On 17/04/12 21:18, Arnt Karlsen wrote:

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:10:38 +0100, Dom wrote in message
<4F8D79DE.20208@rpdom.net>:



I realise that I'm not going to be able to keep these machines
running for much longer, but I'll keep trying for as long as I can.


..do the math on power, maintenance etc cost on keeping the old
junk running vs doing it e.g in a virtual machine on a newer host
iron, you may find that the newer iron adds academic profits such
as learning to run virtual machines.

..then again, in some climates, you _may_ have a use for the
100W or 300W or so of waste heat generated by that old iron.

..waste heat value: Say 150W @ .5NOK/kWh and per year?
arnt@celsius:~$ qalc 150W*1year*.5NOK/kWh to $
warning: It has been more than one week since the exchange
rates last were updated.
(150 * watt * (1 * year) * (0.5 * NOK)) / (kilowatt * hour)
= approx. $110.73655
arnt@celsius:~$



Done the math many times :-)

These little machines take about 30W max, are only used for an average
of an hour a day. As for running costs? Peanuts. Heat output? Barely
noticable.


My main laptop is slightly newer and about 10x the power. I have other
systems, but nothing modern - I don't have the funds to get anything newer.


Besides, it's a fun challenge to keep the old ones running. I enjoy it
--
Dom


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4F8EFB4A.2000907@rpdom.net">http://lists.debian.org/4F8EFB4A.2000907@rpdom.net

On Wed, April 18, 2012 10:35 am, Dom wrote:
> These little machines take about 30W max, are only used for an average
> of an hour a day. As for running costs? Peanuts. Heat output? Barely
> noticable.
>
> My main laptop is slightly newer and about 10x the power. I have other
> systems, but nothing modern - I don't have the funds to get anything
> newer.
>
> Besides, it's a fun challenge to keep the old ones running. I enjoy it

I can relate to those points and wonder what fraction of CPU cycles
in the world, execute application code. Could easily believe a
number less than 1%. Great improvements of efficiency should be
possible in many aspects computing.

Regards, ... Peter E.

--
Telephone 1 360 639 0202. Bcc: peter at easthope.ca
"http://carnot.yi.org/ "
"http://members.shaw.ca/peasthope/index.html#Itinerary "


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 903ab8804b4e5de1d27b9d5dd3436ebc.squirrel@easthope .ca">http://lists.debian.org/903ab8804b4e5de1d27b9d5dd3436ebc.squirrel@easthope .ca

Dom <toyer@rpdom.net> wrote:
> On 17/04/12 21:18, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:10:38 +0100, Dom wrote in message
>> <4F8D79DE.20208@rpdom.net>:
>>
>>>
>>> I realise that I'm not going to be able to keep these machines
>>> running for much longer, but I'll keep trying for as long as I can.
>>
>> ..do the math on power, maintenance etc cost on keeping the old
>> junk running vs doing it e.g in a virtual machine on a newer host
>> iron, you may find that the newer iron adds academic profits such
>> as learning to run virtual machines.
>>
>> ..then again, in some climates, you _may_ have a use for the
>> 100W or 300W or so of waste heat generated by that old iron.
>>
>> ..waste heat value: Say 150W @ .5NOK/kWh and per year?
>> arnt@celsius:~$ qalc 150W*1year*.5NOK/kWh to $
>> warning: It has been more than one week since the exchange
>> rates last were updated.
>> (150 * watt * (1 * year) * (0.5 * NOK)) / (kilowatt * hour)
>> = approx. $110.73655
>> arnt@celsius:~$
>>
>>
> Done the math many times :-)
>
> These little machines take about 30W max, are only used for an average
> of an hour a day. As for running costs? Peanuts. Heat output? Barely
> noticable.
>
> My main laptop is slightly newer and about 10x the power. I have other
> systems, but nothing modern - I don't have the funds to get anything newer.
>
> Besides, it's a fun challenge to keep the old ones running. I enjoy it
> --

There is a special appeal in the challenge of keeping obsolete
machines alive, and a unique form of satifaction in not indulging
in the rampant consumerism that surrounds us too.

--
� ♫ � ♫ � ♫ �
Indulekha


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120418191445.GA4765@radhesyama">http://lists.debian.org/20120418191445.GA4765@radhesyama

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:18:16PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:10:38 +0100, Dom wrote in message
> <4F8D79DE.20208@rpdom.net>:
>
> > On 16/04/12 21:34, Aleksandar Kostadinov wrote:
> > > To anybody interested, debian wheezy can't run on 64MB RAM on i386.
> > > Or actually it can run but package management is unusable so all
> > > debian benefits are actually lost.

Hmmm.... I have not tried recently but Debian i386 was for 486 or newer
for good long time.

http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s01.html.en#id583669

| However, Debian GNU/Linux squeeze will not run on 386 or earlier
| processors. Despite the architecture name "i386", support for actual
| 80386 processors (and their clones) was dropped with the Sarge (r3.1)
| release of Debian[2]. (No version of Linux has ever supported the 286 or
| earlier chips in the series.) All i486 and later processors are still
| supported[3].
...
| [2] We have long tried to avoid this, but in the end it was necessary
| due a unfortunate series of issues with the compiler and the kernel,
| starting with an bug in the C++ ABI provided by GCC. You should still be
| able to run Debian GNU/Linux on actual 80386 processors if you compile
| your own kernel and compile all packages from source, but that is beyond
| the scope of this manual.
| [3] Many Debian packages will actually run slightly faster on modern
| computers as a positive side effect of dropping support for these old
| chips. The i486, introduced in 1989, has three opcodes (bswap, cmpxchg,
| and xadd) which the i386, introduced in 1986, did not have. Previously,
| these could not be easily used by most Debian packages; now they can.

This is not RAM size issue but CPU code compatibility issue.

> > > I tried pulling the .deb files on another machine, then transfer to
> > > the old machine. But dpkg is killed on 95% reading database (I think
> > > OOM killer). It fails even if I try to install 1 package.

So install Woddy (r3.0) from old archive ...


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120419132455.GA8136@localhost">http://lists.debian.org/20120419132455.GA8136@localhost

On Wednesday 18 April 2012 20:14:45 Indulekha wrote:
> There is a special appeal in the challenge of keeping obsolete
> machines alive, and a unique form of satifaction in not indulging
> in the rampant consumerism that surrounds us too.

+1 :-)

Lisi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201204192048.54048.lisi.reisz@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/201204192048.54048.lisi.reisz@gmail.com