Why are there only i686 and i586 Versions of glibc and kernel?-- not "lite" (386/486 @ 400MHz+, 256MB RAM)

[mlauterbach at mail.wtamu.edu]

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 13:30:30 -0500, Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher at gmail.com>
wrote:
>I'd rather see something like, in staggered order of
>dependancy:
>
>Core - (no, really, CORE. No X, no gcc, just the hard base.) Desktop
>Development Multimedia Extras

I think that some sort of setup like this would be beneficial.  With the
advent of advanced installation tools such as apt and yum the necessity to
provide every package in the core has greatly decreased.  I know I don't
like to download 4+ CDs if I only want to do a minimal install.  The only
restriction I would put on the Core would be to try to make it fit on one
CD.  A really stripped down Core will hamper new Linux users as much as
the current setup.  Specifically, some sort of GUI based method would be
needed to provide access to the Desktop packages.  I know that 3 short
years ago the fact that Slackware booted into run-level 3 instead of 5
drove me away from that distro.  In hindsight it is simple to type 'init
5' onto the CLI and be in the more comfortable graphical environment.  The
fact that RedHat will install a graphical desktop by default (with no need
to use the CLI until I am ready to that plunge) is very beneficial to
those of us trying to make the switch from the Redmond OS to Linux.

Also, I don't think that anyone says the following things enough:
Fedora Core 1 was a great operating system.  Fedora Core 2 is a great
operating system.  Sure there is work to be done, but Fedora is working. 
I use it at home on my Athlon64 3000+.  I have installed both the x86 and
x86_64 versions.  Keep up the good work.

Matthew E. Lauterbach
Ex-Windows and X Windows user