Seven Linux distros fight over one old ThinkPad (DesktopLinux.com) [LWN.net]

Seven Linux distros fight over one old ThinkPad (DesktopLinux.com)

Posted Oct 6, 2006 9:39 UTC (Fri) by hein.zelle (guest, #33324)
Parent article: Seven Linux distros fight over one old ThinkPad (DesktopLinux.com)

Although I can appreciate the effort of comparing linux distributions for older hardware, I think the comparison made here is fairly useless. After reading the comments about kubuntu not running standard GTK apps such as mozilla (doesn't apt-get install mozilla "just work"?) I concluded the author is certainly not interested in the same features I am interested in. What about:

- memory usage? This may not differ much between distributions for the same desktop, but it's certainly important for old hardware.
- disk usage of the default install? One CD doesn't mean much, I'd be interested in how compact an installation can be, for the sake of older 1.2 gb hard drives and smaller.
- hardware support? WIFI, sound, video, pointer device, network, modem support? I think these are much more important than what packages are installed by default.
- support for older or leight-weight windowmanagers such as windowmaker? KDE certainly wouldn't be my first choice for limited hardware.

Concluding, I don't find the comparison especially useful, nor relevant for the older hardware on which it was performed.

(Log in to post comments)

Seven Linux distros fight over one old ThinkPad (DesktopLinux.com)

Posted Oct 6, 2006 12:30 UTC (Fri) by lamikr (subscriber, #2289) [Link]

yes and two suspend resume questions:
- does it work
- does it use suspend2 with nice ui, or only the swsusp

Seven Linux distros fight over one old ThinkPad (DesktopLinux.com)

Posted Oct 6, 2006 15:14 UTC (Fri) by Richard_J_Neill (subscriber, #23093) [Link]

The thinkpad referenced wasn't that old. Perhaps 5 years at most. You can quite happily run KDE on that. [KDE may take a while to start, and use up quite a lot of RAM (or swap) - but once started, it is still pretty snappy]

As for installation compactness, I can answer: I recently installed on a mini-itx system, with a 1GB compact flash card. Neither redhat nor suse nor ubuntu would install - even with the minimum package set, the installers just crashed out. Mandriva 2006 did install, and works quite well. Once installed, I was then able to set up the machine, then remove lots of the packages (including mcc), and then install what I wanted. Result: KDE + Firefox + VLC + Mplayer + Myth + Amarok + xscreensaver.

Seven Linux distros fight over one old ThinkPad (DesktopLinux.com)

Posted Oct 6, 2006 17:01 UTC (Fri) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

Wow. When I worked at SuSE you could do a custom selection of packages during install, and end up with only a hundred megs or so on disk. The base system was fairly large, but not a gig.

The _default_ install was gigantic.

The whole concept of spending a lot of time to copy data off CDROMS to your hard drive that you don't even want, followed by spending more time to remove the data that you don't want is really unappealing. Are Linux installs really this bad?

For reference, the last install of Linux I performed was Debian in 2002ish using debootstrap. I suppose calling that an "install" might be a bit of an overstatement. I plopped the files into a subdirectory and arranged for it to be booted. I added niceties like the distribution's own kernel at a later point.

Seven Linux distros fight over one old ThinkPad (DesktopLinux.com)

Posted Oct 6, 2006 17:49 UTC (Fri) by hein.zelle (guest, #33324) [Link]

No, they're definitely all like that, and I would be surprised if SUSE doesn't offer some kind of "reduced install" option, although it's quite possible that they don't anymore, I guess.

The ones I have direct experience with are Debian and Ubuntu. In debian you have a choice of "tasks" to select from which gives you a reasonably bare system with most of the functionality that you'll need. If you start with the base install you get only the realy basics, although I don't know what the size of that is. Adding what you need is pretty trivial with aptitude.

Ubuntu's base install is not exactly small, but again I don't know how much exactly - definitely fits on one CD. You do have the option (which I prefer) to do a "server" install which leaves out all the gnome desktop stuff, and then later add the desktop you want (k/x/ubuntu-desktop) and anything else you need. I haven't measured, but I expect that a server ubuntu install would result in a relatively bare-bones system to which you can add.

Seven Linux distros fight over one old ThinkPad (DesktopLinux.com)

Posted Oct 6, 2006 17:50 UTC (Fri) by hein.zelle (guest, #33324) [Link]

That should obviously have read "No, they're definitely NOT all like that".

Seven Linux distros fight over one old ThinkPad (DesktopLinux.com)

Posted Oct 6, 2006 19:08 UTC (Fri) by horen (subscriber, #2514) [Link]

Use Ubuntu's server "alternate" install-image for a really minimal installation. Of course, you don't install any of the server software; after all, we're aiming for a desktop workstation, right?

Then run "apt-get update", followed by "apt-get install jwm|fluxbox x-window-system-core xdm xterm". Reboot. At this point you've got a barebones, windowed OS. To sweeten the deal, run "sudo apt-get install synaptic", then "sudo synaptic" and you're on your way to adding/removing the components to do/don't want.

Hint: there are lots of Xorg drivers which are automatically installed, which won't match the cards you do have. Off with their heads!

You'll be surprised how little room this OS and installation procedure takes-up, as well as how painless it is. My Toshiba Tecra 8100 (PIII/700 w/512MB RAM and a 20GB hard drive) runs like a champ, especially without the overhead of KDE, GNOME, or XFCE.

I like JWM, and also recommend a program called Torsmo (Finnish for "something something system monitor" (got turned-on to both, from DSL).

Posted Oct 6, 2006 19:23 UTC (Fri) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]

SUSE gives you choice on any level you want. From high level (KDE-, Gnome- or simple X desktop, minimal system without X) and selections (like office, development, webserving, ...) down to package level all at installation time. You don't have to use the default selection. You don't even have to install yast if you don't want. From the toplevel screen you're just two choices away from detailed package selection.

And of course, changing your choice later is no more a problem, than on any other distro.

The minimum graphical system is 745.8MB large, the "minimum system" has 446.3MB, but can be brought down by manual package selection to 150MB.

Seven Linux distros fight over one old ThinkPad (DesktopLinux.com)

Posted Oct 7, 2006 1:24 UTC (Sat) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link]

The smallest useful Debian install I have been able to get without manual tweaking is around 120 MB, IIRC. (I may be off by +/- 30MB or so). It actually corresponds to the size you get from deboostrap. Perhaps it is possible to trim it down further by manually deinstalling selected packages afterwards, but that is really getting into the embedded realm.

Which is incidentaly how I used it - it fit with a lot of space to spare in a 512MB CF disk. It feels funny to do "apt-get dist-upgrade" in an embedded device, but it actually works like a charm :-)

Small Debian installs

Posted Oct 7, 2006 20:23 UTC (Sat) by kmself (subscriber, #11565) [Link]

120 MB is pretty good, and that's about what I get, with this package list or something close to it (pretty much debootstrap + vim, screen, and w3m and a few other tools).

Martin Krafft's The Debian System suggests that the smallest Debian install which could be considered a "real" Linux system is about 89 MB. Such an installation would likely not be particularly upgradeable: package lists and archives are large, I tend to allow 1-2 GB for /var just for that reason, and you'd likely run out of disk space with a highly constrained install.