gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu May 10 12:45:27 PDT 2001
> Nope. Thats what I think. :) How many 386's or 486's do you know that
> have a bootable cdrom drive, much less a cdrom drive at all. :) Maybe a
> bootdisk and some 486's but I think your pushing it in 386 land. This is
> why I just choose i586 before.... Anyone with an opinion on this, what
> should be done?
You don't need a bootcd in order to get ALFS installed on a 386. One
could just copy the alfs cd contents to a harddisk and then put that
harddisk in a 386 and boot from it.
The bigger question we should ask, I think, is whether we want a 386 to
be able to run a Linux system (or alfs in our case).
And, are all 586's the same? I have seen and heard about subtle
differences between Intel's and AMD's when somebody tried to
cross-compile LFS to it. Going from a Pentium to some kind of AMD which
would also be a 586 (that was before the kernel had specific amd
options) proved to be troublesome because the code from intel 586 didnt'
work on the amd 586 type. Downgrading to 486 solved that problem for
that guy. I think we'd be safest by using 386 binaries on the alfs cd so
we don't risc getting into these intel/amd/cyrix weirdnesses.
-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
Unsubscribe: send email to alfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message
More information about the alfs-discuss