Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:44:18 +0100 From: deeptech71@gmail.com To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what can i do with a 486? Message-ID: <45B149C2.1070908@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200701192030.l0JKUN9v059140@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <200701192030.l0JKUN9v059140@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Oliver Fromme wrote: > Ypu're out of luck then. Recent versions of FreeBSD > require floating-point support to be present, which a > 486SX doesn't have. You must have at least a 486DX > processor, I'm afraid. Or install an old version of > FreeBSD which will emulate FP instructions, but then > you don't have security support anymore, which means > it's probably a bad idea to connect the machine to > the internet, i.e. you shouldn't use it as a router. What release (best of which still support it)? > 8 MB isn't much. You won'te be able to run sysinstall > with it, and a standard kernel won't be much fun either. > But it should be OK with a smaller custom kernel. First thing is to find out how to do that :] (i'll read the Handbook later someday) > > But doesn't FreeBSD configure things for specific hardware > > when installed on one computer? And does it work if > > install on a new generation 386? > > The standard FreeBSD/i386 installation will work on > all supported x86 machines, from a 486DX upwards. Sry, I meant: And does it work if install on a new generation 386 FIRST? Did that, and voila, "Missing operating system" > Personally I prefer to use a FreeBSD machine as a > router, because I dislike "black boxes". You never > know what bugs and security issues they might have, > and many vendors are not particularly quick when a > security hole needs to be fixed. It's not a very > good feeling when you know that exploits are > circulating in the net and your vendor doesn't > provide a new firware for your box. Same here... feels good to have control, to be the king :] > The FreeBSD security folks are usually very quick > in providing security advisories and patches, and > if you know a bit about C programming, you can even > fix things yourself. Heck, even the fact that you > _can_ look at the source code if you want is very > big plus for FreeBSD. I've read somewhere, that if I want to learn to hack computers, I need to get some UNIX, because Windows isn't open source, and learning is near impossible. That's when I've been directed to FreeBSD. Well, it was just a matter of time until I found out that I still couldn't do anything with the source without knowing C :]. OK, now I do. But, nontheless, FreeBSD seemed like such a stable system, plus there are comparisons of FreeBSD VS Windows in google, it's like 8 - 2. But those tests (uh, comparisons from BSD fans?) were made back in 2000. Where's an up to date comparison? > Are you sure that the installation finished successfully? > As I mentioned above, I think 200 MB isn't sufficient for > a standard installation. Yes yes 100%. First it failed with 150MB '/' and 64MB SWAP, then it woked with 170MB '/' and 32MB SWAP and less distribution sets. The thing is, it simply can't boot up! Even the boot floppies aren't working.. they say 'No /boot/loader' (kern1.flp) and some other error I dont remember (boot.flp). WTF? > You could frame it and nail it to the wall. LOL
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45B149C2.1070908>