1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 23:15 on Monday 16 May 2011, Dale did opine |
2 |
thusly: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Alan McKinnon wrote: |
5 |
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 18:18 on Monday 16 May 2011, Indi did |
6 |
> > opine |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > thusly: |
9 |
> >> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 06:10:02PM +0200, Felix Miata wrote: |
10 |
> >>> Actually after the first or 2nd or some subsequent attempt that was my |
11 |
> >>> plan. After so much time passed (days, not just hours) and I had good |
12 |
> >>> kernel, NFS, and MC that I didn't see much point delaying KDE. After |
13 |
> >>> the errors disappeared around 10 last night and I reported same here I |
14 |
> >>> started to wonder where to go next on a tired brain. I set qt3support |
15 |
> >>> emerging around that time, and more than 3 hours later and time for |
16 |
> >>> bed its hundred& some packages were still emerging. I woke up hours |
17 |
> >>> later to goto the bathroom and found that done, so set kdm to install. |
18 |
> >>> That hundred plus set of packages is still emerging now, nearly 6 |
19 |
> >>> hours later. Maybe 32 bit 1667MHz& 512M RAM is on the skimpy side for |
20 |
> >>> installing Gentoo? |
21 |
> >> |
22 |
> >> Not to mention there is pretty much no way you'll be using kde on that |
23 |
> >> hardware! I'd be surprised if X would be usable on that even with |
24 |
> >> blackbox wm... |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> > This is a joke right? |
27 |
> |
28 |
> I once ran Gentoo Linux with KDE3 on a 133Mhz machine with 256Mbs of |
29 |
> ram. It wasn't fast but it did OK. A friend used it to play cards on. |
30 |
> No internet or anything tho. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> I did the compiling via chroot on my old rig which had a much faster CPU |
33 |
> and such. I just plugged the drive into my rig and did my thing. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> It may be slow but it should work. Make sure you have some swap tho. |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
I pondered for a long time how to reply to Indi. |
39 |
|
40 |
I had many posts typed out, most of them rude, all of them classic Alan, but |
41 |
something held me back. Lucky it went that way, he later posted he read |
42 |
1667MHZ as 167MHz. |
43 |
|
44 |
Amazing what a difference a "1" can make :-) |
45 |
|
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
-- |
49 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |