Posted by: Anonymous
on November 13, 2007 03:24 PM
I, for one, am very happy that DSL exists as an alternative OS for my ancient (okay, 1999) Twinhead P88TE laptop. I did run into a problem in which DSL would not boot with 256MB of RAM in the laptop while DSL-N would; I'm guessing DSL-N's 2.6 kernel was the reason it could recognize all the available memory whereas DSL's 2.4 kernel could not. I want my Twinhead to access the web, email and perhaps play CDs/mp3s/ogg files and so I don't need all the bells and whistles of the newest distros; if and when I obtain a newer laptop I'll consider a more resource-hungry distro but I say thanks for DSL's/DSL-N's lean applications. I am wishing for updated versions of DSL-N, though.