Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 10:49 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:56:32AM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 22:37 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
>> > > Hello,
>> > > 
>> > > I've got a 486DX4-100 with 32 MB ram, ISA bus, with two drives: 840 MB
>> > > and 1280 MB IDE.  Currently running Debian GNU/Linux Sarge.
>>  
>> > Assuming you don't try to do more with it than you have CPU and RAM for,
>> > you should be fine. However, once you've tested that all your hardware
>> > works with the GENERIC kernel, I would strongly recommend you compile a
>> > custom kernel and run that (do a Web search for a Perl program called
>> > dmassage which will help immensely), but keep a copy of GENERIC around
>> > in case problems do creep in. The reason for compiling a custom kernel
>> > in this case is to save memory; I saved about 2.5M on a similar system,
>> > which is a lot when you only have 32M to begin with (with any system
>> > much newer it's usually not worth it).
>> > 
>> 
>> I thought compiling a custom kernel was _discouraged_?
> 
> Officially it's discouraged; from my point of view, you have one of the
> rare situations where a case could be made for it. 

no.
If you want to run OpenBSD on a 16M or 12M machine, yes, you probably have
to make a custom kernel.  But then, you have a pretty far-out app, so you
would know that already.

32M is at a point where if it isn't enough, you need a better machine.
Tweaking the kernel to make it run "better" in 32M is just perfume on the
pig.  If that's what you need to do, get a less smelly pig.

Note that you should
quoted text
> *always* keep a copy of GENERIC around for troubleshooting.
> 
>> I just loaded the 486 to the most I ever do:
>> 	ssh to the big box (titan) to pon courer (the modem) and run bwm
>> 	ssh to titan for mutt
>> 	run aptitude, update the package list
>> 	run top to watch everything
>> 	run X with icewm:
>> 		rxvt > ssh titan, to run conquorer
>> 		go to theweathernetwork.com

As I indicated recently, probably on this thread, ssh on a 486 is painful.
Works fine, but painfully slow.  (key length was cranked a few releases
ago with the assumption that most people with slower machines can crank
it back down if they so desire).

X?  oh, ick.  It will work, but you may need the XF3 support, as a lot of
old, 486-vintage video chips haven't been ported to X.org.  If you need to
use the XF3 servers, you will be out of luck starting with OpenBSD v4.2,
as (hopefully) we will have switched to Xenocara, and probably drop XF3
support.

I believe at some point, it was indicated that this 486 is or may be the
OP's first OpenBSD experience.  If that is true, I'd highly recommend a
better machine to get your feet wet with.  OpenBSD will run better on a
486 than just about any other popular OS now, but the 486 will take a
long time to install, and you shouldn't make the assumption that your
first install will actually be your final install.  Installing on a 486
is for someone with enough experience that the first install ends up
being the final install; you don't want to learn too many lessons the
hard way on a 486.

MY recommendation for minimum HW for OpenBSD for a first-timer would be
a Pentium, 100MHz or better, 32M RAM or better.  If you want X, I'd bump
that up to a P200, 64M RAM or better.  Again, it isn't that it won't run
on slower machines, it is just that you will skip important steps in the
learning process if your machine is too slow.

Keep in mind, some "wickedly fast" (for OpenBSD) machines are probably
sitting out at your neighbor's curb on trash day (my best find so far was
a 733MHz PIII w/256M RAM and a 30G HD).  I'm suspecting Vista upgrades
are gonna be putting a lot of otherwise fine machines out on curbs soon.

Nick.