Originally Posted by TobiSGD

I would not recommend to go with outdated distros, only because your computer is older. There a distros out there especially for this case, like Antix, Deli-Linux and so on.

Originally Posted by onebuck

Why? If the class of computer is matched with the circa of the distribution then I see no reason not to use the older versions. Why do you call them outdated?

Originally Posted by pljvaldez

Generally, the reason to say that is that those older distros are no longer getting any security updates. Also, in my opinion, there have been significant improvements to the linux UI over the last several years. For those reasons, I feel you'd be better off using a newer distro tailored to old hardware than an old distro tailored to at the time up to date hardware.

In the end, the issue today is application bloat. You don't want to run heavy programs like OpenOffice on an old box. You're better off with lightweight apps. You can get a small performance increase on that old box by recompiling the kernel and cutting out as much stuff as you can that you don't need.

Originally Posted by onebuck

Hi,



Sure if you roll back to a version that is not supported by the GNU/Linux. Look at Slackware for an example goes back to version 8.1 circa 2001 security udates. If you look back to 1999 the version updates are around Slackware 7.1. I believe the current update cycle goes back to Slackware 8.2. So my suggestion is to choose wisely and know what you are working with.

It still depends on the hardware. Sure the 2.6 kernel was not actively used on some but the stable 2.4 was. Also the 2.4 is still used and is stable today. Not all GNU/Linux limit security update periods. Not a valid argument for an informed user.

When you speak of Linux UI are you speaking of DE/Desktop? Of course there have been major differences/changes in 'X' and the DE or WM association. But as for a UI for Kernel control/parameter(s), I still use 2.4 Kernel for certain machines. Works, stable thus no way a newer GNU/Linux is necessary. To lazily use a GUI and say it's improvement is no way a valid position overall.

Sure, some hold your hand distributions attempt to provide a clear, clean and concise UI to the Kernel. But why put something that does break and is another stumbling block when working with the Kernel. If you need the UI and it satisfies your need then so be it. Your still dependent on the person who has developed the UI to cover all bases. Hopefully things don't break with the GUI UI and your left with a non-functional system.

Your system to work with but when speaking holistically this is not necessarily true for all GNU/Linux.

You may get lucky with a custom 2.6 kernel using legacy hardware but most times you will have to work to get things good to go. At other times it will be impossible without major work. I have seen better results with earlier versions that matched the hardware. It all boils down to the Legacy 'hardware' support.

Originally Posted by pljvaldez

I could be wrong, but I'm skeptical that the Slackware project is still pushing security updates to programs in the 8.1 release. Sure the kernel is still being updated and the 2.4 kernel series is still maintained and updated. But there is more to a distro than just the kernel. Sure he could try to compile newer versions of the programs on 8.1, but they may or may not install depending on the toolchain in 8.1 and the dependencies of the individual program.

Originally Posted by pljvaldez

I also am aware that you don't need a gui for everything. But the way the question was framed, I took it to mean that he was looking for a desktop system, which will typically want a gui interface, especially for a newbie (i.e. his mother-in-law) who is just looking for an email/web browsing distro. So UI improvements seem important in this particular case.

Originally Posted by onebuck

You can look further at [SIZE=-1][B]Security Advisories

Originally Posted by tracyballard

I just tried Puppy 2.17 and the seamonkeys were not swimming up the internet stream. Any ideas??

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann

Why Puppy 2.17? Try the latest version, 5, or the reliable 4.3 (still supported, I believe). Alternatively, have you tried Vector Light?

Those people who advise an old distro for an old computer forget that you don't have an old internet connection.

Originally Posted by btncix

To OP: I'm a little confused with your post.
Did Ubuntu and Lubuntu work on the mother-in-law's (MIL) computer? If so, why are you experimenting with older distros? I'm going to assume that Ubuntu and Lubuntu just ran too slow on the MIL's computer.

Depending on the liveCD, sometimes you have to click on network setup icons to establish an internet connection. By pressing on the network setup icon, you tell the computer to go do a DHCP request. I think Puppy may be one of those distros, but I'm not certain.

I would recommend you use the newer versions of distros tailored towards low resource computers. There are four that come to mind: Puppy, Damn Small, Tiny Core (smallest but not necessarily the most intuitive), and Slitaz (this one is only 30 MB). Two others to consider, though not necessary tailored for low resource computers, are Slax and Sidux.

It's more difficult to accomplish, but you can look into doing a minimal Ubuntu install and install an efficient window manager such as Openbox or Fluxbox. You will want to only do the base install. Don't do the additional installs such as Ubuntu Desktop or Xubuntu or etc. link to minimal Ubuntu install CD.

Originally Posted by btncix

I would recommend you use the newer versions of distros tailored towards low resource computers. There are four that come to mind: Puppy, Damn Small, Tiny Core (smallest but not necessarily the most intuitive), and Slitaz (this one is only 30 MB). Two others to consider, though not necessary tailored for low resource computers, are Slax and Sidux.