What's the smallest / Lightest distro please?
- Thread starter Virdi
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 1,031
- Location
- West Didsbury, Manchester
There are a few threads just below asking this exact question but...
Siltaz
Puppy
TinyCore
Are meant to be full featured and use very few resources. I would also suggest ArchLinux as that can be as lightweight or as heavy as desired, it wil also teach you much more about linux that those "pre-built" distros above.
Siltaz
Puppy
TinyCore
Are meant to be full featured and use very few resources. I would also suggest ArchLinux as that can be as lightweight or as heavy as desired, it wil also teach you much more about linux that those "pre-built" distros above.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,869
- Location
- Landan.
This ffs
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 1,492
- Location
- Northern Ireland
I use Mint 9 on my virtual system,
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
Puppy/Slitaz for ultra light distro, Arch/Crunchbang for fuller a featured OS
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
I have to say, Puppy's nice and all but when you compare it in terms of resources and usability to Slitaz it just doesn't compare for me.
As for Arch/Crunchbang... why not try Archbang!
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
As for Arch/Crunchbang... why not try Archbang!
Archbang is a nice enough distro but it kinda goes against the whole arch philosophy, I'd feel like i was cheating both the #! and arch teams simultaneously 8(
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2007
- Posts
- 1,414
- Location
- London
I spent a while looking for tiny distros. I'll vote for Puppy, fast and light. Introduced it to work as a thin client to rdp to vm servers - perfect.
Tiny core linux is the smallest I've come across (10MB iso). The thing with it is that it really is bare bones.
I was looking at making an expanded version for my netbook so I can get the most out of it battery life wise, but then other stuff took my time.
I was looking at making an expanded version for my netbook so I can get the most out of it battery life wise, but then other stuff took my time.
Why not just opt for an older distro?
I still like Mandrake 5 and I still have it setup on a really knackered 400Mhz P2 Laptop that I use in the shed for Por.. erm, educational research and its fantastic.
( Plus I like the look on the basic themes in KDE on MDK5.3 )
I still like Mandrake 5 and I still have it setup on a really knackered 400Mhz P2 Laptop that I use in the shed for Por.. erm, educational research and its fantastic.
( Plus I like the look on the basic themes in KDE on MDK5.3 )
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
Isn't it a security threat to use that older kernel. Why not use a modern OS with KDE 3.5 if you like that?
Nah, what security?
I personalyl feel that there is enough Paranoia withotu worrying about the security of an older distro that lets be honest, its still like fort knox compared to windows.
Listen... On my main PC, I have no Antivirus, I have no anti spyware, I have absolutely no software for any protection except for the firewall. My router also has a seemingly good firewall too.
I download loads of stuff with uTorrent and I go to some awful sites that are probably illegal and watch some sick weird stuff.
I have not had any form of infection or anything in years!
The only thing I am careful about is what I open up in my EMails and I never click a thing unless I am 100% sure that I know what its for or from. Otherwise, its gone.
There is too much scare-tactics in this world when simple common sense is often a much better solution.
Sure, Im going to get hit one day, I have no doubt, but until then...
