| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 28 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 54:50:08 |
| Calls: | 422 |
| Files: | 1,025 |
| Messages: | 90,706 |
Hi,
Is it possible to install Debian on a VERY VERY OLD hardware? If so, what "image" should I use?
Hardware spec:
CPU: Intel Celeron 400MHz
RAM: 32MB
HDD: 6GB
BIOS year: 1998
CD-ROM, FDD 1,4MB, RS-232, 1x USB 2.0
On Mon, 5 May 2025, Rafa? Lichwa?a wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to install Debian on a VERY VERY OLD hardware? If so,
what "image" should I use?
Hardware spec:
CPU: Intel Celeron 400MHz
RAM: 32MB
HDD: 6GB
BIOS year: 1998
CD-ROM, FDD 1,4MB, RS-232, 1x USB 2.0
The ram is going to be your biggest issue.
Potato will definitely work, and can boot from floppy if you can find one.
Hi,
Is it possible to install Debian on a VERY VERY OLD hardware?
If so, what "image" should I use?
Hardware spec:
CPU: Intel Celeron 400MHz
RAM: 32MB
HDD: 6GB
BIOS year: 1998
CD-ROM, FDD 1,4MB, RS-232, 1x USB 2.0
Regards,
Rafal
Is it possible to install Debian on a VERY VERY OLD hardware?
Is it possible to install Debian on a VERY VERY OLD hardware? If so, what "image" should I use?
Hardware spec:
CPU: Intel Celeron 400MHz
RAM: 32MB
On 6/5/25 05:56, Tim Woodall wrote:Yes. It's 2.2 from 2000. But I recently needed to build sone very old
On Mon, 5 May 2025, Rafa? Lichwa?a wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to install Debian on a VERY VERY OLD hardware? If so, what >>> "image" should I use?
Hardware spec:
CPU: Intel Celeron 400MHz
RAM: 32MB
HDD: 6GB
BIOS year: 1998
CD-ROM, FDD 1,4MB, RS-232, 1x USB 2.0
The ram is going to be your biggest issue.
Potato will definitely work, and can boot from floppy if you can find one. >>
What is Potato? Is that about 3.0, or 3.1?
Would it still be supported with security patches?
If not, would it not be unsafe to use to connect to the Internet?
..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..............
What is Potato? Is that about 3.0, or 3.1?
Would it still be supported with security patches?
If not, would it not be unsafe to use to connect to the Internet?
On Mon May 5, 2025 at 11:04 PM BST, Bret Busby wrote:
What is Potato? Is that about 3.0, or 3.1?
It was my first Debian version: release in August 2000.
Would it still be supported with security patches?
No, security supported stopped for Potato 22 years ago.
If not, would it not be unsafe to use to connect to the Internet?
Yes.
If you want to connect a machine that old to the Internet today, I suspect
it might be possible to build a modern kernel that will run on it (which would be a starting point) but it would take a lot of fine tuning of the build configuration.
If you want to connect a machine that old to the Internet today, I
suspect it might be possible to build a modern kernel that will run on
it (which would be a starting point) but it would take a lot of fine
tuning of the build configuration.
Hi,
Is it possible to install Debian on a VERY VERY OLD hardware? If so,
what "image" should I use?
Hardware spec:
CPU: Intel Celeron 400MHz
RAM: 32MB
HDD: 6GB
BIOS year: 1998
CD-ROM, FDD 1,4MB, RS-232, 1x USB 2.0
On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 4:39 PM Rafał Lichwała <rafal@siliconet.pl>
wrote:
Is it possible to install Debian on a VERY VERY OLD hardware? If so,
what "image" should I use?
Hardware spec:
CPU: Intel Celeron 400MHz
RAM: 32MB
HDD: 6GB
BIOS year: 1998
CD-ROM, FDD 1,4MB, RS-232, 1x USB 2.0
<https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch03s04.en.html>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 11:58:56 +0100
From: mick.crane <mick.crane@gmail.com>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Debian on a VERY OLD hardware?
Resent-Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 10:59:24 +0000 (UTC)
Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
On 2025-05-05 21:01, Rafa? Lichwa?a wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to install Debian on a VERY VERY OLD hardware? If so, what >> "image" should I use?
Hardware spec:
CPU: Intel Celeron 400MHz
RAM: 32MB
HDD: 6GB
BIOS year: 1998
CD-ROM, FDD 1,4MB, RS-232, 1x USB 2.0
Regards,
Rafal
It is OT. I installed Slitaz once and it is tiny. Seem to remember it fitted on one of those visiting card CDs
mick
NetBSD is a possibility:
On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 03:12:51PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
NetBSD is a possibility:
Yeah, I'd go with NetBSD as the most useful option. They're the project
most likely to keep i386 going. FreeBSD is dropping it as are most of
the linux distros. But honestly, as a unix system a $35 raspberry pi is
going to perform better and be more useful overall. A late 90s x86 would probably be more intresting as a retrogaming DOS computer than any kind
of unix.
older machines are also normally using a lot more electricity than something small and more recent might use.
While that's obviously good, that doesn't necessarily justify buying
a new machine from an ecological perspective: AFAIK the embedded energy
in a laptop (i.e. the energy that was necessary to produce the laptop)
is typically higher than all the electricity that the laptop will
consume during its lifetime.
older machines are also normally using a lot more electricity
than something small and more recent might use.
While that's obviously good, that doesn't necessarily justify buying
a new machine from an ecological perspective: AFAIK the embedded
energy in a laptop (i.e. the energy that was necessary to produce
the laptop) is typically higher than all the electricity that the
laptop will consume during its lifetime.
So you're saying the embedded energy in an obsolete laptop is lesser
than the embedded energy in a modern one to the exact extent where
there is no ecological profit in using the modern one as opposed to
the obsolete one?
Greg <curtyshoo@gmail.com> wrote:
older machines are also normally using a lot more electricity
than something small and more recent might use.
While that's obviously good, that doesn't necessarily justify buying
a new machine from an ecological perspective: AFAIK the embedded
energy in a laptop (i.e. the energy that was necessary to produce
the laptop) is typically higher than all the electricity that the
laptop will consume during its lifetime.
So you're saying the embedded energy in an obsolete laptop is lesser
than the embedded energy in a modern one to the exact extent where
there is no ecological profit in using the modern one as opposed to
the obsolete one?
No, he's not saying anything that requires exactness. He's saying that
the energy to make a new laptop is greater than the energy that will be
used by operating the old laptop.
Nothing to do with the embedded energy of the old laptop at all. Simply
that there's no justification on energy grounds to make the new laptop, however little energy it uses.
On Thu, May 08, 2025 at 04:41:07PM +0100, debian-user@howorth.org.uk
wrote:
Greg <curtyshoo@gmail.com> wrote:
older machines are also normally using a lot more electricity
than something small and more recent might use.
While that's obviously good, that doesn't necessarily justify
buying a new machine from an ecological perspective: AFAIK the
embedded energy in a laptop (i.e. the energy that was necessary
to produce the laptop) is typically higher than all the
electricity that the laptop will consume during its lifetime.
So you're saying the embedded energy in an obsolete laptop is
lesser than the embedded energy in a modern one to the exact
extent where there is no ecological profit in using the modern
one as opposed to the obsolete one?
No, he's not saying anything that requires exactness. He's saying
that the energy to make a new laptop is greater than the energy
that will be used by operating the old laptop.
Nothing to do with the embedded energy of the old laptop at all.
Simply that there's no justification on energy grounds to make the
new laptop, however little energy it uses.
IOW: the embedded energy in the old + new laptop is greater than just
the embedded energy in the old one.
older machines are also normally using a lot more electricity than
something small and more recent might use.
While that's obviously good, that doesn't necessarily justify buying
a new machine from an ecological perspective: AFAIK the embedded energy
in a laptop (i.e. the energy that was necessary to produce the laptop)
is typically higher than all the electricity that the laptop will
consume during its lifetime.
older machines are also normally using a lot more electricity than
something small and more recent might use.
While that's obviously good, that doesn't necessarily justify buying
a new machine from an ecological perspective: AFAIK the embedded energy
in a laptop (i.e. the energy that was necessary to produce the laptop)
is typically higher than all the electricity that the laptop will
consume during its lifetime.
I'm interested in this topic, so I've done a little research
online. Many folks look at energy consumption in terms of CO2
emissions, as a useful proxy for direct energy use.
This whole thread is INSANE!!!
Old computers of this generation are so slow that they would be
USELESS!
Well, yes. But the original question was whether one could install
Debian on it, not whether it would be useful to do so. People do a
lot of things that aren't useful. Like argue in email threads.
This whole thread is INSANE!!!
This whole thread is INSANE!!!
Old computers of this generation are so slow that they would be
USELESS!
older machines are also normally using a lot more electricity than
something small and more recent might use.
While that's obviously good, that doesn't necessarily justify buying
a new machine from an ecological perspective: AFAIK the embedded energy
in a laptop (i.e. the energy that was necessary to produce the laptop)
is typically higher than all the electricity that the laptop will
consume during its lifetime.
What's the "embedded" CO2 usage of a nuclear reactor, I wonder.
the entire argument about keeping antique hardware in operation on
ecological grounds makes no sense except in a hypothetical world where
only two machines exist.
* If a new machine is genuinely more efficient (and we keep being
told that they are!),
installing any even remotely current release of Debian (or any other
kind of *nix) on hardware over a decade old probably doesn't have much practical benefit, and is more of an exercise in seeing
what's possible.
What's the "embedded" CO2 usage of a nuclear reactor, I wonder.
the entire argument about keeping antique hardware in operation onClearly, there's a limit beyond which it doesn't make any sense any
ecological grounds makes no sense except in a hypothetical world where
only two machines exist.
more, but it usually makes sense to keep operating old electronic
devices as long as they can do their job. That usually means at least
10 years.
No need for any hypothetical world. As a first approximation, every
machine you don't buy is another machine which is not produced.
Regardless if that machine you don't buy is new or used.
Now, the OP's situation seems quite different, since it doesn't seem
that the machine has been in use recently. So it's about reviving old hardware. I suspect this falls squarely in the "retrocomputing"
category, which is a more like a sport: it's not expected to do anything particularly useful other than provide a sense of achievement, and opportunities to discuss your experience with like-minded weirdos.
Stefan "just another weirdo"
.
What's the "embedded" CO2 usage of a nuclear reactor, I wonder.
And don't forget the energy that will be needed to dismantle it!
My heart goes out to those with a heart for working things, we will
always carry the day if only because there were strictly less gadgety
things around in the past, with much fewer still with us, and this is strictly always true. Quantity matters, this isn't just a power thing.
For what it's worth, my oldest "pet" now is actually a Haswell, i7,
16GB, 2014-ish?! Wasn't my purchase. adopted. Running Linux, thing
called Debian, in this case in fact a full-blown KDE, of course up to
date. Why on Earth would that not do? Hah! Easy, responsive, everything works.
...As for noise, I have rather acute hearing and even watching some livestream on that thing, if you had to, there is nothing to it. No
different from some SFF or laptop indeed. For the sake of completeness,
this is a refurbed system, but this is how we live up to it. And keep
it up. Until about two years ago I kept a Phenom II in operation, this
is of 2009 vintage or therearbout? Classic. In the end it used to make
a cool music server, among some other things, loved it. There's
someting for everything, but either way I doubt we'll save the planet
here. ;)
* If a new machine is genuinely more efficient (and we keep being
told that they are!),
The capacity of laptop batteries has been stable around 50-100Wh for
decades, so the detailed and concrete data about potential improvement
in efficiency is readily available in the form measurement of how long
each laptop can be used on a single charge.
Improvements over time have been real, but not super fast.
I'd say it's about doubled every 8-10 years?
Clearly, there's a limit beyond which it doesn't make any sense any
more, but it usually makes sense to keep operating old electronic
devices as long as they can do their job. That usually means at least
10 years.
No need for any hypothetical world. As a first approximation, every
machine you don't buy is another machine which is not produced.
Regardless if that machine you don't buy is new or used.
On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 10:55:07PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
Clearly, there's a limit beyond which it doesn't make any sense any
more, but it usually makes sense to keep operating old electronic
devices as long as they can do their job. That usually means at least
10 years.
No need for any hypothetical world. As a first approximation, every machine you don't buy is another machine which is not produced.
Regardless if that machine you don't buy is new or used.
In a world where most old electronics are sent to the dump, this is entirely false. As a first approximation. You simply replace the newer machine going to the dump with an older machine going to the dump. This isn't a spherical cow.
Or maybe just maybe Mental Health Counseling?
This thread is a waist of time!
This thread is a waist of time!
FWIW, I tried a Thinkpad X1 Carbon Gen5 (2017) as a replacement for my
old T61, and while it does come with some notable improvements (longer battery life, much lighter, much smaller pixels), it wasn't terribly
faster, and it suffered from a shorter screen, so in the end I just keep using the T61.
On 5/11/25 Anssi Saari wrote:
Stefan Monnier wrote:
FWIW, I tried a Thinkpad X1 Carbon Gen5 (2017) as a replacement for my
old T61, and while it does come with some notable improvements (longer
battery life, much lighter, much smaller pixels), it wasn't terribly
faster, and it suffered from a shorter screen, so in the end I just keep >>> using the T61.
It does seem like the slightly longer 16:10 screens are making a
comeback, at least in the Thinkpad T16.
Two of my monitors have that aspect ratio.
On 5/11/25 12:05, Felix Miata wrote:
Eben King composed on 2025-05-11 10:02 (UTC-0400):
On 5/11/25 Anssi Saari wrote:
Stefan Monnier wrote:
FWIW, I tried a Thinkpad X1 Carbon Gen5 (2017) as a replacement for my >>>>> old T61, and while it does come with some notable improvements (longer >>>>> battery life, much lighter, much smaller pixels), it wasn't terribly >>>>> faster, and it suffered from a shorter screen, so in the end I just keep >>>>> using the T61.
Some attribution is missing here. Who wrote about the X1 above?
Looks like Stephan Monnier.
On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 10:02:26AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 10:55:07PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
Clearly, there's a limit beyond which it doesn't make any sense any
more, but it usually makes sense to keep operating old electronic
devices as long as they can do their job. That usually means at least
10 years.
No need for any hypothetical world. As a first approximation, every
machine you don't buy is another machine which is not produced.
Regardless if that machine you don't buy is new or used.
In a world where most old electronics are sent to the dump, this is entirely >> false. As a first approximation. You simply replace the newer machine going >> to the dump with an older machine going to the dump. This isn't a spherical >> cow.
?
The embedded cost in older machines has amortised over a longer
period.
I don't follow your logic, sorry.
On Saturday, May 10, 2025 2:44:09 PM -03 Thomas Dineen wrote:
This thread is a waist of time!
Thank you very much! I added this to my collection of sayings.
The issue isn't finding the availability of potentially
useful machines that get trashed, the issue is that there isn't an
efficient market for getting those machines to people who can use them.
The embedded cost in older machines has amortised over a longer
period.
What are you even talking about?
I don't follow your logic, sorry.
This is simple: if you have a 7 year old machine, find someone throwing out
a 4 year old machine, take it, and throw out the 7 year old machine instead. Refusing to take the newer machine does not affect demand for new machines *at all*.
You don't get a carbon credit by obstinately holding on to an old
machine, especially since the new machine is likely more efficient.
The issue isn't finding the availability of potentially useful machines that get
trashed, the issue is that there isn't an efficient market for getting those machines to people who can use them.
On 5/11/25 08:46, Anssi Saari wrote:
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
It does seem like the slightly longer 16:10 screens are making a
comeback, at least in the Thinkpad T16.
Two of my monitors have that aspect ratio.
On Sun, May 11, 2025 at 03:55:30PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
This is simple: if you have a 7 year old machine, find someone throwing out >> a 4 year old machine, take it, and throw out the 7 year old machine instead. >> Refusing to take the newer machine does not affect demand for new machines >> *at all*.
Of course it does. The used/refurbished market also dries up (I'm in a waiting >list for an X series Thinkpad at my refurb dealer right now).
For a futile attempt at correcting topic drift, I commented about
laptops and their displays. So how many laptops do you have with a 16:10 >aspect display and from which decade are they from? I know of exactly
one model from this decade and it's the Thinkpad T16 I'm typing this
on. I don't think that aspect ratio is common in current laptop
models. Do you have information on that to share?
Tim Woodall <debianuser@woodall.me.uk>:
What is Potato? Is that about 3.0, or 3.1?
Yes. It's 2.2 from 2000.