20 ms·
I seem to recall that early versions of Linux wouldn’t run on a cheap 386sx until the kernel started to incorporate embedded applications from widespread use in
by guestbest 1y ago
I seem to recall that early versions of Linux wouldn’t run on a cheap 386sx until the kernel started to incorporate embedded applications from widespread use in the late 90s. Also I remember the minimum ram was 4 meg but could go down to 2 meg if networking wasn’t installed even though it was built in to the kernel. Until the dot com boom, I don’t recall Linux being a partially flexible operating system. I think this is what kept windows 3.1 and ms-dos going until the late 90s
- froh42 1y agoComing from Commodore Amiga, my first PC was a 486dx with 4MB to run Linux. I did set it up the same day I bought it - noticed 4MB was not enough to run XFree86 on top of Linux 0.99.6 or whatever, so I grumbled, checked my wallet and bank account, went back to the dealer and asked him to take back the 4MB memory and sell me 16MB of RAM. I was a student and ate only very cheap food the rest of that month. Oh, and a bit later (two or three years) Tanenbaum visited my University and held a lecture about Amoeba.
- mediumdave 1y ago> I seem to recall that early versions of Linux wouldn’t run on a cheap 386sx until the kernel started to incorporate embedded applications from widespread use in the late 90s. I ran Linux on a 486SX with 4MB RAM in early 1994. Prior to that (1993?) I had been running 386BSD. Both OSes ran quite well on that hardware: certainly sh, vi, gcc, and make ran well, and what else do you really need? 4MB wasn't good enough for X Windows, but I had a VT102 connected to a serial port so that I could have two terminal sessions going at the same time.