🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5j1nmq$lt@mail.orbit.net.au>, mmickan@*ozemail.com.au (Mark
Mickan) wrote:
(judiciously <snipped>)
> In article <33532747.2690616@news.unsw.edu.au>,
>         bt@thepentagon.com (Bobby Tan) writes:

> >What sort of hardware would you suggest if I was to run Linux
> >Slackware?  As this is a non-profit group, we're running low on funds,
> >so a balance betweeen speed and cost would be great.

> Firstly, I'd go with either Redhat or Debian simply because IMHO they are
> easier to maintain and easier to set up.

I would agree with looking for Redhat over Slackware. For me, Redhat was
the more comprehensive, and better designed package by far. Debian, OTOH,
I've never tried.

> Hmmm.  So if I'm
> right on this point then presumably you could set up your 486 (optimized
> as a router - an option in the newer kernels) and voila - a fairly decent
> router box.  Of course if you wanted to use it for webhosting and mail
> too you might lose a bit of speed and might consider at least a Pentium
> 133 (upgrade?).

Actually, if there's only one other host on the local network, I would be
pretty certain that the 28.8k modem would give out _long_ before a
mid-to-high end 486 started feeling the load, as long as said 486 wasn't
running X. The 486 is actually a pretty neat chip, people just disparage
it because it won't run the latest MS bloatware.

ObAside: Microsoft recently announced that Windows 97 would signal the
'death' of the 486 chip. Which is good, because hopefully second-hand
prices will crash, and I'll be able to afford a cheap gateway server for
my home setup. :)

Charles Miller
--
Mr Charles Miller, charles.miller@cs.uwa.edu.au, First Year Student