 software. So it runs a 64bit kernel and mostly 64bit software.

Still there can be quirks, so there's a good argument for just going
with a 32bit install if you're mainly using the box for building/running 32bit software.

https://wiki.debian.org/CategoryMultiarch

Of course that still relies on Debian/Devuan supporting 32bit packages.
If they did stop, you would need to build all libraries from source for
x86. How nasty that task is depends on how many dependencies you have
for your 32bit builds.

It would have been nasty. The major obstacle was the ArcGIS Engine SDK
which was 32-bit and heavily depended on COM. I worked on a dll to
encapsulate the Esri calls to allow our non-Esri solution to also be used depending on the site's preference but calling into a 32-bit dll from a
64-bit application isn't pretty either.

Esri dropped all their 32-bit stuff with the 11 release. In fact I just
got the reminder

"ArcGIS Engine entered Mature Support on March 1, 2024, and full
retirement is scheduled for March 1, 2026. No further functionality
updates, patches, or hotfixes will be available."

Esri's 64-bit software and SDKs were entirely different and required a completely different approach. Esri is the 500 pound gorilla in the GIS
field but many of their users were less than happy having to update
workflows and scripts that had been in place for years. Even Microsoft
hasn't been able to completely rewrite the book.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 10:14:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

All the staff are trained on [Windows]. All the specialised apps are
written for it.

All the business stuff is cloud-based (i.e. Linux-based) with a Web
interface now. A simple Chromebook (Linux again) would be sufficient to
run it.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 8/21/25 7:40 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-08-21 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/08/2025 11:31, Nuno Silva wrote:

On 2025-08-21, Marco Moock wrote:

On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me.

How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network
protocols?

You... install it? I guess not all OSes require bleeding edge hardware >>>> to run the setup?

A bleeding edge 1995 PC would be what? Early Pentium?

Moderately OK and better than a 486 .
32 bit *only* of course.

Unlikely to be able to deal with more than 4GB RAM

Heh, maybe 16 megs.

80MB actually, maxed out. Other Pentium 1 motherboards could take
much more, but only 24MB used now with a few windows open in X...

Probably fine if you are not running a GUI and possibly good enough if
you are.

Windows 3.11, Win 95, as long as it did not crash. Linux was considered
an experiment.

Win98 is installed too and runs well enough. Modern Linux in 80MB
RAM is probably an experiment from the Linux kernel dev's POV
today, but it was certainly meant to work properly in the past.

BasicLinux (based on Slackware 4) runs X on a PC with 16MB RAM: http://distro.ibiblio.org/baslinux/

Probably not possible to run X in 16MB RAM with current Linux
though. Even with a fully stripped-down custom kernel build, modern
Linux takes up way more RAM than it did back then.

Try "SliTaz".
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 8/21/25 9:05 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 10:14:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

All the staff are trained on [Windows]. All the specialised apps are
written for it.

All the business stuff is cloud-based (i.e. Linux-based) with a Web
interface now. A simple Chromebook (Linux again) would be sufficient to
run it.

It may be "cloud based", but looks Winders and
references back to their accounts and B$
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 21/08/2025 21:05, John Ames wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 21:30:51 +0200
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

Heh, maybe 16 megs.

No GUI on that then...

Maybe not with Linux, but a UNIX system of suitable vintage could.

Windows 3 was a GUI, and it certainly worked in that.

There seems to be a peculiar notion that GUIs *have* to be insanely
bloated, glitzy, over-featured monstrosities that chew up a couple gigs
all by themselves. Windows 3.x or Mac System 7 would run perfectly well
in 4 MB, and with 8 MB had room to spare. Heck, even older vintages of
X11 (nobody's idea of a lightweight GUI) will run usably in a 16-32 MB.

But hey! It's certainly a convenient line of reasoning for modern GUI developers who *do* chew up more memory just to run a display server/
window manager than you'd find in a whole entire PC twenty years ago!

I meant specifically a unix based X window system which has *always*
been a bloated monstrosity IME

many times the size of a Windows installation with less fuinctionality
up to around 2003 or thereabouts
--
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the
urge to rule it.”
– H. L. Mencken

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 8/21/25 6:37 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/08/2025 10:51, Marco Moock wrote:

On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me.

How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network
protocols?

Find an older version of some current Linux that supports 32bit I guess.

TCP/IP and Usenet haven't changed in 30 years really...

No.

Now if you just MUST have BT and full plug-n-play
with all the goodies and USB3.x ....

Anyway, there are still a number of perfectly good
Linux distros with 32-bit versions. Just find a
somewhat thin version that won't use up an old PC.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 8/22/25 6:03 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/08/2025 21:05, John Ames wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 21:30:51 +0200
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

Heh, maybe 16 megs.

No GUI on that then...

Maybe not with Linux, but a UNIX system of suitable vintage could.

Windows 3 was a GUI, and it certainly worked in that.

There seems to be a peculiar notion that GUIs *have* to be insanely
bloated, glitzy, over-featured monstrosities that chew up a couple gigs
all by themselves. Windows 3.x or Mac System 7 would run perfectly well
in 4 MB, and with 8 MB had room to spare. Heck, even older vintages of
X11 (nobody's idea of a lightweight GUI) will run usably in a 16-32 MB.

But hey! It's certainly a convenient line of reasoning for modern GUI
developers who *do* chew up more memory just to run a display server/
window manager than you'd find in a whole entire PC twenty years ago!

I meant specifically a unix based X window system which has *always*
been a bloated monstrosity IME

many times the size of a Windows installation with less fuinctionality
up to around 2003 or thereabouts

Hey, it's FREE - so don't complain TOO loudly :-)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 22/08/2025 14:46, c186282 wrote:

On 8/21/25 6:37 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/08/2025 10:51, Marco Moock wrote:

On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me.

How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network
protocols?

Find an older version of some current Linux that supports 32bit I guess.

TCP/IP and Usenet haven't changed in 30 years really...

  No.

  Now if you just MUST have BT and full plug-n-play
  with all the goodies and USB3.x ....

  Anyway, there are still a number of perfectly good
  Linux distros with 32-bit versions. Just find a
  somewhat thin version that won't use up an old PC.

Frankly, I cant be arsed.

I am not the sort of guy who has time to spare trying to make 30 years
old shit do whatever it did back in the day.
Had to go to the bank today. The mice banking lady had a beautifully
clean dell laptop (and violet fingernails, but I digress). She said
they would be getting new ones later in the year.
THAT's the sorta old kit I want, (not the banking lady)
--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 11:03:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I meant specifically a unix based X window system which has *always*
been a bloated monstrosity IME

many times the size of a Windows installation with less fuinctionality
up to around 2003 or thereabouts

And then the tables turned, didn’t they? X11 did seem like an inefficient, resource-hungry monstrosity back in the 1990s, in comparison to OSes from Microsoft and Apple which integrated the GUI right into the OS kernel.

But now the situation has completely changed. It is Linux that is now considered trim and efficient with its modular, replaceable X11 or Wayland layers on top, and it is Microsoft and Apple that seem bloated and inefficient. And inflexible, too, while Linux can offer a much wider range
of GUI choices, or even no GUI at all.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 8/22/25 2:45 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/08/2025 14:46, c186282 wrote:

On 8/21/25 6:37 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/08/2025 10:51, Marco Moock wrote:

On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me.

How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network
protocols?

Find an older version of some current Linux that supports 32bit I guess. >>>
TCP/IP and Usenet haven't changed in 30 years really...

   No.

   Now if you just MUST have BT and full plug-n-play
   with all the goodies and USB3.x ....

   Anyway, there are still a number of perfectly good
   Linux distros with 32-bit versions. Just find a
   somewhat thin version that won't use up an old PC.

Frankly, I cant be arsed.

Well, it depends on the hardware you're trying to revive.
Some old stuff was 32-bit only, so ...

There are a number of 'small' Linux distros that don't
suck up too much space/resources. 32-bit can still be
had, doesn't have to be an 'old' distro. Look at
"SliTaz" - there's a CL version, a GUI version, both
as minimal as possible. The CL version, add a very
minimalist GUI and you're set for most anything.

There's always Damn Small Linux ... but their page
no longer specifies if it's 32-bit or 64 only. Given
the audience though it's probably 32.

Odd thing someone said here ... about having to
build all 32-bit libs/drivers. Easiest thing is
to copy yer custom software and just install a
new, 32-bit, distro version - then copy back.
Much faster/easier. But, some LIKE to suffer -
very compu-macho :-)

I am not the sort of guy who has time to spare trying to make 30 years
old shit do whatever it did back in the day.
Had to go to the bank today. The mice banking lady had a beautifully
clean dell laptop (and violet fingernails,  but I digress). She said
they would be getting new ones later in the year.
THAT's the sorta old kit I want, (not the banking lady)

Purple nails ... NOT the best sign :-)

Anyway, there's lots of 5-10 year old equipment out
there that's perfectly good/great if you put Linux
on it instead of Winders.

Now women, the minimally "made" ones are yer best bet.
Too vain about themselves generally means too vain about
their boyfriends. Better own a Lambo and super-yacht in
six months or .......

Knew an archeologist into mountain biking ... never
made up, often a bit muddy. She was a good one, a
Real Person :-)

Got in the new batt for my old Acer - it charges. All good.
Now gotta decide whether to replace the HDD with an SSD ...
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 22/08/2025 14:46, c186282 wrote:

On 8/21/25 6:37 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/08/2025 10:51, Marco Moock wrote:

On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old...

For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me.

How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network
protocols?

Find an older version of some current Linux that supports 32bit I guess. >>>
TCP/IP and Usenet haven't changed in 30 years really...

No.

Now if you just MUST have BT and full plug-n-play
with all the goodies and USB3.x ....

Anyway, there are still a number of perfectly good
Linux distros with 32-bit versions. Just find a
somewhat thin version that won't use up an old PC.

Frankly, I cant be arsed.

I am not the sort of guy who has time to spare trying to make 30 years
old shit do whatever it did back in the day.

I look at it the other way - I can't be arsed changing systems
every other day. Ten years between newsreader upgrades is a fair
investment of time in that for me (especially given the debugging).
On systems kept up to date to run Firefox etc., there are lots of
niggling issues with hardware/software changes over the years which
I don't bother to fix because I'm using the old hardware/software
most of the time where I've put the work in already. I still need
put time into fixing the big issues after upgrades to my (more)
up-to-date hardware/software, but at least I can ignore the little
ones.

I've never even found a graphical file manager that I like in newer
Linux since the ones I've used before became hard to build (or
crash when you do) after years of being unmaintained. I thought
about asking here for recommendations, but bugger it, I just use
the command line or MC there since I don't have to sort file out
much compared to the photos, documents, and source code done on old
systems. Then there are all the smaller niggles that I barely
acknowledge like why Conky hasn't been starting since I last
upgraded Devuan on my newer laptop. Torsmo, an ancestor of Conky is
still running like always on this old PC.

Oops, out of free time just from writing this rant now...
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 00:01:20 -0400, c186282 wrote:

There's always Damn Small Linux ... but their page
no longer specifies if it's 32-bit or 64 only. Given the audience
though it's probably 32.

https://www.damnsmalllinux.org/2024-download.html

"This release candidate is 32 bit compatible and will operate on both 32-
bit and 64-bit systems."

DSL2024 was the first release in 12 years so you probably don't have to
worry about upgrading every 6 months.

Trigger Alert: DSL is based on antiX. Antix names its releases after
lefties.

https://antixlinux.com/blog/

"Proudly anti-fascist "antiX Magic" in an environment suitable for old and
new computers."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2