Why Linux is Not for You!

[jeffimix]

Anyone here want to help me get  a small Linux distro running on my IBM 300GL. right now it has DR DOS 7.03 on it. I've used Redhat on it (5.0) and it was too slow. which is why I want a small version of linux, but itm ust at the same time be X11 capable (or thereabouts) and not to hard to use, quirks are alright, but not major ones. But seriously, the 300GL is all heck to put Linux on, theres no proper support for that pc.

[jeffimix]

A Pentium at 167 Mhz. It has an ethernet card that most things have trouble picking up. It has 32 megabytes of RAM.  It has about 2.5 Gb of HD space, only 2.1 is being used (too lazy to put second partition in for DOS using Fdisk, no need). It has a CD-ROM drive, but will only boot off of its 3.5" floppy drive. It was built by IBM. It also has 2 USB ports, that, yet again, most OSes have trouble picking up. Unless someone can get Linux running on it well. This may be the only PC where windows was the best choice ever.

EDIT
oh yeah, its got a Creative Labs Sound Blaster 16/Pro??? in it. 16 I believe.

[jeffimix]

First I agree wholeheartedly about windows system being slow, but Knoppix looks fine. Looks are not a Linux problem. I really love the idea of Guru Errors, perfectly concise and explicit, give me a reference book and I'm in hog heaven for errors. Linux is slow, so is Mac, windows is slow in some ways, frankly, my Xp version is slow, but windows refresh is fast, thats just priorities.

[jeffimix]

Ok, why Like the way MS DOS (and compatible really) assigns drive names:
A: B:       'Floppy Drives
C: D:       'Hard Disks   (D: Can be a CD ROM if you hvae only one HD)
E: F:        'Usually CDs
For DOS, it saves a lot of time. Its not really easier to remember,  nor is it difficult to remember IMHO. I though you could rename drives in Amiga though?

But seriously, how many people use DOS on a home computer these days (except for geeks like me)