Which is lighter?

[Slug71]

Crunchbang or Ubuntu Minimal?

[abyrne]

Ubu Minimal is just a console interface w/ no GUI. I'm actually running CB right now as I type and I love it!

[insane_alien]

in the interests of science i burned a copy of each and measured them on the lab scales.

ubuntu minimal was lighter by 2.84 micronewtons. or 3 milligrams if you use the wrong units.

[Dark_Stang]

Minimal is much lighter... but if you wan't do do anything with a GUI then... you know, you need a GUI. I start with minimal and go from there. Crunchbang appears pretty nice though.

[chris200x9]

minimal

[juancarlospaco]

Chroot :)

[drawkcab]

I think crunchbang is an amazing distro all the way around. Nevertheless I tend to find management of files and menus a bit tedious.

I have come to prefer LXDE which throws a nice desktop environment on top of openbox. It doesn't affect performance and it makes my life a lot easier.

Of course it sort of ruins the minimalist aesthetic of crunchbang which is part of the reason it is so cool. LXDE is kind of dorky in comparison.

[Grifulkin]

Ubuntu Minimal with LXDE or any WM. On the other hand Crunchbang is light and pretty, and very functional nice shortcuts. I actually have Crunchbang on my old laptop and it flies, also have Arch+LXDE on the other harddrive for it. Arch ends up with 66mb of RAM usage after start up Crunchbang is 110ish after boot up.

[XubuRoxMySox]

Crunchbang has the codecs and stuff preinstalled, and some well-chosen applications for common use. It's striking, stark beauty belies its power. Amazing.

But minimal Ubuntu is lighter because it doesn't include Conky, codecs, restricted-extras, etc. There are lots of distros of "lighter weight," but gee whiz... I really think this whole "lightweight" thing is overused. Unless you're really having performance issues (and can't spend a few coins on RAM or something), then what's wrong with having options? Or eye candy? Even Crunchbang offers some eye candy (it's amazing what you can do with Conky on Openbox).

What do you want your Linux to be? Minimal yet awesomely powerful? Crunchbang! Minimal for an ancient Radio Shack Tandy computer that ran Windows 3.0? Maybe Puppy or DSL.

Something really pretty, and simple, and kid-friendly and versatile? Maybe Xubuntu or an LXDE distro.

The beauty of Linux is that it is soooooo customizable! It can be big or little, fancy or plain, stark and ominous or cutesy and bright; you can build it for speed or for comfort or anywhere in between; you can trick it out or strip it down to be just right for your own taste. That's what's so very kewl about Linux, and why I'll never look back.

-Robin

[coolbrook]

Ubuntu Minimal with LXDE or any WM. On the other hand Crunchbang is light and pretty, and very functional nice shortcuts. I actually have Crunchbang on my old laptop and it flies, also have Arch+LXDE on the other harddrive for it. Arch ends up with 66mb of RAM usage after start up Crunchbang is 110ish after boot up.Sounds good.

[proxess]

I got minimal running on my Eee with a Compiz Standalone. It flies!

[Dark_Stang]

I got minimal running on my Eee with a Compiz Standalone. It flies!
That's pretty much how I start out after a fresh upgrade. Once minimal is installed I add gnome-core, X, and synaptic, then work my way up.