silvermachineman at gmail.com
Tue Apr 14 00:16:20 UTC 2009
I have all the Ubuntu versions archived on media, I found myself in a
situation where the laptop
i was attempting to put linux on just would not work on newer releases
and so I filed that knowledge
and experience and would if the newer didnt work give the older a try
but you are right its old
and probably not worth the try. I dont know about the 3.5 disks
though, I have always used cd's
for installing except with suse 7.1
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Amedee Van Gasse (ubuntu)
<amedee-ubuntu at amedee.be> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> wirechief schreef:
>> Well, I said thats what I would do.
>> Perhaps foolish to start with the older version but given the age of
>> the computer
>> and that he cannot boot CD's he probably cannot run the more recent release's
>> and you are right support would be none existent, again my perspective
>> is trying
>> it on hardware that requires probably bootable 3.5in disks but that is
>> just a guess.
>> I admit to not haveing much experience or success in using an alternate CD my
>> computers all are capable of booting from USB so there is no need. Working with
>> such old equipment Google might be a more resourcefull place to find something
>> that will work.
> Contrary to Windows, a basic installation of Linux (any distribution,
> not just Ubuntu) doesn't get more bloated with every new version. The
> only thing that gets bloated with the years, is the desktop, but if the
> topicstarter uses something lightweight like XFCE or Fluxbox or Ion, it
> really doesn't matter.
> Also contrary to Windows, Linux does not loose support for older
> hardware. Once a certain hardware is supported in the kernel, it stays
> supported. The only thing that happens, is that a specific module gets
> replaced by a more generic module.
> Also as far as I know Ubuntu 5.04 already used a 2.6 kernel, the 2.6.10
> if I'm not mistaken. Just like 8.10 and 9.04 use a 2.6 kernel.
> There really isn't much difference between a 5.04 and a 9.04 if you only
> look at the basic Linux install, like what you would get with an
> alternate cd. The basic software only got better, but it certainly
> didn't get heavier (again, I'm not talking about the desktop).
> Anyway I would be surprised if the 5.04 is still available for download.
> Ok, it is: http://old-releases.ubuntu.com
> But still I don't know any good reason why someone would install a 4
> year old version of Ubuntu on a 10 year old desktop pc, if a current
> version of Ubuntu is just as good.
> - --
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reach out and share life, care for others,
More information about the ubuntu-users