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."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-05-20
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.
Member since:2006-03-13
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.
It is fun watching the different distros adapting versions to the eeePC. Here the problem isn't so much RAM, the eeePC comes twice the RAM as the unit tested in the article, but disk space.
I've tried the Xandros that came with it, eeeXubuntu, Puppy, and Debian.
Of all the distro's that I tried, saying, "Debian" tells you the least about the resulting system. When I install, I put in the standard system with no X server. On reboot, I can install Xorg, something more minimalist, or stay with a CLI system. Along with the X server, you can install pretty much any window manager, or Desktop environment you want.
The current eeePC configuration is a basic KDE system with OpenOffice, plus a few other programs. The internal, 4 gig drive is 39% used. The home directory sits on an HDSD card.
For fun, I would like to see some of these distros tested with 128 meg of RAM. I've done it with virtual installations, and it is indeed possible to have a responsive system running Fluxbox (my favorite of the light weight window managers) and Firefox.
As for BSD, I woulld like to hear some input from people who tried installing it with limited machines. The BSD crowd almost by definition loves to tinker, and I would like to hear their results.
Member since:2006-10-08
I'm glad you used quotations marks for the term "desktop oriented" FreeBSD variants. By their nature, the BSDs aren't oriented to anything, they are all purpose OSs. You can use them on servers and on desktops (as I do since FreeBSD 4.0), and you can use them for mixed forms (i. e. when your "desktop computer" is offering server functionalities).
The FreeBSD ports collection gives you the tools to achieve this goal, the installer (sysinstall) supports "local additions", that's what you're looking for. Furthermore, you can even create live CDs from a configured and running system.
) Hmmm... yes, Sir. :-)
Same here, too. One of my first (4.x) systems was a Pentium 150 MHz with 64 MB RAM, WindowMaker, mplayer, xmms and all the nice stuff. Another system that's still in use is my favourite 300 MHz P2 (5.x) with XFCE 3, OpenOffice and Opera. These systems run so well with their limited resources, but some of the Linux distributions that call theirselves "lightweight" won't even install on them.
From my experiences, ArchLinux is a great approach to the concepts you find in the BSDs, just as the older SlackWare was. If configured properly, it can result in a really fast and versatile Linux system.
Just for information: I like software that is "lightweight" - meaning: not short on features, but short on bloat - so I don't squander my system's resources just to please a fat toolkit that does nothing more than a similar application with, say, Gtk or Xaw. Usually, application evolution makes your system slower. I like the trend to go into the other direction. :-)
Member since:
2006-11-18
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.