Extremely light Linux distro (Resource and Space)

Operating Systems & Open Source Linux
1

Okay so I got a laptop the other day, I did not get a chromebook, as this laptop has AMD APU inside.

Currently it has 4GB RAM and 120GB Samsung SSD installed, I have temp installed Windows 8 so I can update firmwares of the BIOS and SSD.

I am looking at Vector x64 currently, I would go Vector Light but I don't want a x86 system, My second option I am thinking about is Arch linux base, I don't know about any other lightweight distros really, I know they are all lightweight compared to Windows, but I am looking at lightweight in the realms of linux, which as you know is a different story ;)

I would go Gentoo but I am not that good and I don't fancy compiling every time updates are due.

So any ideas, I prefer Bleeding edge or at least semi bleeding, so I am ruling out Debian.

Thanks!

 

2

WTF do you mean with lightweight? Every damn distro out there is the same lightweight because they use the same programs and libraries. The only thing that really makes a difference is the default desktop environment.

You can have an Ubuntu installation which is more lightweight than most arch linux installs.

What you should do is find a project which shares your ideals, uses technologies you like (i.e. init system, package manager) and does stuff the way you like (i.e. release model). Get the base install and install only what you really need.

So any ideas, I prefer Bleeding edge or at least semi bleeding, so I am ruling out Debian.

People who never used Debian should not say anything about it. For their own good.

3

You could consider something like antiX, they offer a 64 bit full version.

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

4

You can have an Ubuntu installation which is more lightweight than most arch linux installs.

Well, if you remove about 1200 packages from Ubuntu.

People who never used Debian should not say anything about it. For their own good.

That logic should, and does apply to everything. Don't comment on something without experience with it. However, Debian is far from a desktop distro. Bleeding edge is the only way to have the performance benefits that come with a modern Linux/GNU distribution.

5

Try Gentoo if you're adventurous. You can specify almost everything you want or don't want including the kernel.

6

Well, if you remove about 1200 packages from Ubuntu.

Ubuntu had a base image until 12.04, I think. Now you can get the server iso which is pretty much the same and I used it for quite some time.

However, Debian is far from a desktop distro

Last time I checked, Debian had a GNOME 3 desktop.

Bleeding edge is the only way to have the performance benefits that come with a modern Linux/GNU distribution.

You get improvements earlier (like a few weeks earlier, that's not much) but you also get all the bugs and breakage.

There is nothing wrong with being a few weeks behind. I like it. That's how my system survives years without anything breaking ever.

Nobody really needs the stuff a few weeks earlier. You just want it. That's fine but don't spread bullshit like that.

7

Debian does have Gnome 3, but I was referring to the desktop use. It simply doesn't make sense to use Debian as a desktop PC for consumer desktop use (including, but not limited to, gaming).

It isn't necessarily bullshit. Ubuntu has packages that can go months with a security hole, without an update, etc., which isn't good for the end user. From a developers standpoint, having the most recent compilers, etc., can drastically improve the performance of their projects, especially in graphical works with updates coming to the OSS drivers quite quickly. It isn't really a 'need' or a 'want', but more of a practical assertion; it's been updated for a reason, so update to fix something, add something, or improve upon something in your current version of some package. Sure, it might break, but I've never had a system breaking package on Arch, and I run a full system update daily. The thread is about lightweight distros; on a system without a powerful bank of resources available, it makes sense to have the most modern, best performing packages possible, e.g., bleeding edge.

8

The only thing that really makes a difference is the default desktop environment.

While the DE is probably the most intensive process running in an operating system, it is certainly not the only process which defines how lightweight an operating system is. What about the kernel or compilers which directly affect how fast the system runs, or any additonal operating system processes like the system logger, cron daemon, file indexer, network client, etc?

You can have an Ubuntu installation which is more lightweight than most arch linux installs.

To assert that Ubuntu is more lightweight than Arch Linux is blatantly ignorant. Arch is built almost from scratch by the user, whereas Ubuntu is mostly autoconfigured for the user. The number of processes that will run in Ubuntu will be higher than that in Arch simply due to the difference in the level of customisation during installation of these two operating systems.

You get improvements earlier (like a few weeks earlier, that's not much) but you also get all the bugs and
breakage.

Just because bleeding-edge systems may become subject to an issue during an update, it is not a sufficient reason to stay away from a bleeding-edge systems entirely. A frequently updated operating system that breaks infrequently is superior to a rarely updated operating system that may or may not be
more stable.

Like Brennan said, a laptop with basic hardware is a perfect candidate for a bleeding-edge operating system.

9

It simply doesn't make sense to use Debian as a desktop PC for consumer desktop use

That's an interesting opinion. Now you only need to say why.

Ubuntu has packages that can go months with a security hole, without an update, etc., which isn't good for the end user

Bullshit again. The Ubuntu security team is one of the best. They actually get paid for fixing security bugs and they're always as least as fast as Red Hat and other corporations which make their money by providing those services. They fix (or work around) the bugs before upstream does. If you use a bleeding edge system you probably have to wait for a proper fix by the developers and, if you are lucky, they'll release a new version. If you're not lucky they won't release a new version and you have to wait for a regular release.

You are more secure on Ubuntu than you are on most bleeding edge systems because nobody bothers doing security patches there.

From a developers standpoint, having the most recent compilers, etc., can drastically improve the performance of their projects

I doubt that you'll see a big performance improvement if you compile a program with the current gcc compared to gcc from 5 years ago.

especially in graphical works with updates coming to the OSS drivers quite quickly

Mesa releases a new version every 6 month now IIRC. Being behind one month doesn't change much and if you use non-releases you're essentially just asking for something to crash horribly bad.

it's been updated for a reason, so update to fix something, add something, or improve upon something in your current version of some package. Sure, it might break, but [...]

Uhm, so the reason why you update immediately is because it fixes problems you got because you updated immediately. You could also just let the developers of your distro figure out if everything works fine, let them fix everything and get the stuff a few weeks later. Properly working and well tested.

but I've never had a system breaking package on Arch, and I run a full system update daily

you're a lucky person then

The thread is about lightweight distros; on a system without a powerful bank of resources available, it makes sense to have the most modern, best performing packages possible, e.g., bleeding edge.

You still have to explain how it is more "lightweight" to get stuff a few weeks earlier. Some stuff might get more features and might need more resources (GNOME2 -> GNOME3) How is that being lightweight? I also can use stuff that is considered done which is extremely lightweight like the suckless tools.

There is simply no relation between "lightweight" and the update model.

10

Ubuntu lighter than Arch? Muhahahahahahahaaa! My Cola Zero just came out through my nose reading that...

The arch+mate live install from the mate community is just over 200 MB full-featured including most common applications, and runs faster on an Atom than Lubuntu runs on a dual Xeon. I would definitely recommend Arch with MATE, E17 or OpenBox, the latter can be had as a primary spin by Manjaro, the first can be had as a very minimal yet super functional spin from the MATE community itself.

11

What about the kernel

Last time I checked, all linux distributions used the linux kernel.

or compilers which directly affect how fast the system runs

No, they don't. You're only using binary packages on most distributions (hey gentoo) so your local compiler affects shit.

or any additonal operating system processes like the system logger

Ignoring the fact that 90% of all distributions are going to use systemd anyway… it you have to swap out your syslog because it's not lightweight enough for a desktop pc you probably have a damaged brain.

cron daemon, file indexer, network client, etc?

Oh, yes, I've seen so many different cron daemons lately! Seriously, you have the choice between gnu stuff and bsd stuff. That's it. You won't notice a difference in performance even on the most shitty computer you can assemble.

To assert that Ubuntu is more lightweight than Arch Linux is blatantly ignorant [...]

The number of processes that will run in Ubuntu will be higher than that in Arch simply due to the difference in the level of customisation during installation of these two operating systems.

10 bucks say that I can configure ubuntu to run exactly one process! You can't get more lightweight!

Just because bleeding-edge systems may become subject to an issue during an update, it is not a sufficient reason to stay away from a bleeding-edge systems entirely

"Just because nuclear power plants may explode during a power down, it's not a sufficient reason to stay away from them"

I definitely will.

A frequently updated operating system that breaks infrequently is superior to a rarely updated operating system that may or may not bemore stable.

And why is that?

Like Brennan said, a laptop with basic hardware is a perfect candidate for a bleeding-edge operating system.

Like I said, there is no relation between how lightweight a system is and the update model.

12

I can make ubuntu lighter than arch and I can make arch heavier than every other operating system out there.

13

Not for a full-featured and fully functional system you can't, you can only make Ubuntu lighter than Arch by cutting corners in comparison to the Arch install. Come on, man, you know it, I know it, everybody knows it, it's not really to the point because the OP wants a bleeding edge distro, so Ubuntu is not an option anyway, let's not even...

14

all linux distributions used the linux kernel

Using Gentoo (a bleeding-edge OS) like I recommended enables you to configure the kernel and compile it yourself. This allows the kernel to be fine-tuned to your hardware, and thus the system is more minimalist like the OP wants since you're not installing unnecessary kernel modules and can specify exactly what you want. A bleeding-edge system will have the most advanced kernel modules to choose from.

your local compiler affects shit

I mean that when you use compilers in a bleeding-edge system, you often have the choice to specify how the compilation process is carried out (CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, MAKEOPTS variables for example), and thus reduce the time it takes for compilation to occur because you're optimising your compilers for your hardware/preferences. A bleeding-edge system will have a plethora of compilation options to choose from.

10 bucks say that I can configure ubuntu to run exactly one process!

That is ridiculous. Okay, yes you may have the knowledge and skill to configure Ubuntu to run in a very specific way. But why use Ubuntu in the first place? Why not skip all the hassle it will take to configure such a system using Ubuntu and use Arch or Gentoo to install the system in an environment designed for such an exercise? That is the purpose of these minimalist operating systems after all!

Just because nuclear power plants may explode during a power down, it's not a sufficient reason to stay away from
them

You're seriously comparing a nuclear plant to a computer? An issue in a nuclear plant may cause death and destruction. An issue in an operating system causes an incentive to solve a problem. You're analogy is not equivalent at all. Bleeding-edge offers the user a means to experience the best possible operating system before anyone else can. Thus, the user has the opportunity to test, review and even contribute to the next iteration of software. I assert that increased functionality and user immersion is more compelling than stability. After all,
most of the enjoyment with computer software is solving problems.

15

alright, not to get into the middle of the war here... but i'm just gonna say consider "APU on linux". support will not be as good as windows (in my recent experience). it works, but doesn't have the same performance if you are going to consider any gaming. maybe there's some driver tweaks out there, but last time i tried the driver game, (before the new year) i got nothing but a headache. I was just gonna wait it out for better driver support but i said fuck it when steamOS inhomestreamin started, switched to that, it works. just still can't run games on it by itself (well)

16

Groundswell17 - Last year we had a kernel update bringing +50% to AMD and then we have 14.1 drivers, I am unsure if RadeonSI is for APUs. my 6870 works brilliantly with Catalyst and Linux, okay it maybe not as good as Windows in some aspects, and some games are not fully implemented yet, but hey well. So I agree and dis-agree with it, I shall report my findings when I pick OS lol

And okay people up there stop fighting!, I asked for a light weight distro, Ubuntu minimal is light, but I believe arch is lighter, I had arch bang using something like 100MB RAM if that /w XFCE.

Okay so no fighting, In your opinion what is a light weight distro? by lightweight I mean low RAM/CPU/GPU usage on desktop unlike windows (2GB on desktop for 64Bit, Seriously....) and because I have installed a 120GB SSD I want something rather small on space, maybe a couple of GBs over 20GBs.

17

Using Gentoo (a bleeding-edge OS) like I recommended enables you to configure the kernel and compile it yourself

You can do that on every distribution. And you have to do it if you really care about how "lightweight" your kernel is. On every distributions. This is not an argument for bleeding edge.

A bleeding-edge system will have the most advanced kernel modules to choose from.

Uhm, yes. How does if affect how lightweight it is?

I mean that when you use compilers in a bleeding-edge system, you often have the choice to specify how the compilation process is carried out (CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, MAKEOPTS variables for example), and thus reduce the time it takes for compilation to occur because you're optimising your compilers for your hardware/preferences. A bleeding-edge system will have a plethora of compilation options to choose from.

I don't need new software to be able to compile it myself. And you have to remember that everything is a trade-off. Optimization for the fastest code will increase memory usage. Optimizations for memory usage will decrease speed.

You don't need the newest compiler to have all the compile time options. The most important ones have been there for over 20 years.

That is ridiculous

So is bleeding edge.

Why not skip all the hassle it will take to configure such a system using Ubuntu and use Arch or Gentoo to install the system in an environment designed for such an exercise?

You have to do more configuration on arch or gentoo to have to same lightweight system.

That is the purpose of these minimalist operating systems after all!

Who says that? Who says that Ubuntu server is not minimalist?

An issue in an operating system causes an incentive to solve a problem.

Depends on what you use it for. It can also cause death and destruction. But here is the thing: I like being able to use my computer. I don't have another one and I need my computer to do stuff. It's critical infrastructure to me.

I have nothing against people who like to nuke their system but I get angry as fuck when those people tell the world how their way is the "only true way".

Bleeding-edge offers the user a means to experience the best possible operating system before anyone else can

If you care being the first, good for you.

Thus, the user has the opportunity to test, review and even contribute to the next iteration of software

Exactly. You are a tester when you're using bleeding edge.

I want a stable system.

I assert that increased functionality and user immersion is more compelling than stability.

The problem is that you think that you don't get the increased functionality on a stable system. It's just a few weeks later. Why the hell should anyone care if he gets stuff a few weeks later? What is the big advantage?

After all, most of the enjoyment with computer software is solving problems.

Problems you actually want to solve. With a bleeding edge system you have to solve stuff you might not want to solve. If you do like it, fine. But why should it be for everyone?

And most importantly: Where is the relation to a lightweight system in all of what you have written?

 

18

OP wants a bleeding edge distro

learn reading

Not for a full-featured and fully functional system you can't, you can only make Ubuntu lighter than Arch by cutting corners in comparison to the Arch install

Nope.

19

The RadeonSI driver for APUs is kinda meh. It works better than it does for dedicated cards but is still lacking compared to r600.

Ubuntu minimal is light, but I believe arch is lighter, I had arch bang using something like 100MB RAM if that /w XFCE.

Everything that matter is the software you're going to install. It's completely irrelevant which distribution you choose.

20

I think Arch or Gentoo are appropriate distros for you. If you want to tailor the operating system for your hardware, then Gentoo is probably the best choice if you want a challenge. By configuring the kernel for your system, you won't install any unnecessary modules and therefore achieve a truly minimalist operating system. The default kernel will load generic modules that will support most hardware for most systems, but a manually configured kernel only loads what you're system needs.

We're not fighting; we just disagree on which operating system you should choose. No one has said anything offensive, we're just putting forth our arguments and reasoning.