Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:25:41 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: "Thomas Mueller" <mueller23@insightbb.com> Cc: Ivan Ivanov <hellco@abv.bg>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Hi i want to ask a question Message-ID: <20120706102541.ff109a4d.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <03.AF.25131.05C96FF4@smtp01.insight.synacor.com> References: <03.AF.25131.05C96FF4@smtp01.insight.synacor.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 04:05:36 -0400, Thomas Mueller wrote: > On part 1, it might be possible to build things on the old > machine, but only little things. It _will_ work, it just will take some time. If that isn't a major concern -- no problem. If the machine is low on RAM, there should at least be sufficient swap space. > Ports tree and source tree would really pinch the hard disk > space (5 GB). Using them via NFS (when needed) or as read-only source from a CD could be possible. However, I'd suggest using the NFS approach during installation time. On the described hardware, the usage paradigm should be: "INSTALL ONCE, THEN KEEP USING". If updates are required, using an "external compiler" would be the best choice. In case you're only using precompiled packages (installs via pkg_add -r), you don't need the ports tree at all. For dealing with the system (from /usr/src), if it has to be present on disk, /usr/obj could be used via NFS on some scratch disk. There are many possibilities to get the job done. They all require some time, but it _is_ possible. > On part 2, do you mean lynx or links? I think it was links that also had a GUI port. There may be other lightweight browsers (like dillo) that one could consider using. Of course none of them will utilize "Flash". :-) > Links can be built with graphics, there is even a DOS port, > but a far cry from Firefox (try Midori?) which have no DOS ports. > I think there is also w3m? I know w3m is a very nice text mode browser, I can't say if it has graphics support. > Building the kernel is nowhere near as time-consuming as buildworld. True, but if you update kernel and world, both have to be processes. Otherwise, you could stay on the installed version level (e. g. 9.0) and only tweak GENERIC into something that is more efficient. But in that case, sources should not be altered. > On my older computer, building a custom kernel took about 25 minutes > for NetBSD, 75 minutes for FreeBSD 8.2, and 130 minutes for Gentoo > Linux, and the Gentoo Linux kernel proved nonbootable. That's normal. :-) > On the last part, time required to download an ISO would depend on > type of connection more than CPU speed. Sure, no big CPU load. I just wanted to illustrate that this old system could do things that some "modern" PCs fail to do: Just imagine users complaining about skipping audio when they move windows across the screen... :-) And I still have the machine I described. "Mister Coffee" is currently installed with FreeBSD 8.2, expecting to be used for experimental projects as an internal file / IRC / maybe OA server. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120706102541.ff109a4d.freebsd>