Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 26th May 2008 10:58 UTC, submitted by i386DX
Abandoned Zone reviewed several lightweight Linux distributions, and concluded: "First of all it has to be clear that there's a difference between 'lightweight' and 'lightweight'. Especially Damn Small Linux is very lightweight, but also it's not really usable on 'more recent' systems. It think DSL is perfect for 486 or Pentium 1-based systems but nothing more. At the other side there are Zenwalk and Xubuntu which are pretty heavy lightweight distributions. I think the use of Xfce has something to do with that. All the others are floating between those two extremes."
Thread beginning with comment 315608
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-01-13
Member since:2006-11-18
Why not just use FreeBSD instead with a lightweight GUI? DesktopBSD gives you a fully configured KDE desktop and it is simple to install other window managers from the software packages.
I think that you did not get my point here
I would always choose for my workstation FreeBSD or any other BSD instead of Linux, but if I would have to use Linux for some reason/thing that is not possible with BSD, like KVM virtualization for example (it is generally ported to FreeBSD but does not work well yet) then I would go with Draco Linux.
I just do not like all that Linux mess you know ...
I also not prefer KDE since I use something a lot more productive, Fluxbox + GTK2 apps to precise.
I would like to see PCBSD or DesktopBSD with Gnome or XFCE by default, byt that is a subject or other discussion.
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:2006-11-18
So OSS is an advantage? The only good reason for it, I could find, was that only OSS is supported by pkgsrc.
Never tried Draco though, but I'm eager to test it, as it's philosophy is similiar to Arch's.
Never tried Draco though, but I'm eager to test it, as it's philosophy is similiar to Arch's.
It's easy to find that that you do not even know the difference between OSS and ALSA
Look at all that mess:
http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/linuxaudio.png
While in FreeBSD and Draco Linux you pass everything to OSS and EVERYTHING is mixed in kernel real time.
What Linux uses for audio? ALSA + GStreamer + ARTS + Esound + Pulseaudio and then finally touch sound card.
What does FreeBSD (and 4Front OSS) do here? APPLICATION --> OSS --> sound card, no unneded layers that create additional overhead and compatibility problems.
OSS is well documented (including API) while ALSA is one big mess without documentation.
Also let Ubuntu serve as an example here, which uses ALSA + PulseAudio, start Rythmobox and then start Wine, Wine does not have sound, start Wine at the beginning, Rythmobox does not have sound, because of what? Befause of ALSA.
I am sick and tired of all these sick ideas about ALSA, PulseAudio or any other shit that do not work.
I also do not understand why people jerk off so much about ALSA while not knowing its technical and functional disadvantages comparing to OSS.
OSS is also open source, it is avialable on GPL, BSD and even CDDL license if you use Solaris.
OSS is cross platform and works on all major UNIXes and Linux, while ALSA works ONLY on Linux.
ALSA is shit, but people just get used to that shit and are scared to hell to try something new, taht is a lot better and polished, but that is their problem.
Member since:
2006-11-18
From the Linux distributions I would choose Draco GNU/Linux [ http://www.dracolinux.org ], because its most clean and BSD-like Linux out there.
featues:
-- NetBSD's pkgsrc.org as package management
-- OSS instead of poor ALSA
-- BSD init scripts (like in Arch Linux)
-- Configuration /etc/rc.conf (like in Arch Linux)
-- at the beginning based on Slackware Linux