Vaughn Treude wrote:
>
> Hear, hear! Setting up a machine dual-boot can be instructive, and
> it's certainly better than NOT trying Linux if you can only afford one
> machine. It's very good if you have an OS you use infrequently.
> For example, I did some SECS/GEM work where I use a very expensive
> simulation tool. It ONLY works on Windows 95 (probably because of the
> stupid hardware dongle.) But other than running old software, who
> cares about Win95? I found that my Linux learning curve was VERY slow
> until I acquired a used machine and set it up as a Linux box. (I have
> it set it up to boot 3 different distros, but that's a different
> issue.) Then I realized that if I wanted to use a server, I should
> have a box to run ONLY as a server. Otherwise needing to have the
> server up and running discourages me from playing with my three-distro
> Linux development machine. Luckily I was able to acquire another
> obsolete machine, and after adding memory, it seemed to run fairly
> well. I intend to set that guy up as a print server, and then maybe
> use it for my primary Internet connection. The nice thing about Linux
> is that it actually runs well on those old throw-away Windows boxes.
I guess I too should remember back when I had only one box, a 6100
PowerPC and did dual boot with MkLinux and MacOS. This is when I really
found that Linux was real and I wanted to use it.
Eric :-)
(text/plain)