Woody is what I'm using. I just can't figure out what packages will get me an install of X windows with Afterstep. Side note: Don't flame this because it's "My" opinion and not just because it's My opinion. What I'm saying is about Linux and main stream computer users. I'm really trying hard to learn Linux but as with everyone time is a premium. I use old hardware because thats what I have and can afford. So I use older distributions because it runs faster on old the hardware. I don't even have a CD burner because I can't afford one. I'm not poor but I have other more important priorities then the latest and greatest hardware. All I want to know, without having to do a research paper, is how to install "X windows and Afterstep" without all the extra goodies I don't need. A simple editor for webpages and eMail client is really all I need. Using "vi" or "joe" and "mutt" is just not practical for "Me". I want to learn Linux not the greater part of " vi" just to edit the samba.conf file (joe is plenty). Powerful does not make better in my case. I want to be able to tell people with older hardware (and 0 disposable income) that Linux is an alternative to the latest and greatest from MS. These people don't have networks at home, maybe dialup, don't need more then file and print on a single computer. Open Office is "is" the only application these people will really need. Having a stable computer is the single most important thing to these people. The people I'm talking about shutdown and turn off their computer after using it, they don't want to pay the power company for something they really are not using. Any "advice" is very welcome, save your energy if your going to flame, I put flames in the bit bucket. Sam. Chad Walstrom wrote: >On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 12:25:49PM -0500, Sam MacDonald wrote: > > >>Sometimes the latest and greatest just don't fit the hardware profile. >>My system is a P200mm, 64 mob RAM, 2.5 gig disk, ISA NC (Link 220 = >>one), ISA sound, and CPI video (old). >> >>New does not always mean better. >> >> > >No, but in this case, Debian stable (woody) IS what you want. It's not >simply new, but more efficient and quicker for your hardware. With a >P200 and 64M of memory, you should be able to run X quite well. The >kernel should have no problems with a P200, nor should it have issues >with your peripherals. > >The only time you should not be running stable is when you have an >embedded device or something ancient, like a 386 with 2MB of ram. Take >the aforementioned tip and install Debian 3.0rX, not 2.X. > > > _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list