Hi All,
This should start a raging debate! Are there any opinions regarding a good choice of distro for an older laptop? Thinkpad T22 w/384MB ram and Thinkpad T23 w/512MB ram. My only priorities are quick boot times, wireless support, firefox or opera web browsers and a decent word processor that can save files in .doc format. I've considered DSL, but would prefer reiserfs support.
Thanks, Curt
--- curt cbox@kc.rr.com wrote:
Hi All,
This should start a raging debate! Are there any opinions regarding a good choice of distro for an older laptop? Thinkpad T22 w/384MB ram and Thinkpad T23 w/512MB ram. My only priorities are quick boot times, wireless support, firefox or opera web browsers and a decent word processor that can save files in .doc format. I've considered DSL, but would prefer reiserfs support.
Thanks, Curt
When I hear the question: "whats a good distro for an *older* laptop", I think that the laptop is going to be some sub-128MB RAM laptop with a 6GB hard drive and a PII processor (or worse). Not a ThinkPad T22 (PIII-1GHz) machine with more RAM and processor power than my Linux test machine!
Seems to me *any* distribution will be just fine for the amount of processor and RAM you have to work with. Debian is the favored child at the moment.
I found a website which covers installing Linux on a Thinkpad T22:
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/walter/geek/linux-t22.html
And this link which covers installing Linux on a ThinkPad T23:
http://www.math.uakron.edu/~chad/linux_t23.html
As for wireless support, learn this keyword: "ndiswrapper".
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
On Thursday 29 December 2005 08:57, Leo Mauler wrote:
As for wireless support, learn this keyword: "ndiswrapper".
ndiswrapper is just a hack to use immoral drivers. Not a real solution at all.
The actual driver, however, should be picked up by hotplug, though... Seems to detect my orinoco-compatible card fine. The only exception I can think of to this would be a Broadcom-based card, in which case you get to test out the new bcm43xx driver: http://bcm43xx.berlios.de/
On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 14:20 +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
On Thursday 29 December 2005 08:57, Leo Mauler wrote:
As for wireless support, learn this keyword: "ndiswrapper".
ndiswrapper is just a hack to use immoral drivers. Not a real solution at all.
When my options are no wireless support or ndiswrapper, feels like a solution to me.
On 12/29/05, Bill Cavalieri bcavalieri@lumensoftware.com wrote:
On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 14:20 +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
On Thursday 29 December 2005 08:57, Leo Mauler wrote:
As for wireless support, learn this keyword: "ndiswrapper".
ndiswrapper is just a hack to use immoral drivers. Not a real solution
at all.
When my options are no wireless support or ndiswrapper, feels like a solution to me.
I do agree with Luke in that I too feel icky using cheap hacks/workarounds to make stuff work but at the same time its the only thing you've got. I too use ndiswrapper and went through hell and back to make it work properly. There are compatible cards out there, but not many. Stuff like this is going to continue to happen until Linux becomes more mainstream. Although this kind of stuff also happens in the windows world too. I've seen many posts on message boards about people who have trouble finding anything that has drivers for Windows XP x64 edition. But thats just a part of using an alternative operating system. Sometimes you get lucky, other times you have to work with it. Unless of course your on a Macinotosh but thats another boat in a different sea.
As for the original question its pretty much been answered. You can use whatever distro you want considering your "older" laptop seems to be a little more powerful than you might think. Its just a matter of getting the right hardware and software. If you still feel as though its a little slugish just use Fluxbox or XFCE or whatever you prefer instead of kde/gnome.
--- Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Thursday 29 December 2005 08:57, Leo Mauler wrote:
As for wireless support, learn this keyword:
"ndiswrapper".
ndiswrapper is just a hack to use immoral drivers. Not a real solution at all.
Of course its a real solution. If you don't have drivers then you don't have a network card. If you do have drivers then you have a network card, regardless of where the drivers came from.
What you meant to say was that it is a less preferable solution.
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
On Sunday 01 January 2006 06:58, Leo Mauler wrote:
--- Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Thursday 29 December 2005 08:57, Leo Mauler
wrote:
As for wireless support, learn this keyword:
"ndiswrapper".
ndiswrapper is just a hack to use immoral drivers. Not a real solution at all.
Of course its a real solution. If you don't have drivers then you don't have a network card. If you do have drivers then you have a network card, regardless of where the drivers came from.
What you meant to say was that it is a less preferable solution.
Better to not have drivers at all than to have immoral drivers.
Better to not have drivers at all than to have immoral drivers.
Better an immoral driver than a $1,000+ paperweight (or a $1,299 Windows XP box, which is what would happen if there were no driver available).
-- Matthew Copple mcopple@gmail.com
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
-- President Ronald Reagan
On Monday 02 January 2006 02:20, Matthew Copple wrote:
Better to not have drivers at all than to have immoral drivers.
Better an immoral driver than a $1,000+ paperweight (or a $1,299 Windows XP box, which is what would happen if there were no driver available).
Better to deprive business and a sale than to buy hardware without [moral] drivers.
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 03:17 +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
Better to deprive business and a sale than to buy hardware without [moral] drivers.
Regarding my purchase, AMD and NVidia in my notebook was a higher priority than native wlan driver. Which you will be hard pressed to find native wlan support in a $1000 notebook anyways, most at that price are broadcom.
I'm sure somewhere your stance on this makes sense, too bad this isn't that place. I'm not understanding your comparison of morality and ndiswrapper I guess.
On Monday 02 January 2006 13:03, Bill Cavalieri wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 03:17 +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
Better to deprive business and a sale than to buy hardware without [moral] drivers.
Regarding my purchase, AMD and NVidia in my notebook was a higher priority than native wlan driver.
You mean ATi, I hope. nVidia, of course, lacks hardware accel for 3D.
Which you will be hard pressed to find native wlan support in a $1000 notebook anyways, most at that price are broadcom.
Well, I guess the news of a native, moral Broadcom driver helps you here.
I'm sure somewhere your stance on this makes sense, too bad this isn't that place. I'm not understanding your comparison of morality and ndiswrapper I guess.
The only practical use for ndiswrapper is to load an immoral driver.
Luke-Jr wrote:
On Monday 02 January 2006 13:03, Bill Cavalieri wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 03:17 +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
Better to deprive business and a sale than to buy hardware without [moral] drivers.
Regarding my purchase, AMD and NVidia in my notebook was a higher priority than native wlan driver.
You mean ATi, I hope. nVidia, of course, lacks hardware accel for 3D.
??? nvidia is the best.. and pretty sure you cant have both ati and nvidia cards in a notebook... :)
I'm sure somewhere your stance on this makes sense, too bad this isn't that place. I'm not understanding your comparison of morality and ndiswrapper I guess.
The only practical use for ndiswrapper is to load an immoral driver.
Very true... but.. it works..
On Monday 02 January 2006 18:24, Tom Bruno wrote:
Luke-Jr wrote:
On Monday 02 January 2006 13:03, Bill Cavalieri wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 03:17 +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
Better to deprive business and a sale than to buy hardware without [moral] drivers.
Regarding my purchase, AMD and NVidia in my notebook was a higher priority than native wlan driver.
You mean ATi, I hope. nVidia, of course, lacks hardware accel for 3D.
??? nvidia is the best..
nVidia lacks any real hardware accel for 3D. Immoral drivers do not count for anything. Thus, nVidia might work as an expensive 2D/Myth/server card, but useless for games.
and pretty sure you cant have both ati and nvidia cards in a notebook... :)
Indeed, which is why I hoped he meant ATi instead of nVidia.
I'm sure somewhere your stance on this makes sense, too bad this isn't that place. I'm not understanding your comparison of morality and ndiswrapper I guess.
The only practical use for ndiswrapper is to load an immoral driver.
Very true... but.. it works..
So does Windows 3.11.
If i write something, and make a piece of hardware, am I not entilted to keep the details to myself?
How would it be immoral for me to not give away all the details of my creation?
OSS is great, yes. But to NOT be OSS be immoral... i think you are reaching.
Providers of binary only software, or those whom will not co-op with the opensource community have just as much right to act that way, as those who do co-op with the community. It is thier creation and they own all the rights.. which is why they can keep it closed..
Freedom of speech, upholds the right to not speak.
Quoting my original post...
This should start a raging debate!
LOL Warning sarcasm ahead! LOL
The only immoral driver I'm aware of is "Ms. Poppy Cain" the uninsured drunk woman who plowed head on into my truck about 3 weeks ago and received her 2nd DUI for her efforts. However, ask twenty people to define morality and you will likely get as many answers. My immoral driver is someone else's unfortunate woman who made a mistake (but that doesn't make her immoral) and another may suggest that the accident was nothing more than karma... that i am paying for my immorality. Further still, the only way to obtain a consensus supporting my definition is to selectively surround myself with only like- minded individuals who would never question my authority or definition of morality. I could name the group the "moral majority" if that name wasn't already taken...ROFLMAO
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 1:55 am, Tom Bruno wrote:
If i write something, and make a piece of hardware, am I not entilted to keep the details to myself?
How would it be immoral for me to not give away all the details of my creation?
OSS is great, yes. But to NOT be OSS be immoral... i think you are reaching.
Providers of binary only software, or those whom will not co-op with the opensource community have just as much right to act that way, as those who do co-op with the community. It is thier creation and they own all the rights.. which is why they can keep it closed..
Freedom of speech, upholds the right to not speak. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 07:55, Tom Bruno wrote:
If i write something, and make a piece of hardware, am I not entilted to keep the details to myself?
You can keep the details to yourself provided you do not distribute the hardware.
How would it be immoral for me to not give away all the details of my creation?
While not giving away all the details may be acceptable in itself provided a moral reason, purposely hiding such details certainly would not be since it is inhibiting others' rights to make modifications and such.
Providers of binary only software, or those whom will not co-op with the opensource community have just as much right to act that way, as those who do co-op with the community.
They have no right to limit the rights of others.
It is thier creation and they own all the rights.. which is why they can keep it closed..
It is only theirs until they give or sell it to somebody else. Once someone else has obtained it legit, it is their rights to make modifications or duplications.
Freedom of speech, upholds the right to not speak.
However, once you speak, freedom of speech also upholds the right of those who heard you to tell others and expand on what you said.
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 04:39:08PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 07:55, Tom Bruno wrote:
If I write something, and make a piece of hardware, am I not entitled to keep the details to myself?
You can keep the details to yourself provided you do not distribute the hardware.
So you are in favor of compelled speech then. E.g. if I manufacture a product, I should be compelled to publish certain information about it. I am aware that other type of products are already subject to various forms of compelled speech, e.g. nutritional information on food products, but compelled speech for hardware seems a bit much.
How would it be immoral for me to not give away all the details of my creation?
While not giving away all the details may be acceptable in itself provided a moral reason, purposely hiding such details certainly would not be since it is inhibiting others' rights to make modifications and such.
Others have the right to make modifications. They do _not_ have the right to compel my assistance in said modifications.
Providers of binary only software, or those whom will not co-op with the opensource community have just as much right to act that way, as those who do co-op with the community.
They have no right to limit the rights of others.
I am not limiting the rights of the others, by not giving them with my time.
It is their creation and they own all the rights.. which is why they can keep it closed..
It is only theirs until they give or sell it to somebody else. Once someone else has obtained it legit, it is their rights to make modifications or duplications.
Freedom of speech, upholds the right to not speak.
However, once you speak, freedom of speech also upholds the right of those who heard you to tell others and expand on what you said.
This is correct, but it is not required for me to be guilty to have the right to remain silent.
-- Hal Duston hald@kc.rr.com
On Wednesday 04 January 2006 01:56, Hal Duston wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 04:39:08PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 07:55, Tom Bruno wrote:
If I write something, and make a piece of hardware, am I not entitled to keep the details to myself?
You can keep the details to yourself provided you do not distribute the hardware.
So you are in favor of compelled speech then. E.g. if I manufacture a product, I should be compelled to publish certain information about it. I am aware that other type of products are already subject to various forms of compelled speech, e.g. nutritional information on food products, but compelled speech for hardware seems a bit much.
The person who buys the hardware should be given information he needs to make any changes to it that he wants. My libertarian side recognizes that people shouldn't be *forced* to publish the info, but providing benefits (plagerism protection and/or percentage of all sales) only for those who do sounds good.
How would it be immoral for me to not give away all the details of my creation?
While not giving away all the details may be acceptable in itself provided a moral reason, purposely hiding such details certainly would not be since it is inhibiting others' rights to make modifications and such.
Others have the right to make modifications. They do _not_ have the right to compel my assistance in said modifications.
But in selling only binaries instead of the program code, you are *obstructing* their right to make modifications. Providing source code is not assistance, but lack of obstruction.
Your right to throw a punch ends at the tip of my nose. ;) Equally, your right to see what I have done in software ends at the object code being distributed, unless further granted by licensing. Further for example, you dont' get the formatting and layout codes for a book you buy, and you also don't expect to be given them if you ask a publisher. They are required to make the book, but you are not having any rights being obstructed by not having them. You are fully free to work out how to do the formatting on your own, but your rights also stop at the copyright of the author, and even the copyright of the font creator and layout designs.
Jon.
On 1/3/06, Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
But in selling only binaries instead of the program code, you are *obstructing* their right to make modifications. Providing source code is not assistance, but lack of obstruction. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Just curious Luke, how far do you take this belief? Do you only run computers which work with a free-as-in-freedom BIOs as well?
I used NDISWRAPPER because it allowed me to move to GNU/Linux without forcing me to buy new hardware.
The way I see it: the drivers aren't immoral; the company's decision to not open source the drivers was immoral.
Rick P.
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 14:54 +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
On Monday 02 January 2006 13:03, Bill Cavalieri wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 03:17 +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
Better to deprive business and a sale than to buy hardware without [moral] drivers.
Regarding my purchase, AMD and NVidia in my notebook was a higher priority than native wlan driver.
You mean ATi, I hope. nVidia, of course, lacks hardware accel for 3D.
Which you will be hard pressed to find native wlan support in a $1000 notebook anyways, most at that price are broadcom.
Well, I guess the news of a native, moral Broadcom driver helps you here.
I'm sure somewhere your stance on this makes sense, too bad this isn't that place. I'm not understanding your comparison of morality and ndiswrapper I guess.
The only practical use for ndiswrapper is to load an immoral driver. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 00:19, Richard Piper wrote:
Just curious Luke, how far do you take this belief? Do you only run computers which work with a free-as-in-freedom BIOs as well?
If I had that choice, I certainly would. Ditto for firmware and hardware.
I used NDISWRAPPER because it allowed me to move to GNU/Linux without forcing me to buy new hardware.
Wrong phrasing/thinking: It isn't the move to GNU/Linux that would have forced you to buy anything-- it was the manufacturers of the unsupported hardware.
The way I see it: the drivers aren't immoral; the company's decision to not open source the drivers was immoral.
And your decision to buy the device and use the drivers is an act of support. Now, obviously if you were given it or had already bought it, that doesn't apply, but you're still sacrificing your rights and piece-of-mind (who knows what backdoors these drivers might have?) by using them.
--- Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 00:19, Richard Piper wrote:
Just curious Luke, how far do you take this belief? Do you only run computers which work with a free-as-in-freedom BIOs as well?
If I had that choice, I certainly would. Ditto for firmware and hardware.
And if we had the choice of using "moral" drivers, we certainly would. Some of us don't have the choice of using "moral" drivers, so, EXACTLY LIKE YOU, we choose what we have to and not necessarily what we want.
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 20:42, Leo Mauler wrote:
--- Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 00:19, Richard Piper wrote:
Just curious Luke, how far do you take this belief? Do you only run computers which work with a free-as-in-freedom BIOs as well?
If I had that choice, I certainly would. Ditto for firmware and hardware.
And if we had the choice of using "moral" drivers, we certainly would. Some of us don't have the choice of using "moral" drivers, so, EXACTLY LIKE YOU, we choose what we have to and not necessarily what we want.
That doesn't work when someone knowingly chooses to limit their choices by buying hardware lacking moral drivers.
--- Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Sunday 01 January 2006 06:58, Leo Mauler wrote:
--- Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Thursday 29 December 2005 08:57, Leo Mauler wrote:
As for wireless support, learn this keyword: "ndiswrapper".
ndiswrapper is just a hack to use immoral drivers. Not a real solution at all.
Of course its a real solution. If you don't have drivers then you don't have a network card. If you do have drivers then you have a network card, regardless of where the drivers came from.
What you meant to say was that it is a less preferable solution.
Better to not have drivers at all than to have immoral drivers.
Better to have access to the Internet than to have no access at all.
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
-
Bill Cavalieri -
curt -
Hal Duston -
Jon Pruente -
Leo Mauler -
Luke-Jr -
Matthew Copple -
Nick Manley -
Richard Piper -
sirsky -
Tom Bruno