what can i do with a 486?

[deeptech71 at gmail.com]

spellberg_robert wrote:
> ok - first, you have what des said and what i said back.
> that covers most of this [ must've crossed in the mail ].

yeah i received his mail later

> all i'm doing is removing anything i don't recognize
>   [ i am a minimalist at heart ],
>   but my needs aren't necessarily the same as yours.
> 
> as for 4.3 compatibility, i don't remember just what it is;
>   but, i think it's a workaround for a bug in 4.3bsd,
>   where fixing the bug would break subsequently written apps and
>   there are too many written apps still in use out there to fix
>   [ or some such ].
> it says to keep it; i've never argued.
> 
> i don't remember access control lists or threads being around
>   back during 486 days.
> 
> fix the earliest occurring error first as
>   subsequent errors may be spurious
>   [ i've known this since fortran in the 1970's,
>     but i still forget on occasion ].
> 
> the first time i did this was maybe five years ago.
> it was a lot of trial and error.
> once i got most of what i didn't have or need
>   out of the way and it worked,
>   i left it alone and smiled quietly to myself.
> 
> you've pretty much taken out everything;
>   i really don't think i can tell you much else.
> 
> i --can-- tell you this, however.
> about half of the planet is in the middle of observing something major.
> if you are in that half, have a happy.
> if not, well - any excuse for a party, dude!
> 
> [ hmmm, i wonder if scotch is kosher for pesach.
>   i gave up drinking, so i don't remember. ]
> 
> rob
> 
> 
> 
> ps ---
> 
> i was about to send this when i had a thought.
> i make absolutely --no-- claim that this is a good idea,
>   but, to me, it's plausible.
> my thinking is that there is less code.
> on the other hand,
>   it may introduce a different set of unpleasantries.
> 
> instead of trying to put 6.x on the 486,
>   what if you backed off and tried something younger ?
> looking at my shelf, i see that
>   my latest version of the versions is 3.5.1, 4.11, 5.5 and 6.2
>   [ i also have some 2's, but ... ].
> as an example, if 3.5.1 works, try 4.11.
> if that works, try 5.5 [ iirc, 5.0 and 5.1 are bogus ].
> if that works, maybe it's good enough.
> if 3.5.1 works and 4.11 doesn't work,
>   split the difference and try 4.6.
> you get the idea.
> 
> like i said, it's a thought.

I'll try.