Good Old Lubuntu 16.04

[poorguy]

Hey All,

I acquired an old COMPAQ Presario CQ56 laptop with an Intel Celeron 900 single core processor (2.2GHz) and 4.0GB memory.

Originally came with Windows 7 64bit so I figured it would run most Linux distros.
I tried several different ones and just couldn't get any of them to run without freezing issues.:?

Not willing to give up I decided to pull out my DVD of Lubuntu 16.04 64bit and install it and see if it would run without issues.
Right out of the box it booted up and went to the install screen where I then started the install without any problems.:D

What surprised me was it never ask to connect my wireless adapter until after the install of Lubuntu had finished.
After a restart I connected my wifi and updated which again updates installed without any issues.:D

I don't understand why it worked out that way as I've always been ask to connect wireless adapter at the start of an install.

Anyway all appears to be working well so I will see how it goes.
Just thought I would let it be known that when all other distros don't want to run don't give up give Lubuntu a try.

The PoorGuy

[HermanAB]

Yup. The mainline Linux distros have become so bloated that I actually lost interest to some degree and started to play with Slackware and OpenBSD.

Small, simple, fast. KISS.

[poorguy]

I Agree the lightweight distros do everything that the big mainstream flagship distros do without all of the unnecessary software.

[sudodus]

+1 :-)

I like Lubuntu too, and not only in old computers.

[Dragonbite]

Great to hear it worked!

Does Lubuntu usually ask to connect to the Internet during installation?

I know Ubuntu has the option of running updates and installing proprietary codecs during the installation and those 2 pieces requires Internet access. Could it be Lubuntu either doesn't offer this, or you didn't select it and so the installation knew everything was on the disk?

Lucky your system can handle 64bit. Even with the slow processor, it's getting harder to find up-to-date 32bit distributions anymore.

[DuckHook]

…it's getting harder to find up-to-date 32bit distributions anymore.+1

…and especially with a non-PAE kernel. But there is Bodhi (http://www.bodhilinux.com/download/).

[poorguy]

Great to hear it worked!

Does Lubuntu usually ask to connect to the Internet during installation?

I know Ubuntu has the option of running updates and installing proprietary codecs during the installation and those 2 pieces requires Internet access. Could it be Lubuntu either doesn't offer this, or you didn't select it and so the installation knew everything was on the disk?

Lucky your system can handle 64bit. Even with the slow processor, it's getting harder to find up-to-date 32bit distributions anymore.

First time I ever installed Lubuntu on a laptop and saw to no prompt to connect at the start of the install.

All other Linux distros I've done on laptops using wireless always gave me a prompt to connect at the start of the install.
When the install completed and after restart wireless adapter was detecting available networks and I had no problems connecting.

Yep Lubuntu 16.04 is A-OK and it all turned out very well. :D

[shantiq]

yes guys here running lxde on brand new machine with good specs ... fast and simple is the way i like it too :]

[lysander6662]

Yup. The mainline Linux distros have become so bloated that I actually lost interest to some degree and started to play with Slackware and OpenBSD.

Small, simple, fast. KISS.

This word 'bloated' I see around a lot when reading Linux forums. What are we actually referring to here? Too many installed applications? Too much needless eye candy? Too many processes? If one's computer has the RAM it's immaterial isn't it? There are lighter distros for those that don't.

[poorguy]

I first heard the term "bloatware" used as unnecessary software that computer manufacturers install to monitor and run everything on their factory prebuilt computers.
That was long ago from my Microsoft Windows days.

I guess "bloat / bloated" in Linux distros is all of the software that comes with any of the mainstream big flagship Linux distros that will never get used or even looked at and is there for the end-users in mind that may need to use it.

I have minimal computer needs so I don't need much and prefer to install only what software is needed and no more.

Eye candy is cool but unnecessary just plain simple menus is all I really need but for others that may be to boring.

[Perfect Storm]

I do like minimal of software installed by default and a 'clean' line of user interface which is why my choosing went for elementary OS. And it's lightweight also is a plus.

[poorguy]

I like the smaller Linux distros because they do what the mainstream distros do using less resources and having a smaller footprint.

A smaller footprint may not be a big deal for most end-users however I use 20GB and 40GB hard drives I still have unopened "New Old Stock" hard drives around.

I can definitely appreciate the smaller distros because I think the devs tend to try a little harder then the big flagship mainstream distros do. This is not meant as bashing comment against anyone.

[Irihapeti]

This word 'bloated' I see around a lot when reading Linux forums. What are we actually referring to here? Too many installed applications? Too much needless eye candy? Too many processes? If one's computer has the RAM it's immaterial isn't it? There are lighter distros for those that don't.

I've long maintained that "bloat" means "software I don't need, and I don't see why anyone else needs it either".

[poorguy]

I've long maintained that "bloat" means "software I don't need, and I don't see why anyone else needs it either".
Agreed and I can relate.

[DuckHook]

This word 'bloated' I see around a lot when reading Linux forums. What are we actually referring to here? Too many installed applications? Too much needless eye candy? Too many processes? If one's computer has the RAM it's immaterial isn't it? There are lighter distros for those that don't.As Irihapeti and you yourself point out, "bloat" is a highly subjective term that is pretty much meaningless when applied to specifics. After all, it is rather presumptuous to charge some app with being "useless", is it not? One man's junk is another man's treasure.

But this isn't to say that the concept of bloat is bereft of all meaning either. It has a general sense—vague, ambiguous and relative as it is—and it applies in the following ways:


The more apps, services, processes and "features" an OS has, the more attack surface it offers to bad guys.
Also, the more resources it takes to run.
And the more things that can go wrong, whether because of the greater chance for bugs or just from the incompatibility of one app with another (example: VirtualBox cannot run concurrently with KVM).

So, those who level the charge of "bloat" are not just indulging their prejudices; they have a good foundation on which to base their charge.

In the end, no distro will be perfect for everyone because we all have different needs. I get why Lubuntu works for poorguy and Kubuntu works for someone else. I'm just happy to have the choice, and such an easy one at that.

BTW, there are easy ways to keep the "bloat" down even further: install the server flavour and then some absolutely tiny window manager like TWM. This would be even lighter than Lubuntu. As a lark, a couple of years ago, I did just that, challenging myself to see just how small I could make a functioning desktop using off the shelf parts, so to speak, without resorting to silly arcane stuff like recompiling the kernel. The result, if memory serves me, fit in under 90MB of RAM. For comparison, my Lubuntu-core install uses 164MB, so the savings can be substantial.

[uRock]

I use ubuntu on my primary machine. I like the bloat, because it does come with a lot of the software I need and use.

OTOH, when I do an install on other machines and the VM server I am building, I install ubuntu server, then install XFCE4. It is only a few MB more than LXDE when installing that way.

As DuckHook says, it is nice to have a choice.

[ventrical]

I first heard the term "bloatware" used as unnecessary software that computer manufacturers install to monitor and run everything on their factory prebuilt computers.
That was long ago from my Microsoft Windows days.

I guess "bloat / bloated" in Linux distros is all of the software that comes with any of the mainstream big flagship Linux distros that will never get used or even looked at and is there for the end-users in mind that may need to use it.

I have minimal computer needs so I don't need much and prefer to install only what software is needed and no more.

Eye candy is cool but unnecessary just plain simple menus is all I really need but for others that may be to boring.

I am a dynamic user. Really like Lubuntu on older machines but I'll take bloatware anyday (with unity) to get work done that I often do. ie; Openshot and Audacity. I also like to try new hardware to check out the latest bloatware and so I have to do extra chores to purchase that hardware.

Here is a fun Ubuntu video I made with "bloatware" that would have been impossible with the other commercial stack. The star of the film is an HP laptop that was bound for the recycle grinder that previously had Vista on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiSs0U31ouU


regards..

[ventrical]

As Irihapeti and you yourself point out, "bloat" is a highly subjective term that is pretty much meaningless when applied to specifics. After all, it is rather presumptuous to charge some app with being "useless", is it not? One man's junk is another man's treasure.

Ditto - Bravo ! :)




But this isn't to say that the concept of bloat is bereft of all meaning either. It has a general sense—vague, ambiguous and relative as it is—and it applies in the following ways:


The more apps, services, processes and "features" an OS has, the more attack surface it offers to bad guys.
Also, the more resources it takes to run.
And the more things that can go wrong, whether because of the greater chance for bugs or just from the incompatibility of one app with another (example: VirtualBox cannot run concurrently with KVM).

So, those who level the charge of "bloat" are not just indulging their prejudices; they have a good foundation on which to base their charge.



Yes and no. :) The flexibility of ubuntu along with it's installation diversity and it's uncanny ability to unchain previously straightjacketed PCs and laptops give it an ability to use 'bloatware' where otherwise it would be impossible with the commercial stack.

Regards..

[poorguy]

I guess one thing to be said about Linux bloat / bloatware is it can be used when needed without running in the back ground as with the case of "HP Assistant" which is continually running and monitoring software and hardware etc.

The "HP Assistant" comes installed from HP on all HP Computers using Windows OS by HP manufacturers and I'm certain the other big name manufacturers have their factory bloatware installed and running also.

[yoshii]

Yeah, Lubuntu and Xubuntu are probably my favorites thus far, alongside with Puppy Linux. Puppy Linux is like the swiss army knife of Linuxes. I recently ran LxPup (Tahr version) and it's nice. It has the Lubuntu type of interface but it's Puppy Linux based on Ubuntu Trusty Tahr. It has enough stuff installed to get a lot done. Lubuntu lacks just a few features, but for most things it seems like the most practical for those of us who just can't spend hours and hours downloading huge DVD ISOs to burn. For pretty much most of what I need, Xubuntu fits the bill, but Lubuntu does seem lighter than even that. These lightweight Linuxes are like old reliable friends to me. They work year after year on my used computers, saving me lots of money and hassles.

[poorguy]

One of the useful advantages of the true lightweight Linux distros is they will run great on most of my 8 and 10 year old computers without problems. ;)
When Lubuntu fails to work which isn't very offer in my personal experience I then will install Antix Linux which will run on most any computer I have installed it on. ;)

[bearlake]

One of the useful advantages of the true lightweight Linux distros is they will run great on most of my 8 and 10 year old computers without problems. ;)
When Lubuntu fails to work which isn't very offer in my personal experience I then will install Antix Linux which will run on most any computer I have installed it on. ;)

The main thing is to use what works for you. ):P

[poorguy]

The main thing is to use what works for you. ):P
100% Agree.

[yoshii]

Over the years, I have saved a lot of money by buying used computers or having them given to me by frustrated former users.
The cost of learning linux was cheap too. And the cost of installing linux instead of buying windows or mac os is so much cheaper too!
I really feel good about linux. And these days, I still run all my favorite windows programs on linux anyhow!

[night_sky2]

Xfce works well for me on semi-old to older hardware. I find that it is the most consistent DE and it's light on ressources compared to Unity, Gnome3, KDE ect.

Linux Mint Xfce 18.1 runs smoothly on my 8 years old Dell Latitude laptop with 2GB of RAM and Intel Core 2 processor.

[amjjawad]

What if I tell you there is a distribution that is much lighter than Lubuntu?

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=torios

Give it a try ;)

[poorguy]

@amjjaward
I have heard of ToriOS and haven't given it a try yet but plan on it in the near future.

@yoshii
"Puppy Linux is like the swiss army knife of Linuxes". (I like that)
Yep Puppy is A-OK and one of my favorites also.

[poorguy]

Xfce works well for me on semi-old to older hardware. I find that it is the most consistent DE and it's light on ressources compared to Unity, Gnome3, KDE ect.

Linux Mint Xfce 18.1 runs smoothly on my 8 years old Dell Latitude laptop with 2GB of RAM and Intel Core 2 processor.
Wife uses LM 18 Xfce on her 2006 Acer laptop with 2GB of RAM and Intel Core 2 processor it does run pretty well.