From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 25 21:31:43 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5361937B401 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from puffin.mail.pas.earthlink.net (puffin.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.139]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E5DC4402A for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:31:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from user-2ivfirs.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.247.203.124] helo=mindspring.com) by puffin.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19VOQ1-0006rB-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:31:33 -0700 Message-ID: <3EFA76E4.C66C35D4@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:30:28 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Simon L. Nielsen" References: <200306251557.25303.m-trade@hotpop.com> <3EF96EF8.4C4DED20@mindspring.com> <200306251210.50565.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <20030625104518.GA402@nitro.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a4fe97ad0baf77db9ca019c4d58b0f5d84666fa475841a1c7a350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c cc: M-Trade cc: FreeBSD-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 8MB install X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 04:31:43 -0000 "Simon L. Nielsen" wrote: > On 2003.06.25 12:10:42 +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > > FWIW, the last FreeBSD release I managed to install on an 8mb machine from > > CD-ROM+bootfloppies was 4.1.1. > > Can anybody else confirm this ? It seems like the documetation need to > be updated to state this. State what? That you should use 4.1.1 on 8M 486 machines, if you intend on installing from media that require the use of a RAM disk for installation? Seems a little specialized... 8-). > Have anybody made any recent tests on CURRENT (and STABLE for that > matter) with regards to minimum RAM requirements, install and normal > runtime? Yes; about two months ago there were a couple of people who installed on an old 386SX. The main issue was that they had to roll their own distribution from sources, specifically with a stripped down kernel without all the weird drivers (which is exactly what I talked about in my previous posting). -- Terry