A very specific "Which distro is best" question

[Mulenmar]

The computer: an eMachines T3990. CPU: 2.8GHz CeleronD, 256MB RAM

The target user: My mother, who is not knowledgeable in Linux, but only needs internet and word processing for online college classes.

I've tried a minimal custom Ubuntu installation, but it just doesn't have the zip AND functionality I want on this PC.

I will be the one providing tech support and doing all the updating stuff, I just want it to be fast and stable, with new programs, and not thrash the hard drive when running a word processor, Firefox or Opera, and maybe a music player all at once. And I can't wait hours and hours for stuff to custom-compile, unless I can download everything at once and compile later, so Gentoo is out.

So, here's the question: should I pick Arch, Debian Lenny, or perhaps DreamLinux?

[Mulenmar]

For Tux's sake, **bump**! :lolflag:

[wolfen69]

i would give dreamlinux a try if you want an OS that is pretty much ready to go. i've gotten dream to work on a pc with 128mb ram. another one to consider is antix mepis (based on debian). it is made to work on older machines, but is very up to date with all codecs and such.

i just went to a computer fair today and saw sticks of ram for $5. there really is no excuse anymore for not having enough ram.

[binbash]

Arch and lenny is ok.Dreamlinux just sucks.with that ram you may want to install xubuntu.Also consider puppy and mepis

You can download everything at gentoo then compile it offline.

[Changturkey]

Puppy? Mepis?

[cybergalvez]

well from what I see the machine has limited memory and video. So I guess I would aks you what you mean by "doesn't have the zip AND functionality I want on this PC" I would suspect that its just gnome using up to many recourses that this machine simply does not have. Have you tried Xubuntu its much leaner then the regular gnome based one because of XFCE.

When you tested ubuntu did you actully install it or run the live disk? the live disk is great but slow comparied to a real install

You might also want to take a look at http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/linux/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=203100989

they mention a few distros that are optimised for small machines

[Skripka]

No matter WHAT you do. A machine with only 256mb of RAM is going to page like MAD running anything like Firefox or OOO....unless you;re running something like Puppy. I wouldn't bother with Xubuntu if you want "zip"...sure you can go ahead and try it-but I'd wager it wouldn't be that much quicker than a minimal Ubuntu install.

[Mulenmar]

I've been exploring using tiny little WMs like JWM and FVWM-Crystal, and ultra-light apps, for the past several weeks, and although they're half the answer, Ubuntu is just NOT the OS for this computer.

More memory is not a possibility at this point, we're a little short on money at the moment.

XFCE is ok, but I wanted even leaner -- not to mention something I can figure out how to change the menu on! I chose Linux for freedom and I can't change the XFCE menu.

I know Firefox and OOO are fat, I'm going to use Swiftfox, Midori, and Abiword but have those bigger versions available for max compatibility.

@ binbash: Why does DreamLinux suck?
And how can I download all the packages and compile
offline at a later time in Gentoo? I found the Portage snap
shot, and the stage3 tarball, but everythihng else is
.ebuild files (telling where to download from?)

[Mulenmar]

well from what I see the machine has limited memory and video. So I guess I would aks you what you mean by "doesn't have the zip AND functionality I want on this PC" I would suspect that its just gnome using up to many recourses that this machine simply does not have. Have you tried Xubuntu its much leaner then the regular gnome based one because of XFCE.

When you tested ubuntu did you actully install it or run the live disk? the live disk is great but slow comparied to a real install

You might also want to take a look at http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/linux/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=203100989

they mention a few distros that are optimised for small machines

I'll check out the link, thanks.

I've been using Ubuntu for a year -- I know about GNOME, KDE, XFCE, and the WMs. I HATE the live disk, I use DSL for that type stuff.

Xubuntu has far too much GNOME in it, used like 200 MB (RAM+swap) without any additional programs started. Didn't bother optimizing that, just whacked away and started over with a custom-install.

Like I said, my mother will be using this, but the tech stuff is up to me.

The options are Debian, Arch, and Dreamlinux. Please suggest only the pros and cons of each.

[ddrichardson]

If you don't care for Gnome, then as someone else mentioned, use Arch.

The base system has no GUI and if you install XFCE (pacman -S xfce4)then it will only pull XFCE dependencies. I also find that wicd instead of network manager is a good way around a no-Gnome XFCE.

[K.Mandla]

I would pick whichever distro you feel comfortable managing, add a clean XFCE installation and put the software you want on top. The machine is fast enough, and there's enough memory there to work with.

[Mulenmar]

@ K. Mandla: I feel comfortable with Debian, but this is an opportunity to branch out.

As long as my mom doesn't have to fiddle with the innards, I guess the distro is totally
up to my skills...

Well, I guess since I have a limited time on the net connection here, I'm just going to attempt an Arch installation. I've got Debian CDs, I can always install Debian later. I'm marking this as solved, for now.

May the Penguin be with you.

[swoll1980]

Arch and lenny is ok.Dreamlinux just sucks.with that ram you may want to install xubuntu.Also consider puppy and mepis

You can download everything at gentoo then compile it offline.

Really? You think Arch would be a good choice for Grandma?

[Skripka]

Since you are going to Arch, be CERTAIN you read and understand the Arch Beginner's Wiki (see Arch linky in my sig). If you follow it to the letter-and understand it-you'll be up and running quick...skip steps or don't read, and you're setting yourself up for frustration.

[cwsnyder]

You may also want to look at a net-install of Debian Lenny with LXDE. Debian can be installed as a minimal system better than Ubuntu, and the Lenny build (which I have been using off and on for 6 months) can be very similar in operation to Ubuntu. Drawbacks: No Firefox at all, it is called Iceweasel and has all of the trademarks of Firefox filed off. Proprietary programs, such as Adobe Flash, commercial DVD playing, and MP3 music files are not enabled by default, and you have to follow the tutorials fairly closely to get them installed. Debian is serious about not having any non-free, non-libre, or closed source software in their main repositories.

There is a tiny off-shoot of MEPIS, Tiny-ME, which is a minimal system, but which has more support for multi-media. This may work better for you. BTW MEPIS is based on Debian, now.

Puppy works well on small systems, but you have to remember to save your system state before shutting down.

DSL is also based on a Debian system with an earlier kernel for a smaller total size, but it has some quirks.

I personally like Slitaz, but it helps if you can puzzle out at least a little French for the installation. Very minimal distribution.

[Mulenmar]

Since you are going to Arch, be CERTAIN you read and understand the Arch Beginner's Wiki (see Arch linky in my sig). If you follow it to the letter-and understand it-you'll be up and running quick...skip steps or don't read, and you're setting yourself up for frustration.

Thanks. I think I started to try Arch before, and I decided to explore Ubuntu a bit further is all. I've done some Gentoo, so how hard can Arch be? (ominous .ogg music plays).

BTW...what happened to the "Mark thread as SOLVED" tool?

[K.Mandla]

@ K. Mandla: I feel comfortable with Debian, but this is an opportunity to branch out.
Branching is good, but if you just want fast and stable together, with something you're familiar with, I'd stick with Debian and XFCE. They're quite nice together. And you get the benefit of easy administration (since you're comfortable with it) and a lighter environment.

I suppose the LXDE-Debian version is an option too, as it comes with OOo by default, plus a few other things. I think I'd use XFCE though, personally.

Good luck. ;)

[Skripka]

Thanks. I think I started to try Arch before, and I decided to explore Ubuntu a bit further is all. I've done some Gentoo, so how hard can Arch be? (ominous .ogg music plays).

BTW...what happened to the "Mark thread as SOLVED" tool?

If you RTFM, and understand it-it is easy; not being in a hurry and taking my time--my first Arch build took a few hours. Bear in mind I was being uber thorough and readin and rereading to make sure I didn't screw up. My second Arch build took all of 20 minutes (minus package downloading)

[Mulenmar]

Really? You think Arch would be a good choice for Grandma?

It's for my MOTHER, not my GRANDMOTHER. If it were for my grandma, she'd probably be able to figure out LFS!!

The technical side of things is my department, Mom doesn't have to worry about it.

[SuperSonic4]

Once Arch is set up it is very low maintenance. Just
sudo pacman -Syu every few days to update the system

[Mulenmar]

Branching is good, but if you just want fast and stable together, with something you're familiar with, I'd stick with Debian and XFCE. They're quite nice together. And you get the benefit of easy administration (since you're comfortable with it) and a lighter environment.

I suppose the LXDE-Debian version is an option too, as it comes with OOo by default, plus a few other things. I think I'd use XFCE though, personally.

Good luck. ;)

LXDE-Debian...wait a minute, that's not a bad idea :P. If I can't get the Arch running, that's what I'll go with.

[cariboo]

I would suggest AntiX. I am running it on an old Compaq PII 350Mhz with 256Mb ram. I use Icewm which looks quite Windows like and I use Opera instead of Firefox and for just surfing it is quite acceptable. Just imagine what it would be like on something as fast as your system :) AntiX is Debian based, so there is no steep learning curve.

Jim

[gn2]

Come on, it's your mother, treat her to some more RAM and regular Gnome Ubuntu will run just fine on that machine.

[Mulenmar]

AntiX is Debian based, so there is no steep learning curve.

Jim

It's not about the learning curve, it's about the repos and low-memory usage. Thanks though, I'll check AntiX out too, while Arch installs.:)

[mamamia88]

Come on, it's your mother, treat her to some more RAM and regular Gnome Ubuntu will run just fine on that machine.

you beat me too it add some more ram you should be good to go.

[Mulenmar]

you beat me too it add some more ram you should be good to go.

Like I said, cash isn't something we've got a ton of at the moment, and what we've got is probably going to go to the broadband connection it's taken me three years to convince her to get. I'd love to get more memory, but it's just not an option right now. :( Maybe later.

[gn2]

Mulenmar, where are you located and what type of RAM is required?

[Mulenmar]

Mulenmar, where are you located and what type of RAM is required?

My location isn't something I want on the public forum (and thus Google, and thus everywhere), PM me please.

[ddrichardson]

Once Arch is set up it is very low maintenance. Just
sudo pacman -Syu every few days to update the systemI'd be careful with that. I've been running Arch for quite some time, if you update automatically without checking to see what updates there are then there is a very good chance you won't boot.

Its a great system and I really like pacman but you need to check before an upgrade especially if there are kernel updates.

[gnomeuser]

You may want to look at moblin, it is damn zippy

[gn2]

My location isn't something I want on the public forum (and thus Google, and thus everywhere), PM me please.

Quite right too.
I've responded to your PM.

[huzzam]

No matter WHAT you do. A machine with only 256mb of RAM is going to page like MAD running anything like Firefox or OOO....unless you;re running something like Puppy. I wouldn't bother with Xubuntu if you want "zip"...sure you can go ahead and try it-but I'd wager it wouldn't be that much quicker than a minimal Ubuntu install.

Xubuntu installs Abiword, not OpenOffice, and I find that makes a huge difference right there. Also XFCE's relative lightness compared to Gnome really does seem to help.

I installed Xubuntu on my girlfriend's Thinkpad T30 (2gHz p4, 256mb ram, thanks to the damn T30 memory slot problem), and it works surprisingly well & runs reasonably fast, even though she never ever closes anything; usually I find six to ten firefox windows with her yahoo mail open. And it's plenty simple enough for her to use (and the dangerous bits are hidden behind my admin password).

Yes the machine pages all those dormant firefox processes out, but that's fine. That's what paging's for!

I recommend xubuntu highly for a low memory machine.

[chris200x9]

I'd be careful with that. I've been running Arch for quite some time, if you update automatically without checking to see what updates there are then there is a very good chance you won't boot.

Its a great system and I really like pacman but you need to check before an upgrade especially if there are kernel updates.

:confused::confused::confused: I've been running arch for about a year on two machines one i686 and one x86-64 and I've never had that happen, the worst that has happened is my pidgin got a little bit crashy once.

edit: did you specificaly enable testing?

[ddrichardson]

:confused::confused::confused: I've been running arch for about a year on two machines one i686 and one x86-64 and I've never had that happen, the worst that has happened is my pidgin got a little bit crashy once.

edit: did you specificaly enable testing?
Nope. Its on an Acer Aspire One and there have been a couple of kernel updates that have prevented it booting. There was also the recent XFCE update that completely broke all the graphics after the package removed one of the library paths. The version of DHCP on the install image didn't work either - it wouldn't accept DHCP offers.

Then there is also the issue of AUR packages, which can be very easily broken on upgrading another package. I've been using the custom LCD filters in libxft/cairo and every time there's been a kernel upgrade these have needed remaking and on one occasion a wait until a newer version of libxft was available.

I like Arch, like I said and actually prefer AUR and pacman to their counterparts but the point is that when recommending to a new user it's worth mentioning that unlike many distros, it really shouldn't be automatically upgraded without checking (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Package_Management_FAQs#Q:_An_update_to_package_XY Z_broke_my_system.21) what the upgrades are. Personally, I only install security updates or updates that offer me new features that I can use.

[snowpine]

IMHO, you don't want a rolling release like Arch for someone like your mother. Pick something like Debian Lenny that will stable and consistent for years with minimal updates. I think LXDE Lenny is probably the best suggestion in this thread. :)

[Rotaj]

Since you said you feel comfortable with Debian, I would suggest sidux (http://www.sidux.com) XFCE or KDE-lite. Once setup, there is very little to worry about.

The KDE lite version should only use about 100mb ram.

[EV500B]

If you feel right with debian:
.Download Debian XFCE cd, install it minimally and using aptitude install whatever you want, like xfce and all the applications you want. (60Mb RAM)
(IMHO, the desktop is faster and more stable than when making the full installation)
.Install Debian minimally, icewm+icebuntu. (40Mb RAM)
(That one looks fairly pretty after a good customization.)

Make yourself a favor and disable all unnecessary services to have the maximum free resources possible.

Xubuntu and all Ubuntu derivative aren't recommended at all for slow pc, believe me! or try to.

[jimi_hendrix]

i would go with arch or something like puppy or DSL

[doorknob60]

Arch (or Lenny if you want) +Lxde or Xfce, using Opera as a browser and Abiword (OOo would run, but might be a little sluggish) for word processor. Exaile is a good full featured music player, but it's fairly light.

[mips]

Mulenmar, where are you located and what type of RAM is required?


333MHz DDR Non-ECC CL2.5 DIMM

Machine has two sockets and can take a maximum of 2GB

http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/configurator_new/modelsinfo.asp?id=1&SysID=24449&mfr=eMachines&model=eMachines+T3990&search_type=&root=us&LinkBack=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kingston.com&Sys=24449-eMachines-eMachines+T3990&distributor=0&submit1=Search

[ddrichardson]

Arch (or Lenny if you want) +Lxde or Xfce, using Opera as a browser and Abiword (OOo would run, but might be a little sluggish) for word processor. Exaile is a good full featured music player, but it's fairly light.
Abiword pulls a lot of Gnome dependancies (somewhere in this thread someone said his was an issue).

[Chemical Imbalance]

EDITED upon correction:

Xubuntu:

www.xubuntu.com

For Xubuntu, you'd probably be better off installing vanilla xfce on Ubuntu than using the distro Xubuntu. I also recommend fluxbox window manager on vanilla Ubuntu with gnome-dependencies removed.

[snowpine]

Fluxbuntu or Xubuntu:

www.fluxbuntu.org



Terrible idea. Fluxbuntu reaches its "end of life" on April 18, after which the OP's mom will get all sorts of errors next time she tries to update the system or install a new application.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1104965

[Chemical Imbalance]

Terrible idea. Fluxbuntu reaches its "end of life" on April 18, after which the OP's mom will get all sorts of errors next time she tries to update the system or install a new application.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1104965

[bad day rant]

What? There is a Jaunty update for Fluxbuntu. Look at the page more carefully before you call someone's idea terrible. It will be updated soon apparently.
If not, then just install fluxbox onto vanilla ubuntu. That's not hard to figure out.

[/bad day rant]

EDIT: it seems fluxbuntu has only included a mockup of Jaunty, and it may be a while before they update it, so you probable shouldn't go with it. Thanks to snowpine

[snowpine]

What? There is a Jaunty update for Fluxbuntu. Look at the page more carefully before you call someone's idea terrible. It will be updated soon apparently.
If not, then just install fluxbox onto vanilla ubuntu. That's not hard to figure out.

I am very familiar with the Fluxbuntu project and stand by my recommendation. Gutsy Gibbon 7.10 is the most recent release currently available, and the OP is looking for a recommendation now, not at some hypothetical future date. :)

Check out the official Fluxbuntu forums at community.fluxbuntu.org if you are curious about the status of the project.

My recommendation continues to be Debian Lenny with LXDE (or something else light, like Xfce).

[Chemical Imbalance]

I am very familiar with the Fluxbuntu project and stand by my recommendation. Gutsy Gibbon 7.10 is the most recent release currently available, and the OP is looking for a recommendation now, not at some hypothetical future date. :)

Check out the official Fluxbuntu forums at community.fluxbuntu.org if you are curious about the status of the project.

My recommendation continues to be Debian Lenny with LXDE (or something else light, like Xfce).

I'll edit my post above to not include Fluxbuntu. I didn't realize they weren't continuing support and the Jaunty Experimental on the home page just seems to contradict this. I'm assuming this is just a mockup of Jaunty? Sorry for my snapping--bad day then.

[Mehall]

No matter WHAT you do. A machine with only 256mb of RAM is going to page like MAD running anything like Firefox or OOO....unless you;re running something like Puppy. I wouldn't bother with Xubuntu if you want "zip"...sure you can go ahead and try it-but I'd wager it wouldn't be that much quicker than a minimal Ubuntu install.

Duno if anyone argued this, but I have a Crunchbang Linux box with 256MB RAM (getting it upgraded soon) and I can run Firefox without too much paging. it's not exactly blazing fast like most anything else in Crunchbang is, but it's okay.

[Mulenmar]

Hello again), Ubuntu community! ):P

I just wanted to post, for posterity's sake, the final configuration I ended up placing on Mom's 2-something GHz, 256MB RAM computer --- and she absolutely loves it, btw! :D

Debian Lenny + Openbox + wbar + OpenOffice 3 + Swiftfox + Adobe Flash (yuck utterly closed-source, but she needs the "just works" aspect), and Nitrogen to set the wallpaper. Oh, and a Conky showing CPU, RAM, and swap usage in nice colors. :)

Memory usage, if I recall correctly, runs at about 158MB out of the 256MB -- no custom kernel as of yet -- with Swiftfox open and two tabs.

So, this setup should run well for other computers with the same amount of memory, I didn't put in anything too processor intensive but I have yet to test a similar setup with any older hardware. I plan on building a duplicate of my grandfather's PC to try an convince him to try Linux, so that'll be a good test. I'll edit this post and add a link to a new topic in the Testimonials section.

[XubuRoxMySox]

For my low-resource machine I use Crunchbang (http://crunchbanglinux.org) (Ubuntu-based, very minimal) and installed LXDE (http://lxde.org) (much more lightweight than even XFCE). It runs fast and sweet and looks kinda like WinXP.

LXDE will play nice with Crunchbang as long as you let PCMan (LXDE's built-in file manager) manage the desktop.

In PCMan, applications are found in /usr/shared/applications and appear as icons. Just drag the ones you want to use to the desktop.

You can add way-kewl Grandma-friendly wallpapers to /usr/shared/lxde/wallpapers (you have to be root to add files there, but PCMan makes that easy too). Give your gramma a nice pretty desktop with lightweight, speedy Crunchbang.

-Robin

[JSC77]

I dual boot Debian Lenny and Arch on my machine. I like to tinker, so I prefer to play with arch most of the time, but debian lenny is definitely much more stable. Since they are both very customizable and as lightweight as you want them to be, I would go for lenny with lxde or xfce. If you pick lxde then combine it with thunar since there's no trash can in pcmanfm (dangerous when you accidently delete a file).