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 315609
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
RE[3]: Draco GNU/linux
by sonic2000gr on Mon 26th May 2008 14:16
in reply to "RE[2]: Draco GNU/linux"
Member since:2007-05-20
I would like to see PCBSD or DesktopBSD with Gnome or XFCE by default, byt that is a subject or other discussion.
I'd like to see one too. In fact I find it strange that both the "desktop oriented" variants of FreeBSD have chosen KDE as the desktop. I've tested both and they work fine for me, although KDE is not really my cup of tea.
Having said that, it is not difficult to create a custom FreeBSD CD/DVD with just the packages you need (e.g. xorg + XFCE + office apps + firefox etc). It would still need a few more manual configuration steps, but then FreeBSD users are used to this (and actually like it
) I have successfully run FreeBSD 6.X on a pentium Pro (remember these?) 200Mhz with 64Mb RAM, using Windowmaker. Responsiveness was not bad at all.
Since the whole purpose of the discussion however is Linux and not BSD, I would second arch linux. After trying several different distros, this settled on my eeepc for good. Fast, efficient and 'simple', meaning you are always in control of what is in there.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-01-13
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.