On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 12:44, Chad Perrin wrote:
> Last I checked, I seem to remember seeing some outrageously high RAM
> requirements for Fedora installation. Even the text-based install was
> listed in at least one location as requiring something like 96MB of RAM.
> If that's an accurate representation of the requirements, I'd like to
> know how he shoehorned Fedora into a system with only 48MB of RAM. If
> not, I'd like to know where that number came from, though of course I
> didn't bookmark it so I've no way to check now.
On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 17:00, Eben King wrote:
> He may have removed the hard drive and done the install on a different
> machine. I've done that.
On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 17:24, Chad Perrin wrote:
> That was my first thought. I didn't want to bias the answers by
> suggesting it myself, though.
On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 18:56, Robert Snyder wrote:
> There might be some bypass around the installer. windows xp checks to
> see if you have at least 128 megs of ram but there is a way of still
> running setup minus the ram check so that might of been the answer.
> Fedora might have some type of do not check switch in it too.
> or he put some more ram in for the install from a different machine.
At this point, I really don't know what to say. I've stated that I've
installed Fedora Core on as little as 32MB and even 24MB of RAM. Now I
made sure I had pre-made/pre-formatted swap. And I didn't boot right
into the GUI. But I did it with the _stock_ installer.
Red Hat has _always_ been _extremely_ conservative on their numbers.
The Rule Project has found that Red Hat artificially bloats its
numbers. They even respun a "Miniconda" version that used to install in
as little as 16MB, although that was back in the Red Hat Linux 9 time
period -- but that's when Red Hat said 48MB of minimum.
You guys can keep going on and speculating. But I have specifically
stated what *I* was able to do. And I'm not the only one. God forbid
one of you actually try to do it. The Fedora Project is really opening
up a lot -- including offering a 3rd standard desktop in XFCE starting
with Fedora Core 2.
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:13:39 EDT