what can i do with a 486?

deeptech71 at gmail.com deeptech71 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 19 22:41:40 UTC 2007


Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Ypu're out of luck then.  Recent versions of FreeBSD
> require floating-point support to be present, which a
> 486SX doesn't have.  You must have at least a 486DX
> processor, I'm afraid.  Or install an old version of
> FreeBSD which will emulate FP instructions, but then
> you don't have security support anymore, which means
> it's probably a bad idea to connect the machine to
> the internet, i.e. you shouldn't use it as a router.

What release (best of which still support it)?

> 8 MB isn't much.  You won'te be able to run sysinstall
> with it, and a standard kernel won't be much fun either.
> But it should be OK with a smaller custom kernel.

First thing is to find out how to do that :]
(i'll read the Handbook later someday)

>  > But doesn't FreeBSD configure things for specific hardware
>  > when installed on one computer? And does it work if
>  > install on a new generation 386?
> 
> The standard FreeBSD/i386 installation will work on
> all supported x86 machines, from a 486DX upwards.

Sry, I meant:
And does it work if install on a new generation 386 FIRST?
Did that, and voila, "Missing operating system"

> Personally I prefer to use a FreeBSD machine as a
> router, because I dislike "black boxes".  You never
> know what bugs and security issues they might have,
> and many vendors are not particularly quick when a
> security hole needs to be fixed.  It's not a very
> good feeling when you know that exploits are
> circulating in the net and your vendor doesn't
> provide a new firware for your box.

Same here... feels good to have control, to be the king :]

> The FreeBSD security folks are usually very quick
> in providing security advisories and patches, and
> if you know a bit about C programming, you can even
> fix things yourself.  Heck, even the fact that you
> _can_ look at the source code if you want is very
> big plus for FreeBSD.

I've read somewhere, that if I want to learn to hack computers, I need to get 
some UNIX, because Windows isn't open source, and learning is near impossible. 
That's when I've been directed to FreeBSD. Well, it was just a matter of time 
until I found out that I still couldn't do anything with the source without 
knowing C :]. OK, now I do.

But, nontheless, FreeBSD seemed like such a stable system, plus there are 
comparisons of FreeBSD VS Windows in google, it's like 8 - 2. But those tests 
(uh, comparisons from BSD fans?) were made back in 2000. Where's an up to date 
comparison?

 > Are you sure that the installation finished successfully?
 > As I mentioned above, I think 200 MB isn't sufficient for
 > a standard installation.

Yes yes 100%. First it failed with 150MB '/' and 64MB SWAP, then it woked with 
170MB '/' and 32MB SWAP and less distribution sets. The thing is, it simply 
can't boot up! Even the boot floppies aren't working.. they say 'No 
/boot/loader' (kern1.flp) and some other error I dont remember (boot.flp). WTF?

 > You could frame it and nail it to the wall.

LOL


More information about the freebsd-chat mailing list