Distro for a linux on a 486dx-33 ?

[ihrsetrdr]

I have an old 486dx-33, 8mb ram, 540mb hdd that I'd like to put linux on, preferably with some kind of desktop enviornment. It can handle Windows 3.1 "ok", considering... The BIOS doesn't have an option to boot from cdrom, just A and C drive. It has a PC DOS option, while booting. Looks like it will have to be linux on a floppy. Or, I could drop this puppy off at the e-cycler...

Any suggestions?

 

[Soichiro]

Only thing I can think of is Damn Small Linux, and good luck with that.

 

[Shelnutt2]

You need something based on the 2.2 kernel.

Or maybe a BSD?

 

[Soichiro]

You need something based on the 2.2 kernel.

Well, not necessarily... You can compile the 2.6 kernel to run on a 386, and I'm sure it can be done from a floppy-based environment. However, that's not a very wise decision considering how long a compile would take on that machine...

I was thinking of FreeBSD, but I'm not sure if they make a floppy version of that. Most likely not anymore.

 

[ihrsetrdr]

You need something based on the 2.2 kernel.

Or maybe a BSD?

Downloads still available for such old distros?

 

[Soichiro]

Actually, I'm sure you could always compile the kernel and other necessary utilities (like maybe a shell) on another machine (optimize it for the 486 box and set -Os), then make a segmented ZIP/RAR archive that would fit on floppies. However... that's a very inefficient method.

 

[Shelnutt2]

http://www.debian.org/distrib/archive

FYI, you can make a debian install floppy, which I think basically is just GRUB on a floppy so you can boot from the cd.

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/
You can get any kernel you want.

 

[ihrsetrdr]

Actually, I'm sure you could always compile the kernel and other necessary utilities (like maybe a shell) on another machine (optimize it for the 486 box and set -Os), then make a segmented ZIP/RAR archive that would fit on floppies. However... that's a very inefficient method.

Hmmm, not only is that type of operation a bit out of my league, I also have a bad case of Adult Attention Deficit Disorder to boot!

http://www.debian.org/distrib/archive

FYI, you can make a debian install floppy, which I think basically is just GRUB on a floppy so you can boot from the cd.

Well, that sounds do-able.

 

[MRD]

You want BSD I think, and an older BSD, like 3.x.

 

[aaa]

Slackware had a guide for these (for 4meg machines actually). Slackware 8 at least (w/2.4), no idea if the new ones still support it.

Desktop? Yeah, if you want to run totally off disk swap I think the minimum was either 16mb or 32mb.

 

[aftermath]

got a Linux server on the lan?
You could look at LTSP?

 

[Misfit138]

I would be very impressed if you could get a GUI onto a 486 with 8megs of RAM.

 

[ihrsetrdr]

I would be very impressed if you could get a GUI onto a 486 with 8megs of RAM.

It currently has Windows 3.1 on it; amazingly, it has a couple photo editing programs and word processors...even a screensaver!

Not bad, for a processor that's about 0.01178571428571428571 times as fast as my average folding rig!


I'm getting nowhere with booting this machine to anything other than the "C" drive. I unplugged the "A" drive, which is a 5-1/4" FDD, did a disk detect in the BIOS and the 3.5" floppy drive is recognized as "A"...but, no luck booting. I have a Overclockix FD(don't recall when/why I made that) and can -ls(dir) but the boot instruction is not recognized in PC DOS. I'm probably going about this all wrong, anyway, but don't know what else to do. No other options to set boot device in BIOS, and just a little too late to flash to the latest BIOS version(by about 14 years).

This machine is inching it's way closer to my pile of "e-waste" in the garage, waiting for the one-way trip to the county recycle center.

 

[MRD]

Cabling might be wrong on the 3.5 inch drive. On the old pc's that had two drives, there was a connector in the middle and one on the end. The one on the end must be connected to the A drive for it to function. I think if you're connected to the one in the middle, it won't work. i.e. Try getting a new cable designed for a system that only has a 3.5 and using that.

(Then again that cable might be worth more than the system...)

And that machine is nowhere near as fast as "0.01178571428571428571 times as fast as my average folding rig!". Really.

 

[ihrsetrdr]

Cabling might be wrong on the 3.5 inch drive. On the old pc's that had two drives, there was a connector in the middle and one on the end.

Ack! totally forgot about that!

And that machine is nowhere near as fast as "0.01178571428571428571 times as fast as my average folding rig!". Really.

Did I screw up the math? (It was past my bedtime)

avg.folding rig=2800mhz
486dx=33mhz

 

[MRD]

You can't measure a machine's speed by mhz. A modern cpu does many times more per cycle than a 486. For example, an Athlon 64 running at 2 ghz is quite a bite faster than a P4 at 3 ghz.

As an analogy, say you have to move water from a well to a very large vat. You will have to take many trips. There are two factors that determine how fast the water moves from point A to point B. First, there is how fast you make the trips. Second, there is the size of the bucket. Mhz is like the speed you make the trips. The processor's architecture and design and other factors in the machine's construction determine the size of the bucket.

So relatively, a modern PC has a bucket size like a 30 gallon oil drum, and a 486 has a bucket size like a thimble. So even if they are at the same mhz rating (you take trips at the same speed), the modern pc will be much faster (more water will be moved).

This is also why AMD came up with their scheme up assigning numbers to processors unrelated to mhz. An Athlon is many times faster than a P4 at the same clock speed. The only way intel was able to compete was by upping clock speeds higher than AMD could. However, many people in the store were seeing 2.0 ghz Athlon and 3.0 ghz P4 and thinking the Intel was faster, when in fact the Athlon was, so AMD started calling it an Athlon XP 3000+ or some such.

 

[ihrsetrdr]

You can't measure a machine's speed by mhz. A modern cpu does many times more per cycle than a 486. For example, an Athlon 64 running at 2 ghz is quite a bite faster than a P4 at 3 ghz.

As an analogy, say you have to move water from a well to a very large vat. You will have to take many trips. There are two factors that determine how fast the water moves from point A to point B. First, there is how fast you make the trips. Second, there is the size of the bucket. Mhz is like the speed you make the trips. The processor's architecture and design and other factors in the machine's construction determine the size of the bucket.

So relatively, a modern PC has a bucket size like a 30 gallon oil drum, and a 486 has a bucket size like a thimble. So even if they are at the same mhz rating (you take trips at the same speed), the modern pc will be much faster (more water will be moved).

This is also why AMD came up with their scheme up assigning numbers to processors unrelated to mhz. An Athlon is many times faster than a P4 at the same clock speed. The only way intel was able to compete was by upping clock speeds higher than AMD could. However, many people in the store were seeing 2.0 ghz Athlon and 3.0 ghz P4 and thinking the Intel was faster, when in fact the Athlon was, so AMD started calling it an Athlon XP 3000+ or some such.

All so true, was just expressing the differance in a tongue n' cheek fashion.

 

[MRD]

You'd probably be astounded to see just how different in speed a modern computer is from a 486... or even better, an older PC. It's amazing how much faster they've gotten. I saw numbers on it once, and it's way more than you'd ever anticipate.

 

[ihrsetrdr]

Having a bit of free time at work, I found some interesting material regarding doing a linux install on old pcs:

http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/baslinux/

http://www.toms.net/rb/download.html

I'll check it out when I get home this evening.

 

[MRD]

I've never used basic linux, but I've used Tomsrtbt as a recovery disk. It has no gui. You might be able to glue one on, but I'm not sure how hard that would be. Probably hard, considering the age of much of the software involved.