This is a discussion on RPM 'failed dependancies' needed for OpenOffice rpm install within the Linux Operating System forums, part of the Unix Operating Systems category; --> "MS" <No.Way.Jose@No.Spam.Thank.You.com> wrote in message news:vgPqg.96630$wl.82145@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk... > Nico Kadel-Garcia emailed this: >> "MS" <No.Way.Jose@No.Spam.Thank.You.com> wrote in message >> ...
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||
| "MS" <No.Way.Jose@No.Spam.Thank.You.com> wrote in message news:vgPqg.96630$wl.82145@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk... > Nico Kadel-Garcia emailed this: >> "MS" <No.Way.Jose@No.Spam.Thank.You.com> wrote in message >> news:GUOqg.96620$wl.26262@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk... >>> Thanks everyone for your replies, I think an upgrade is in order! >>> >>> Basically I installed RH 7.2 a few years ago on an old PC and have used >>> it almost exclusively as a (local network) MySQL database server --it's >>> never even been connected to the Internet. >>> >>> What Linux should I install? It's a low powered machine not even a 1 Ghz >>> processor and 128 MB RAM. One of the posters suggested Fedora Core 5, >>> would this run ok on a low specs machine? May I also have some >>> suggestions for an appropriate Linux for a low specs machine please? >> >> With 128 Meg of RAM, I wouldn't go much above RedHat 9. But running >> OpenOffice on 128 Meg is like trying to comb your hair with a work. It >> lacks the necessary resources to do the job quickly. > > Okay, thanks. Can the upgrade to RH 9 be done with RPMs? > Cheers. > > PS. Should 'work' have been 'wok'? :-) No, it should have been "fork". But good guess, and wok is funnier. In theory, maybe you could do the RH9 update with RPM's, but ye ghods, I wouldn't suggest doing it directly: resolving the glibc and rpm software versions themselves is begging to make things fail unrecoverably in the middle. Do it in one swell foop from ISO's. |
| ||||
| Thanks everyone. John-Paul Stewart emailed this: > MS wrote: >> >> What Linux should I install? It's a low powered machine not even a 1 >> Ghz processor and 128 MB RAM. One of the posters suggested Fedora Core >> 5, would this run ok on a low specs machine? May I also have some >> suggestions for an appropriate Linux for a low specs machine please? > > As is often said in response to questions like this: any Linux > distribution will be fine. The only caveat is that with 256MB RAM or > less, you'll want to stay away from KDE and Gnome. Use a light weight > window manager instead (IceWM and FVWM are just two of many examples) if > you need a GUI on it. |