I have a variety of older computers that I need to install Linux on: They include a couple 300 MHz pentiums, a 500 MHz P2 and an Athlon 900 MHz computer. The have 64 megs, 95 megs and 128 megs of ram respecively.

They need to run:
OpenOffice.org 1.1.1
Mozilla 1.6

A few of them need to be quite well controlled where those using them can only access the above programs and save to a specific folder. One consideration is that I really would like to use a kiosk feature like that included with the latest release of KDE, but wil it run on these machines? These computers will be used by guests of a homeless shelter and they often suffer from mental illness and make horrible changes to the settins (all the computers currently run Windows 98). I have sufficient experience to install linux and I have a soft spot for Mandrake as less technically inclined people than myself will be using these computers.

I could go with a very minimalistic windows manager as they only need a smattering of programs with obvious places to start them up. Thoughts?

i'd have thought the 2 higher spec machines would cope with the latest version of KDE fine, if they struggle a bit, they'd probably benefit from doubling the ram in each of them.

The 300MHz one would need something more lightweight i'd think. Vector linux is supposed to be great for older hardware, though i've never tried it.

If you're concerned about messed up settings, make 2 users, completely configure the main user account, then copy the contents of /home/user1 to /home/user2, user2 being a complete back up of the settings. easier than windows 98 and the registry!

fissy's suggstion of making a copy to /home/user2 is very good.

You could always just create very restricted permissions for the user account if needed.

I highly suggest against using KDE on slow hardware.

The only thing good about KDE is that it is easy to make changes to stuff, and this is epartly what you are trying to avoid.

I have a spare computer (500MHz AMD/92 megs ram/6 gig HDD) that was running a tweaked version of 98se, after throwing Mandrake 10/KDE on the box the time it took to restart and bring up KDE was nearly 8x as long.

My girlfriend was laughing at it the first time she saw it (the computer!)

Currently running a modified Gnome desktop on the main comuter, much better and she does not seem to mind using the system.

When I get home I am going to see about adding the functionality I need to a fluxbox install, I am going to test the setup on the backup PC also.

FWIW, I'm running Mandrake 9.0 on a 300Mhz machine, and I'm not having any trouble with it at all. Sure, it's not blindingly fast, but OOo (I think it's only 1.0.1) and Mozilla and so on all run fine.

If you just did a very basic install with only the bare essentials, it should be ok even on an old box, shouldn't it? Then either create two users like fissy suggested, or restrict access (e.g. by removing icons, links, etc.) to settings. At least your users wouldn't be able to mess with anything in MCC without the root password.

Again FWIW, I'm running KDE on my PC, and Gnome is a lot faster to load up (but slower to shut down, curiously). Echoing Priest, maybe Gnome, rather than KDE, is the way to go?

If you'd really like to run Mandrake I suggest you use the XFCE4 Window environment and a ROX/XFCE4 desktop.

This is a GTK2 based DE like GNOME but it is much faster. It doesnt need to drag Nautilus around with it: its simplified and much friendlier for a kiosk. My grandparents desktop environment is XFCE4... they can't break it and you can set it to be task based like OS X.

http://www.xfce.org <- give it a go!

That sounds like a great idea. I'm thinking it would also be simple to automate this process at boot up.

I also like the look of Vector Linux. I'm going to look into it a little bit further. Thanks for the recommendation.



That will certainly be done. I just want to make it seem like there are no other options at all. I want to restrict it to the point where how one would even try to do something one's not supposed to is next to unknowable.



That seems to be the general consensus.



That's the theory. I really should probably be looking at the very minimalist distributions and getting only what I need after I have the internet connection all set up (which should be a snap).



Thanks for the excellent suggestion. I really like what I'm seeing concerning XFCE4 so far. If it's grandparent proof who can ask for more?

Thanks so far for the input. I'm still definitely open to more.
H'bert

Disagreed.

My last computer was 300mhz P2 and it ran fine. I ran gnome or fluxfox most of the time.

It is now on my brother's computer and it is running 9.2 & KDE.

KDE runs fine.

iphitus

I've got Mandrake 9.1 running on a Pentium 200MHz Pro with 48MB ram and its not quick, but it definately gets the job done. I had Windows 2000 running on this same machine with about the same performance.

OSNews just ran an article about the mainstream linux distros geting fat here, slashdot also covered it here

This is one of the first paragraphs in the article:

"Recently, a friend of mine expressed an interest in running Linux on his machine. Sick and tired of endless spyware and viruses, he wanted a way out -- so I gave him a copy of Mandrake 10.0 Official. A couple of days later, he got back to me with the sad news I was prepared for: it's just too slow. His box, an 600 MHz 128MB RAM system, ran Windows XP happily, but with Mandrake it was considerably slower. Not only did it take longer to boot up, it crawled when running several major apps (Mozilla, OpenOffice.org and Evolution on top of KDE) and suffered more desktop glitches and bugs."

I have to give OSNews credit for saying something that has been Taboo.


On XFCE, I wrent to http://www.eslrahc.com/10.0/
and downloaded the following packages
libdbh-1.0_1-1.0.18-1mdk.i586.rpm
libxfce4mcs1-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
libxfce4util1-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
libxfcegui4_1-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
libxffm0-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
libxfprint0-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
xfce-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
xfce-iconbox-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
xfce-mcs-manager-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
xfce-mcs-plugins-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
xfce-panel-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
xfce-systray-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
xfce-taskbar-0.1.0-1mdk.i586.rpm
xfce-themes-4.0.5-1mdk.noarch.rpm
xfce-toys-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
xfce-trigger-launcher-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
xfce-utils-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
xfce-windowlist-0.1.0-1mdk.i586.rpm
xfce-xkb-0.3.1-0.1mdk.i586.rpm
xfdesktop-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
xffm-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
xffm-icons-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
xfprint-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
xfwm-4.0.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
xfwm-themes-4.0.5-1mdk.noarch.rpm

The above packages seemed to satisfy my urpmi * dependencies but XFCE does not have a taskbar on the top of the screen for some reason. I don't know if it's something I didn't install of if that applet is failing to load..

any ideas?

did u set eslrahc up as a URPMI repository or just download the RPMS?

I just downloaded the RPM's.

boot up speed is only important on laptops since linux computers should only really be reboted when you change the kernel and at most once a day.

if for some reason you do want to increase bootup speed there are 1001 ways but cybrjackle posted a link to ibm a while ago.

theres a really cool article there http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linu...ary/l-boot.html

Great articles. I like the discussion that followed the story on osnews.com. I totally agree that the most recent distributions of Linux are a bit bloated. I suppose it's a natural thing though, for the writers of code to expand to the available platform. I've been looking into lighter versions of Linux and have decided that either Vector or DeLi will fits me needs. I'm also thinking that you can make even the latest distro quick if you pay attention to what you install and run.



I'm not sure. I checked your list against the tar balls for the non packaged install and everything seems to be there.

So the bar on the bottom is missing? From the screen shots, it looks like the top bar is just where you have tabs for the different x-clients you're running.

http://www.xfce.org/images/screenshots/default.png
http://www.xfce.org/images/screenshots/def...ngs_manager.png

If I end up with less tool bars, that's just fine by me. I'm planning on going for a "kiosk" look with a minimum of buttons.

H'bert

The mainstream Linux distro is getting fat, true.. but that's the problem with desktop.. Desktops are getting fat all over the place.. not just linux, but windows as well.

Anyway, the way he introduce Linux, just give the cd and let the person play around with it is NOT the way to introduce it. If the person never install linux in his life, how could he know what to install, how to optimize the resources, etc. You need to install it for them, making sure it is installed correctly. As I see the list of apps he open, he basically opens three way different applicatoin libraries on top of KDE, so no wonder it crawls. Why not use Kontact and Konqueror instead to minimize load? In fact I really doubt that windows XP out of the box are not full of glitches too. I have to install Service Pack 1a right after installing windows XP to take care of the glitches, and then still have to download the patches, etc. And Windows XP happily on a 128 MB of RAM? Yeah right.. run both and MS Office XP and see it crawls, then run a movie file and see it crawl even more (I have a 1 ghz Pentium 3 with 128 MB of RAM in the office and it crawls even when opening a file manager).

Anyway, XFCE is the way to go for light desktop, but opening OO.o, Mozilla and Evolution on XFCE will make the computer crawl also. The key here is to use the right apps for the right computer. Mozilla is heavy, use Firefox. Evolution is heavy, use Thunderbird. OO.o.. well.. maybe use abiword and gnumeric, OO.o is always a heavy app.

I am not saying a default install of XP runs smooth on 128 megs of RAM. This box iis a loaded Dell 8250.

The box next to me is a 500Mhz AMD w/ 92 megs of SDRAM and 8 meg shared video. Althogh 98se was lightning fast on that machine after an msconfig *uncheck all* I probably could not insall XP on it, but the point is that I can't run Mandrake 10 on it either.

After 98se I had Win2k advanced server on the system as my desktop, although it was slower to load than 98se, I can't remember it being much less responsive or even slow.

(I just threw my XP pro CD in the drive and began to install XP on it jto test)

Dragon, I know there are other solution, check out the section under Impractical solutions in the article.

Anyway, on XFCE I am missing the top task bar. so if I minimize a windows in XFCE I have no way to recover it again.

I know in kde you can kill or restart teh kicker process, if I know the name of the process I can maybe start it manually or... add a script to start that process when I log in.

priest if its unresponsive then its probably the video driver...

also what services are running... 92 MB RAM is pushing it for a 2.6 kernel but it should feel OK on that machine....

I have a celeron PII 266 that runs fine with X although its only 128 MB RAM and that makes KDE slow along with the crap onboard intel graphics

I think the apps that is going to make it crawl is KDE and OO.o. I have a P2-333 with 128 MB of RAM. With a bit of hard disk trashing.. it can run KDE 3.1.4, OO.o, Evolution, and Firefox. Now, if that is my own desktop, I will run Fluxbox on that instead and use Firefox and Thunderbird for the internet. The problem is that it is an office computer and they want standardization (KDE, Evolution, Firefox, OO.o for all computers no matter what the specs are). I am actually tempted to turn that computer into a thin client instead.

However, the second worst computer in the office is a P2-350 with 192 MB of RAM and it can run all those "standard" programs with no problem, and still have plenty of juice to run xmms. So the issue here will be RAM. Adding another 128 MB of RAM will do wonders to your desktop.