HN Explorer

Ask HN: Looking for a really lightweight Linux distro for my netbook

24 points by mcrittenden ↗ HN
I'm currently running Jolicloud which I like, but it's running pretty slow and my HD has almost no space left (with almost nothing but the OS and a few apps on it).

Any recommendations for something that is small and fast? Running Chrome is more or less the only thing I need it to do.

46 comments

[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 94.3 ms ] thread
gdl
If you're not afraid of the command line (or are willing to learn), Arch is as lightweight as you want it to be. The initial install is very minimalist and the package management system makes it almost trivial to build up from there. Install Openbox and Chrome and you're all set with a pretty lean system.

http://wiki.archlinux.org/

mcrittenden
I'm not scared of the command line, but I'd rather not spend a long time setting up stuff like wifi, sound, etc. Is all that pretty easy to get going?
_b8r0
It's more involved than doing it on Ubuntu. To be honest the hardest thing you're likely to do is getting X running, closely followed by picking a window manager. Sound and Wifi are generally straightforward on Arch.

To put it in perspective, I use Arch on a P3-850-based Sony Vaio with 128mb of Ram and it flies.

The main things you'll get from Arch on a netbook are:

* Rolling release means that you don't have to do distribution upgrades.

* Have it your way - you pick what you want, what window manager you want, what editor you want etc. Use something like AwesomeWM, Xmonad or OpenBox to get the most out of your screen real-estate.

* Efficiency - Because you're only running what you want to run, your memory usage will be better and you wont have things you don't need lying around your hard disk, leaving the space to be filled with things you do.

The downsides:

* It's not a mainstream distro. While it has a great community, it's not as ubiquitous as something like Ubuntu. Still, Arch hasn't yet had it's eternal september so the people you do encounter know what they're talking about.

* You will tinker more and it will take up your time - if you don't play around then everything should work fine, but with the amount of flexibility Arch offers you will inevitably go through Window Managers and various tools, at the risk of breaking something.

Hope this is useful.

xtho
> Rolling release means that you don't have to do distribution upgrades.

This goes beyond the OP's question. How does arch handle changes in essential components like the switch to upstart in ubuntu? Does this work well with rolling releases?

w1ntermute
I've been an Arch user for ~1 year (Gentoo before that), and "essential component" upgrades seem to take place just fine. For example, there was a recent shift from Python 2 to Python 3 as the primary Python interpreter, and there were no noticeable problems.
gdl
I'm sure it varies by system and the specific hardware, but I don't think it was too bad when I did it and I'm hardly a Linux expert (I've been using Arch for a few months). There will probably be a couple hurdles as you'd expect from a fairly custom Linux install, but the extensive wiki and large community make it relatively quick and painless to figure out what's going on and how to fix it.

That said, if you're looking for something as quick and easy as possible you might want to look around a bit more to see if there are any prepackaged systems that do exactly what you want with less setup. No sense making this more complicated than it needs to be if something else comes up that closely fits your needs and could potentially save a couple hours of troubleshooting.

sivers
I'm also a huge Arch Linux fan. It's my only OS, and for the same reasons you're looking for: I just wanted the bare minimum.

After you get the base installed, just type "pacman -S chromium", and it'll just install the dependencies, and voila.

Then you can just put "exec chromium" in your .xinitrc and type `startx` each time you boot up, if you want to run a browser.

d0m
I'm really open minded when it comes to trying new operating systems. And of everything I've tried (varying from windows, to unix, to slackware, to ubuntu), my favorite is Arch. It's simple and clean. I really suggest that you give it a try.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
thecombjelly
I run Arch on my $175 eee PC and it works far better than any of the other distros that I've tried. It also helps A LOT to run a very light weight window manager. I've found the StumpWM (as a bonus written in Lisp) is a great fit, although Ratpoison would be good as well.

Another advantage with StumpWM or Ratpoison is that they don't draw window borders and there is no task bar etc, so you have quite a bit more space. And since the WM is controlled by keyboard shortcuts you are actually more efficient.

rwl
Have you tried Debian? I run Debian on a desktop, but my sense is that its hardware support for netbooks lags a bit. I'd be interested to know how easy it is to get working on an Eee PC. (And the OP might as well: a Debian base install seems like it might be a nice compromise between the kitchen-sink approach in a base Ubuntu install and the configuration required by something like Arch -- though I don't really know.)
thecombjelly
Yes I have tried Debian. Debian is not near as bleeding edge and may not have as good of driver support. It is also quite often slower. If you really want the best performance, a distro like Arch is really the only easy way to get it. Arch is also rolling release which also makes it easier long term. I've actually tried probably 20 or 30 distros and Arch is my favorite. It is difficult the first few times you set it up, but the benefits are great, if you have the time and patience.
kaens
I'm very familiar with Debian (and Ubuntu), and Arch.

Unless you really need capitol S Stability, I would recommend running Arch, assuming you're comfortable with a unix environment, or willing to learn. It's a very clean minimalist distro, and there isn't very much to wrap your head around that isn't just common unix stuff.

1tw
Slitaz is tiny, runs in RAM and tends to just work in my experience: well worth a try if you want to get up and running quickly - http://www.slitaz.org

That said, Arch is much easier to set up than it might appear and would be a perfect base if all you're going to run is Chrome. No need for a desktop environment/window manager, either:

    xinit /usr/bin/chromium $* -- :1
othello
Puppy Linux is a good choice for a very lightweight distro.

The latest release only weighs 130 MB and there is a large choice of distributions (puplets) including one specifically tailored to netbooks (Puppeee).

pge
Tiny core linux is the smallest one I know of that is fully packaged (at 11MB). I use it for a similar purpose. Another option is to install a server version like debian and add back only those pieces you need.
kalessin
"A really lightweight Linux distro", this doesn't makes sense at all. The Linux kernel is the same for everybody, it depends on what your are running on it.

Pick your favorite distro, just install a tiny window manager, avoid running background applications and that's it.

If you don't have a favorite distro, then all depends on your Linux skill and/or the time you have. Good distros have already been given in this thread.

barrkel
There's a huge variation in default installs depending on which distro. He was asking which distro, not which kernel.
jhancock
ubuntu 10.04 netbook edition runs very well on my 5 year old laptop (thinkpad x41, the 'netbook' of its day).
SkyMarshal
It runs very well on my Asus Eee PC 1000HE as well.

http://www.ubuntu.com/netbook

And I also prefer the 10.04 version to the 10.10 version. No idea what Ubuntu was thinking with that new space-wasting sidebar in 10.10. Can download the older version here:

http://mirror.pnl.gov/releases/10.04/

rcthompson
They switched to a sidebar because all screens are widescreens now. Having toolbars on the top or bottom just worsens the situation. If your netbook screen is only 1024 x 600, you don't need to lose even more vertical resolution to a task bar.
bendmorris
A vertical auto-hide toolbar, to me, is much more convenient than the clunky sidebar with no customization options that you're stuck with in 10.10.
SkyMarshal
Agreed. It definitely needs an optional auto-hide for those of us who use Gnome-Do and the like.

Imho that's the ultimate solution to limited screen real-estate on netbooks and tablets - no more menu at all, replaced by an easy hotkey that pops up a panel with all the functionality and information you need.

Menu bars are relics, but maybe the UX designers making these decisions think that's too much of a departure from what most of their users already know?

tommorris
Or Xubuntu. It's like Ubuntu but is a bit more lightweight.
jamii
Has anyone tried out chromium OS? Its difficult to tell how complete the project is yet but it seems like the ideal solution.
TorKlingberg
You may want to tell us which netbook it is. There is a big difference between the original Eee PC and netbooks with the latest Atom CPU.
Indyan
If you want something that is easy to use and doesn't need to be configured, used Fluxbox edition of Linux Mint.
sunkencity
why not just buy a larger drive? Time wasted will be less.
barrkel
If you've got one of the first netbooks, the HD is unreplaceable flash.
ilikejam
Running the standard Fedora 13 Gnome spin on a Dell mini 10v at the moment - 260MB RAM in-use with Firefox and Thunderbird open, which seems pretty light to me. Remove the bottom Gnome toolbar and set the top toolbar to auto-hide (put the task switcher in the top toolbar), to get your vertical screen real estate back. Set 'resample-method' to 'speex-float-0' in /etc/pulse/daemon.conf to stop PulseAudio sucking up gobs of CPU and you're good to go.

i386 Fedora has been compiled with '-mtune=atom' since F12, which is nice for netbooks. (Not so nice for my Core Duo Mac Mini server, but it's not exactly CPU-bound so No Big Deal).

srean
Like many who have commented here I am a big time Arch linux fan. However if setting up X seems something that you do not want to deal with, you can give Chakra linux a try. Its based on Arch so you get a lean set up. But the installer does some of the heavier lifting for you. Off late they have been moving away from Arch though.

You could also run prelink after the install to make the startup time of your applications snappier.

Often time I do wish there was a more Debian stable'ish equivalent of Arch to put on servers. A distribution that is optimized but does not tip toe the bleeding edge as much and does not have a rolling release cycle.

macco
I would go with puppy linux - really small and fast.
Ocho-Bits
Install Ubuntu Minimal and just download what you need. You'll get the popularity of Debian (with all those packages) and a fast system (you can install any WM and such).
zbruhnke
backtrack .... lol i kid i kid, puppy linux is Astonishingly small you could try that if your looking for something in that range
dekomote
Linux Mint LXDE is very lightweight without sacrificing functionality and looks. I use it on my netbook for several months now, and it works great. Battery life improved 40% since I switched to it, everything works out of the box.
danbee
You could try Crunchbang Linux. It's rather neat.