Is Ubuntu cli a real feather weight?

[jason32835]

Hello,

I've been cutting my teeth on Ubuntu for awhile now and I really love it. That being said, I'm want to install an extremely light weight system on an old laptop and I am looking for the proper distro to start with.

Is a minimal install of Ubuntu as light as any other linux distro?

Thanks for any info..

[oz]

Welcome to the forums!

You can find some mini linux distros here:

Mini Linux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jason32835]

Thanks Ozar!

So I'm guessing that Ubuntu, even a cli install, is still heavier then DSL, Puppy, ect?

[reed9]

Ubuntu without a GUI will be significantly lighter, yes. How minimal or light to do want or need?

The absolute minimum RAM for Ubuntu 8.04 and above is listed as 64 MB. That's for console only.

The extremely minimal distros in the list ozar linked to have stripped out a good deal of functionality and hardware support. So if you want a pretty full featured distro, but console only, Ubuntu with no X, while not the lightest, is a fine choice. This is essential the Ubuntu server edition. (Though that I would assume has common server apps pre-installed.)

If you want to go a step lighter, you could use Arch Linux or Slackware. Those both give you finer grained control over what gets installed and which services run on your system.

If you want even more control, you can go Crux or Gentoo.

What are the specs of the old machine?

This is a good blog by a guy who mostly runs really old, underpowered hardware, command line only. He primary uses Arch, Crux, and a little Ubuntu. Lots of useful tips.

[jason32835]

Thanks for that info..

It is a dell laptop, 700 mhz PIII with 256k ram.

What I am going to try is a basic command line install of some flavor and then install LXDE or similar.

I'm sure the dell will run many of the "light" distros, but I'd like to build a system that really flies. Just for a "look what I can do"..

I'm now just looking for the distro to go with as that will start my project. I think you answered my question, I'll look at Arch, Slack, Crux and Gentoo.

Thanks again!

[reed9]

Well, you might guess my bias, but I recommend Arch.

In my opinion, it's rather like the best of Slackware and Gentoo combined.

Gentoo and Crux on such an underpowered machine will be a challenge. Not that they wouldn't run great, once they're set up, but you have to compile a lot of software from source. This can be very very time consuming. Many hours. And when you're learning, to spend 5 hours compiling a piece of software, only to have it fail near the end, can be frustrating.

Slackware has a deserved reputation for stability, but their package management leaves something to be desired. They do not use automatic dependency resolution, which means, especially when trying to build up from a minimal base, you spend a lot of time hunting down requirements for packages to get it to work right. The upside is you learn exactly what's on your system and how it fits together, and avoid the (fairly rare) possibility of dependency hell, but I think it's a pain in the butt.

Also, their repositories are relatively small, and you will almost certainly have to look to unofficial 3rd party sites for a lot of stuff.

Arch has a very good, fast package manager, a good selection of packages, plus a large repository of user contributed packages. The downsides to Arch are that it is pretty bleeding edge. They are a rolling release system, which means you never have to reinstall for a new release, but also means you're always needing to update and are often using less tested software. But, you also always have access to the latest and greatest.

That said, I've found less troubles and stability issues with Arch than I did with Debian, so go figure.

Speaking of LXDE, the lead developer uses Arch, so compatibility is pretty guaranteed.

[jason32835]

I'd be crazy not to give Arch a try after that recommendation. Sound like a perfect fit with what I'm trying to do. Thanks again!

[reed9]

I should also give the obligatory warnings. Arch encourages folks to be pretty self-sufficient and do their homework. If you post on their forums, the first response is very likely going to be, "Have you read the wiki?" (Which you should use. Some of the best documentation around.)

Updating Arch requires that you pay attention to what is happening. If a major update comes down the pipe, like a kernel upgrade, it can be best to hold off for a few days and watch the forums to see if there is trouble. Keep an eye out for announcements in the news section.

And definitely read the Beginner's Guide and if possible have it handy when installing.

It has a bit more of a learning curve than Ubuntu, so be patient. When I first installed it, I had used linux for about a year and I was completely lost, but I held through and I couldn't be happier that I did.

[oz]

Arch encourages folks to be pretty self-sufficient and do their homework. If you post on their forums, the first response is very likely going to be, "Have you read the wiki?" (Which you should use. Some of the best documentation around.)

... the first steps in the Beginners Guide should be to continue reading through the Beginners Guide, and then read the Install Guide and the various configuration pages in the Wiki because with those three sources of documentation you have just about all the answers you could need for any questions that might arise. When that fails, some serious searching of the Archlinux Forums will nearly always do the trick.

Best of luck with it, Jason.

[jason32835]

Thanks guys, I've already started reading the wiki and I'm really amazed at how well documented it is. I'm looking forward to it.