[BLU.] Re: Future Linux machines?

[david at thekramers.net (David Kramer)]

On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, Derek Martin wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 06:23:27AM -0400, Michael Bilow wrote:
> > Offsetting these downsides is the probability that the computers could go
> > very, very cheaply.  I would be happy to get $50 each for machines like
> > this, with Linux preinstalled and configured.
>
> I saw a table full of computers like this about a year ago at a
> computer show, selling for $25 apiece.  They were all still there when
> I left...

I have to agree here.  With minimal hard drive space and RAM (much more
limiting than processor speed), it's not going to be useful for a
workstation.

Having built a lot of machines in the past 18 years, I've learned the
hard way that you can't give newbies underpowered boxes.  They get
frustrated and give up.  You have to give them tools that make it easy.


> Sure, you can run a really light-weight window manager like FVWM, but
> for those just getting acquainted with Linux, this is a harder option,
> because it's not Windows-like (though it can be made to look like it,
> with some effort), takes more configuration (by editing config files
> by hand), and isn't what the Installer sets you up with.  Most of the
> people who are just coming around to Linux now (in my experience) will
> not want to deal with that.  Most people use computers to make their
> lives easier.  They don't want to tinker with them.

Even if there is enough memory for a very minimal X interface, there
probably won't be enough disk space.   And, yes, it would not be
sufficiently Windows-like to be usable without training.  I don't think
that part is an obstacle, though, because these machines would surely be
used to learn this stuff.

> Aside from that, just installing Linux takes a lot more disk space
> than these things are likely to have.  Choosing one of the "standard"
> installs of Red Hat 7.1 (for example) requires about a GB of disk space.

There are _MUCH_ thinner distributions that would fit fine, but maybe only
with no or minimal X.  I have one that fits on a single floppy!
(http://www.toms.net/rb/).  The first UNIX clone I played with a LONG time
ago, Coherent from Mark Williams Corporation, ran on a 286 or better, and
fit on a 100MB hard drive.  I think I still have the floppies.  Red Hat
Linux has mor in common with Windows than we would like to admit.  The big
difference, though, is with Red Hat you have almost complete control of
what gets controlled and enabled, if you know what you're doing.  With
Windows, you have very little control over that.

> About the only use I can see for such a machine today is as a firewall
> or router.  Much better machines can be had for very little money.
> You can put together a respectable Linux workstation for under $400.
> Personally I'd probably take one of these machines if they were being
> given away, but I wouldn't pay money for one.

Agreed.  Unless you were willing to spend two or three hours on each
machine turning them into finished products (whatever that product may
be), you're not going to fetch much.  Especially given the timeframe.

Consider Technology for Social Change (http://www.tecschange.org/).  They
came to me at the US DataCenter MegaMeeting.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
DDDD   David Kramer                           http://thekramers.net
DK KD
DKK D  "No matter how much cats fight,
DK KD  there always seem to be plenty of kittens."
DDDD                                  - Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)


-
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).