PDA

View Full Version : Lightweight Ubuntu



XubuRoxMySox
May 7th, 2009, 03:13 PM
I discovered U-Lite (http://u-lite.org) today. It looks like "Lubuntu" (minimal Ubuntu with the LXD (http://lxde.org)E environment) has already been released. I wonder why some folks are starting a new one from scratch?

I also wonder how U-lite compares with Crunchbang (http://crunchbanglinux.org) (also a very minimal, truly lightweight Ubuntu-based distro without any desktop environment).

Frankly, I fear that an officially-sanctioned "Lubuntu" would eventually become as bloated and heavy as Xubuntu apparently has (see the "Xubuntu - Not So Light Anymore (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1133123&highlight=Not+so+light+anymore)" thread). But since "Lubuntu" already exists under a different name (u-lite, formerly "UbuntuLite"), it seems to me that the new effort is re-inventing the LXDE-Ubuntu wheel. What am I missing?

I admit I'm a newbie (it's barely two months since I started, and WinXP is all I knew before that), but I think it's unfortunate that there seem to be a zillion different distros out there to choose from and it's confusing as hell, even for a newbie who knows what they want (lightweight for an older machine, easy to use, etc).

Thoughts?

-Robin

pwnst*r
May 7th, 2009, 03:18 PM
crunchbang has been awesome for me. i don't need it to be lightweight as my laptops, tablet, and desktop are all very fast, but i love the minimal look of it. (it's installed on one of my laptops)

stwschool
May 7th, 2009, 05:17 PM
Personally I'd take crunchbang as a base and if you want LXDE you can add it with "sudo apt-get install lxde". As to the difference between the packages, well honestly the u-lite one is unofficial, lubuntu is. U-lite is here now, Lubuntu is not.
Beyond that, there's not much to say, with lubuntu not being out yet it's hard for any of us to make an educated comparison.

XubuRoxMySox
May 7th, 2009, 05:27 PM
Personally I'd take crunchbang as a base and if you want LXDE you can add it with "sudo apt-get install lxde". As to the difference between the packages, well honestly the u-lite one is unofficial, lubuntu is. U-lite is here now, Lubuntu is not.
Beyond that, there's not much to say, with lubuntu not being out yet it's hard for any of us to make an educated comparison.

That's exactly what I'm running: Crunchbang with LXDE installed. It's lightweight and fast, but it gets the hiccups alot (firefox extensions don't work, I have to force shutdown (the Logout button works only halfway), stuff like that. Maybe it's something I did, I dunno (still a noob).

I was asking because the U-Lite defaults to LXDE so maybe it's "made" for LXDE and won't get the hiccups? I dunno. It certainly is lightweight, though. I love my Crunchbang! 'cept for the hiccups.

-Robin

Pogeymanz
May 7th, 2009, 05:51 PM
I feel like Ubuntu should not even try to have an offical lightweight version. I only say this because of the state of Xubuntu. If I install and configure XFCE on my own, it will only use 10MB more RAM than an Openbox-only session on my 1GB RAM. But Xubuntu? Forget it. I still prefer XFCE to Gnome, because I like using it more, but I will not install Xubuntu on an old machine, nor will I recommend that anyone else install it.

So, maybe Ubuntu should just not bother. I'd rather just use the alternate installer and install XFCE myself.

Of course a newbie with 512MB RAM or less might want a lightweight Ubuntu, but I guess it just can't happen.

pwnst*r
May 7th, 2009, 07:46 PM
That's exactly what I'm running: Crunchbang with LXDE installed. It's lightweight and fast, but it gets the hiccups alot (firefox extensions don't work, I have to force shutdown (the Logout button works only halfway), stuff like that. Maybe it's something I did, I dunno (still a noob).

I was asking because the U-Lite defaults to LXDE so maybe it's "made" for LXDE and won't get the hiccups? I dunno. It certainly is lightweight, though. I love my Crunchbang! 'cept for the hiccups.

-Robin

i don't use LXDE, but i don't have any of the issues you describe above.