Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's been abandoned, right? The last "News Milestone" is May 3, 2004, and I can't find any other timestamps or dates on the website. It'd be OK for a project like that to have old, frozen software versions as long as it receives security updates, but the website makes it damn near impossible to assess whether any maintenance is taking place at all.
To be fair, "old hardware" is kind of frozen in time by definition. DSL is what it is. If you want to play with hardware with 32mb of ram, it does what it does. It isn't really an OS you want to "use" or "expand upon". I would not suggest to connect it to the Internet or expect any kind of updates, security or otherwise. The main case for it at this point is retro computing. Most retro computing enthusiasts run era c…
No, not at all.
It's a continuously-moving baseline, because it's relative to now. And where "old" begins is a judgement call.
So, for instance, one useful definition is "not capable of usefully running a contemporary OS."
Since all current mainstream Linuxes (Ubuntu, Fedora, even Arch, etc.) are 64-bit that implies a 32-bit machine. One with a reasonable amount of RAM for the time, a gigabyte or two say, but which can't be upgraded. Intel Atom chips were mostly 32-bit until a decade and a bit ago. Core Solo was quite quick but 32-bit only.
Some early 64-bit chips have 32-bit firmware and so can't run a 32-bit OS.
So there is a moving baseline of machines that can't take >=4GB RAM, can only boot a 32-bit OS, maybe have 1 CPU core, but were made in the 1st decade of this century and remain fully-functional, with wifi etc.
DSL isn't very useful on such kit, and if it works, it's insecure.
So, no, it's not frozen in time, and no, a never-updated 20YO snapshot isn't very useful.
