<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 11:17 AM, John J Foerch <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jjfoerch@earthlink.net">jjfoerch@earthlink.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">Bob Kline writes:<br>
> I tried V4.4.3 of DSL on the old hardware,<br>
> and the PS/2 mouse worked. Alas, DSL is<br>
> still using the 2.4 version of the kernel, so I<br>
> expected as much. Even V4.4.10 is using<br>
> version 2.4.31 of the kernel.<br>
><br>
> So far the only consistent theme is that a<br>
> distribution with a 2.4 kernel works on my<br>
> old motherboard, and one with a 2.6 kernel<br>
> does not. This is just for fun, since the end<br>
> result would be a very limited system in any<br>
> case. At most it's interesting to the extent<br>
> that "Linux" is embodied in the kernel, not<br>
> the endless apps that are hung on it. So<br>
> perhaps somewhere deep down the drivers<br>
> do not completely support the chipset in the<br>
> old motherboard? As pointed out by someone<br>
> here, PS/2 mice have been around for a long<br>
> time now, and are ubiquitous.<br>
><br>
> I can still try to see whether a USB mouse<br>
> works....<br>
><br>
> -- Bob<br>
<br>
</div>Did you try resetting the BIOS to defaults? You could get lucky and<br>
find a setting in there labeled: "Disable PS/2 mouse". :)<br>
<br>
People have commented in this thread that perhaps linux has abandoned<br>
compatibility for some old machines. I highly doubt that. Linux is<br>
renowned for its excellent support of ancient hardware--and renowned<br>
for people porting it to all kinds of crazy devices. It wouldn't be<br>
linux that abandoned your hardware, but perhaps the compile settings<br>
used by the distros you have tried. Perhaps you should try compiling<br>
your own 2.6 kernel for this machine.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>If I follow you correctly, the PS/2 mouse <br>works fine for distros using the 2.4 kernel,<br>so it would seem the BIOS settings are not <br>an issue.<br><br>Re compile one's own 2.6 kernel, I suppose<br>
I could do that. Philosophically, I'm not <br>clear about where "lack of support" leaves off<br>and compiling one's own kernel takes over.<br>i.e., in principle would could always find, <br>and the right people could always write, an<br>
appropriate driver for chip set in the old <br>motherboard, but does one then say that <br>Linux supports the hardware at issue? In this<br>case, the 2.4 kernel does, out of the box,<br>and 2.6 does not. So does one say the 2.6<br>
kernel does not support the hardware any<br>more, even while it could in principle?<br><br>Given the age of the box, and the bigger<br>notion that not much will be done with it<br>anyway, it probably makes sense just to<br>
use the distros with the 2.4 kernel and move<br>on. My guess is that if people have to roll<br>their own kernels in order to keep old iron<br>going, a lot more old iron is going to find<br>a dumpster.<br><br>Or are a lot of people in this group compiling<br>
their own kernels?<br><br> -- Bob<br><br></div></div><br>