Thats rediculous

Place to discuss anything, almost. No politics, religion, Microsoft, or anything else that I (the nazi censor) deem inappropriate.
Post Reply
X11
guru
guru
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:09 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Thats rediculous

Post by X11 »

Void im currently posting from my P133MMX laptop which runs Red-Hat 7.0. It has Netscape Communicator and the font on your forums looks ummm, crap on Netscape communicator.

Take a look yourself, its awful.


AHHHHHH

User avatar
Void Main
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5716
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:24 am
Location: Tuxville, USA
Contact:

Post by Void Main »

1) I didn't write the forum software, complain to the folks at phpBB.
2) What are you doing running the absolute worst version of Red Hat that Red Hat has ever put out?
3) What are you doing running crappy old Netscape?
4) I would never install either of those ever again.
5) Why not install Debian Sid, Blackbox, Mozilla, and um maybe some fonts? Good combo on old hardware with limited resources....

X11
guru
guru
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:09 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by X11 »

1) Because your much easier ;-), but I might
2) Because it wont use all my ram and eat my CPU (And why is it the worst?)
3) Because my idiot mother lost my network dongle
4) Because its about all I have at the time
5) Tried it, its worse then Red-Hat 7.0, Debain just kept screwing me in one way or another, mainly memory constraints. And because I do other things with it, I only use it to surf when I am away.

I am also suprised in how old netscape is just as incompliant with modern pages as with dillo, and then you add size.

User avatar
Calum
guru
guru
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 11:32 am
Location: Bonny Scotland
Contact:

Post by Calum »

old netscape (1 or 2) isn't really any better than dillo and takes up more disk space.

your reasons of RAM and CPU don't make a lot of sense because surely you can just use a minimal or stripped but current linux instead of an older linux. i couldn't even get rh7 to install on my computer, never mind run, although i do see what you mean in a way as red hat are going a little bit too much towards the bloatware side, but to somebody who is making the effort to use minimal stuff i shouldn't imagine this to be a huge issue. why not use slack 9? or some deliberately small linux, you know JAILBAIT, BasicLinux and so forth, the current version of basiclinux is specifically designed for something like a 486 with 16MB of RAM, and will take up something like 50-400MB depending on how many development tools (and Xwindows) etc you install.

X11
guru
guru
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:09 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by X11 »

I have NEVER ever had ANY problems with RH 7.0, here is why...
http://promote-opensource.org/modules/n ... storyid=61

User avatar
Void Main
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5716
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:24 am
Location: Tuxville, USA
Contact:

Post by Void Main »

Heh heh, it's funny that I slam RH7.0 yet that is what shows up when I do "cat /etc/redhat-release" on that server I always brag about the uptime on. :) Right now:

Code: Select all

$ uptime
  8:57pm  up 390 days, 10:42,  2 users,  load average: 0.06, 0.14, 0.16
And that's after a power outage that killed a 490 day uptime. So far it's been up 880 days with a break in the middle of a few hours because of a dag gum storm!

X11
guru
guru
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:09 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by X11 »

The worst disro I have tried is Red-Hat 8.0 actually, it has gave me many troubles that I had never had. It had even switched me to... Slackware at one stage.

User avatar
Void Main
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5716
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:24 am
Location: Tuxville, USA
Contact:

Post by Void Main »

Yeah, 8.0 had it's problems but it gave us the new look. I thought it was a push.

User avatar
Calum
guru
guru
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 11:32 am
Location: Bonny Scotland
Contact:

Post by Calum »

i still say rh9 should have been 8.1 (or 8.2 if they really wanted to confuse people). and i do agree, rh8 kind of sucked. slack 9 was definitely a lot better than it in many ways. still, rh9 has its flaws too, i think rh8 still has its uses over rh9 on some computers.

X11
guru
guru
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:09 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by X11 »

Very true, The Grinch (Otherwise known as Linux User, XP Luser, etc) tells me rh9.0 is slow.

I will order it online when I can however

Stryker
scripter
scripter
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:50 pm
Contact:

Post by Stryker »

redhat9 isn't slow. on slow hardware perhaps. Runs much faster than windows for me. With the only exception of application startup. I thought u had it. :shock:

X11
guru
guru
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:09 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by X11 »


BobsYourUncle
user
user
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2003 7:44 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by BobsYourUncle »

X11 wrote:The worst disro I have tried is Red-Hat 8.0 actually, it has gave me many troubles that I had never had. It had even switched me to... Slackware at one stage.
If it turned you onto Slackware, then i would say that it's a pretty darn good distro :lol:

Post Reply