LFS for Old Hardware, which to choose?

Tor Olav Stava tostava at tiscali.no
Sat Mar 12 16:49:17 PST 2005

Thanks for quick answer ;)

> I've run LFS-3.3 on a Pentium MMX and currently run LFS-6.0-TP on a PIII.
> don't think LFS version would make any difference. LFS-6.0 should be fine
> old Pentiums, but make sure you've plenty of memory in them for X and a
> desktop. I like Xfce for low-powered boxes, but both of my machines ran
> though the Pentium MMX was rather sluggish (-;

Seems like I'll be going for the newer versions of LFS then, as Matthew
Burgess also seem to agree that it shouldn't be any sacrifice in runtime. So
the next problem will then be X, as memory is quite low on these machines,
about 32-96 MB. I'm not looking for a fancy desktop environment, though KDE
would be nice ;) I'll give Xfce a try when I get the base LFS and X running.

Any opinion on which X version to choose considering low RAM?

> But there are plenty of other Window managers/desktops aimed at low-power,
> see what you like and try it. I'm sure others here have more technical
> information regarding LFS versions for low power boxes.

I'll keep my eye open for everything light ;) Just have to get LFS-5.1.1
compiled now. Getting segmentation faults compiling Glibc. Third run now,
and seems the fault's appearing in the same place every time. Did think bad
RAM was the cause, but not so sure anymore. Have changed BIOS settings, and
running make again. Will change memory next, and last option will be the
LiveCD in case it's the host system acting up.. (RH9)


- Tor Olav

More information about the lfs-chat mailing list