Best Linux distribution

[Samick]

I want to install Linux on an old PC. What do you think are the best light weight linux distributions?

 

[FishAk]

Just asking this question shows you aren’t ready for Linux. Users new to Linux must spend hours upon weeks for many years goggling how to do this or how to do that. Linux is nothing like Windows. Many Distros pretend to having a graphical user interface, but unless you only want to browse the internet, you will invariably find yourself typing into the terminal.

I'm only half kidding.

If you are unfamiliar with Linux, you will need to spend a LOT of time fixing that. That said, probably Linux Mint 11 is the most complete, and user friendly. If you don't have a special purposes cut out for your old machine, the stock Mint distro will probably work fine.

Good luck trying to image the install once you have it set up the way you want. All the options I found suck- and not in a good way. Possibly one could use Hiren's Boot CD to run Macrium Reflect under Windows to make a good image, but I didn't try that.

 

[lxskllr]

Just asking this question shows you aren’t ready for Linux. Users new to Linux must spend hours upon weeks for many years goggling how to do this or how to do that. Linux is nothing like Windows. Many Distros pretend to having a graphical user interface, but unless you only want to browse the internet, you will invariably find yourself typing into the terminal.

I'm only half kidding.

If you are unfamiliar with Linux, you will need to spend a LOT of time fixing that. That said, probably Linux Mint 11 is the most complete, and user friendly. If you don't have a special purposes cut out for your old machine, the stock Mint distro will probably work fine.

Good luck trying to image the install once you have it set up the way you want. All the options I found suck- and not in a good way. Possibly one could use Hiren's Boot CD to run Macrium Reflect under Windows to make a good image, but I didn't try that.

That's not very accurate for Linux distros in general. It's partially true for the minimal distros, but some of them are pretty friendly if you don't expect the world from them.

Cutting size means cutting features. That's a concept people don't seem to grasp. It's especially prevalent with Windows users. MS packs everything and the kitchen sink to keep things smooth, and the users complain that it's too "bloated". Likewise, if you use a minimal Linux, you're gonna have to put some work in it. You can't create something from nothing, so features the maintainers don't feel are essential get the ax.

OP, you didn't say how "old" the computer is. Are we talking a C2D, or a Pentium 2 here?

 

[Ozzu]

I'm most fond of Arch Linux myself. I like the rolling release approach and it's got some of that Gentoo feel where you basically configure it from the ground up, but not nearly as frustrating to start like Gentoo is.

 

[Samick]

My computer is about 6 years old or older. 2.5 ghz procesor, 512 RAM.
I tried few Linux distributions: Ubuntu, OpenSuse, PC OS Linux. All of these distributions runs normal for some time, but when I install more software to them they start working slow. That's why I need light weight Linux which works good for computer like I descripted.

 

[lxskllr]

Installing software shouldn't slow down Linux, unless you're taxing the system's hardware requirements. In other words, Firefox with 100 addons, and some of the more advanced 3D games probably aren't reasonable on your machine.

For ease of use, with nice repos, I'd suggest Lubuntu. For a little more work, and nice repos, Debian.

If you want something very light, I like SliTaz, and Puppy. Your choice of software isn't anywhere near as close as the bigger distros, but they'll run on almost anything.

Personally, I'd install Debian with the Xfce desktop.

 

[Samick]

Installing software shouldn't slow down Linux, unless you're taxing the system's hardware requirements. In other words, Firefox with 100 addons, and some of the more advanced 3D games probably aren't reasonable on your machine.

I know that it should not. But I write how it was. Maybe it was because of space. The hard drive is 40 GB space. So it is not hard to make the drive full. Or maybe Linux needs a bit of space for some processes (I am not talking about swap space)?

 

[lxskllr]

I have Ubuntu 10.04 on a 900mhz CeleronM, with 1gb ram, and a 16gb SSD. Aside from the cpu being pokey, and the ssd even slower, it works great.

 

[evilspoons]

Upgrade that RAM. I'm sure you can find another 512 MB somewhere (I have some sitting on a shelf here at work, haha.)

 

[catilley1092]

For low spec computers, Xubuntu runs fairly good, as it was created for them. It runs well on 512MB RAM & slow HDD's, making it a perfect choice for older/slower computers.

If you were to add another 512MB RAM, Ubuntu & Mint both would run quite well. Many of today's apps needs at least 1GB RAM anyway, most video cards takes 64 to 128MB of RAM alone, leaving even less for the OS to run on.

Cat

 

[Red Squirrel]

I don't know if it's still around, but there was a distro I used on low end machines called Trustix Linux. It was a nice little distro for doing basic tasks like routing, web server, etc. I used to use it a lot for big virtualized test environments. Maybe have like 10 of em running on a mid end machine.

 

[VinylxScratches]

Debian.

 

[irishScott]

Depends on your technical expertise/experience with linux and exactly how far back you're going in terms of hardware/

For something that'll run good out of the box, Xubuntu comes to mind. Otherwise you might want to look into Gentoo/Funtoo, Slackware, Arch, Sabyon, basically any source based or ultra-customizable distro. Will take a lot more technical knowledge, but could be notably faster.

Personally I'd prefer arch. Excellent wiki/tutorials/documentation, and high level of customization. Use it on my laptop.