Linux

48179 readers

1171 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

112

Are older, but Linux compatible computers capable of running the newest kernel/version of various distros? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

66 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Guys I truly don't mean to spam the community but these are legit questions. Yesterday I posted about linux compatibility and computers and every single person gave me knowledge to use and you're all awesome.

Now my question is, I will undoubtedly be purchasing an older machine, would an older but good running machine still be able to install the latest kernels or versions of distros or are you limited to older versions only, based on the era of your laptop or is it really about the hardware you have? I know ram, disk space, basic stuff like that matters with distros, but I know that will not be a problem. I guess I'm thinking beyond that like processors. are older processors or anything else hold certain machines from being compatible with the newest and greatest kernels? Thanks!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 72 points 1 year ago (2 children)

AFAIK if you buy any computer from within the last 20 years, there's a good chance you can get a 6.X Kernel running on it. 32-bit support is fading out, though. If you buy a 64-bit computer, you'll be able (with sufficient RAM and hard disk space) to install any modern distro on it.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd say that single core performance and amount of RAM you have are the biggest issues with running anything on old hardware. Apparently, in theory, you could run even modern kernel with just 4MB of RAM (or even less, good luck finding an 32bit system with less than 4MB). I don't think you could fit any kind of graphical environment on top of that, but for an SSH terminal or something else lightweight it would be enough.

However a modern browser will easily consume couple gigabytes of RAM and even a 'lightweight' desktop environment like XFCE will consume couple hundred MB's without much going on. So it depends heavily on what you consider to be 'old'.

The computer at garage (which I'm writing this with) is Thinkstation S20 I got for free from the office years ago is from 2011. 12GB of RAM, 4 core Xeon CPU and aftermarket SSD on SATA-bus and this thing can easily do everything I need for it in this use case. Browsing the web on how to fix whatever I'm working with at the garage, listen music from spotify, occasional youtube-video, signal and things lke that. Granted this was on a higher end when it was new, but maybe it gives some perspective on things.

[–] Eldritch 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm running Arch on a very early 2000s computer. Dual core athlon with two gigabytes of RAM. With KDE desktop on a period correct display. Works great as long as you are not trying to push it hard with modern tasks. Browses the internet just fine and can even watch videos of a size more appropriate for that era. But yeah, you get into 1080p displays and high resolution videos. Or modern bloated websites. It's definitely going to chug.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, right, the screen resolution is something I didn't even consider that much. My system has 1600x1200 display and GPU is Quadro FX570. This thing would absolutely struggle anything higher than 1080p, but as all the parts are free (minus the SSD, 128G drives are something like 30€ or less) this thing is easily good enough for what I use it for and it wouldn't be that big of a stretch to run this thing as a daily driver, just add bigger SSD and maybe a bit more modern GPU with a 2k display and you'd be good to go.

And 1600x1200 isn't that much anyways, if memory serves I used to have that resolution on a CRT back in the day. At least moving things around is much easier today.

[–] Eldritch 3 points 1 year ago

As old as my system, is. Anything much more modern than what's already in it would be bottled necked by the system bus. It's PCIe. Not PCI 2 3 or 4 lol. And SATA, early SATA at that. Still has two IDE headers. But I used to use a lot less to run blender on back in the day. I have it pushing a good old 1024 x768 4x3 display.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Then why have I had such a terrible experience with my newer Dell Xps 13 9310 experience? user error or proprietary b.s.? because I have been told that the new Dells are going the more propriety route.