PDA

View Full Version : What linux should I install?



ppo
September 10th, 2010, 12:17 PM
I know it's not vintage, but as this is the Linux section, I thought I'd give it a try.

I've been trying to install windows and it seems to be almost impossible.

I have a Pentium, with a 4 GB HD, circa 1995.

What linux should I install?

Jorg
September 10th, 2010, 12:41 PM
Important is to know how much RAM you have, as this is often the limiting factor.

glitch
September 10th, 2010, 12:44 PM
Slackware Linux is a good choice for older systems. Depending on your RAM limitations, you may want to install an older version of Slackware. I had no problems running 10.0 on a 486 with 20 MB RAM in console-only mode.

Ole Juul
September 10th, 2010, 12:52 PM
RAM is the most important specification. Check out the other threads which are duplicates of this one. CPU speed is not a performance issue with Linux. HDD size is only relevant for your archives.

Try Dammed Small Linux, aka DSL. It has about the lowest resource needs of practical everyday distros that will run Firefox etc. If that doesn't work, you can try to pare things down or use a really ancient distro. That is a hard way to go. MS-Windows is best for low RAM situations but in th *nix world then BSD has very good RAM usage. I like FreeBSD. Honestly, I don't think most people would notice what OS is running under a GUI anyway. Which brings me to my last point. Did you want to run Linux with a GUI? It is a very good OS without all that eye candy. FreeBSD is a dream to use on the command line.

Caluser2000
September 10th, 2010, 01:37 PM
Yip plenty of ram if you want a gui. I've got Mandrake 6.1 installed on the 486 Presario 64megs running WindowMaker. Any RH 6 based distro will run fine. The good thing about DSL is it can be installed on the hdd as Debian (i forget the varient). Its creator has now moved on to Tiny Core Linux and DSL is no longer being developed I believe. Here's the link anyway http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/
There's also a few 2 fd disk distros available as well.
SliTaz may be usefull too http://www.slitaz.org/en/about/index.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SliTaz_GNU/Linux

You may want to read this too ;). http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

Do keep us posted on your progress.

barythrin
September 10th, 2010, 02:44 PM
Yeah, it's a holy war out there on distros ;-) I really like FreeBSD (BSD not linux) but that's because they've worked to get the most number of software packages compiled and working on their OS vs OpenBSD (security/stability) and NetBSD (ported to the most devices). Linux most are fine but I see most geeks are liking the non-corporate flavors so Slackware, (I like TurboLinux), Debian, and Ubuntu (or Kubuntu for KDE but KDE is not likely gonna run on your system it's too clunky as are most linux GUIs).. I know folks who run everything though. I would try a live CD of some distro and see how you like it or how you like the install. Effectively you'll just be wanting one that you can customize not to install Gnome or KDE (those are the two mainstream but very large and slow GUI front ends for linux) and that has a somewhat easy to understand package management. Preferably one that does good dependency checking which maybe they all try to do that now but after a year of not update each system it's interesting to learn how much of a pain it is (most folks will recommend rebuilding from scratch above updating an old untouched system).

Don't let it scare ya though.. it's a fun system that you can blow away if you want to. So download a bunch and see which one finds some nice term that you like or has the best looking logo.

Ole Juul
September 10th, 2010, 03:00 PM
I agree with everything barythrin says. I'd just like to add that FreeBSD has another real plus. It has a manual which works. You can buy the book or use it on-line. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it has served me well and if you've ever tried to do a search on Linux instructions, you'll appreciate a manual which is complete and up-to-date.

BTW, an Ubuntu option which I've used several times, is to install the server version and then put a GUI on afterwards. Ubuntu server is smaller and quicker to install and brings you to the command line. At the end of the install you get to chose which servers you want - just chose none. After it is up, just type "sudo apt-get install fluxbox". It doesn't get any easier than that. Fluxbox is a very functional desktop and it is minimal and fast. It will launch all the KDE and Gnome apps just like any other GUI. Of course, you can use Fluxbox with any other distro as well.

ppo
September 11th, 2010, 05:35 AM
I forgot how important RAM is, I have 32768 Kb.

Jorg
September 11th, 2010, 07:24 AM
I agree with everything barythrin says. I'd just like to add that FreeBSD has another real plus. It has a manual which works. You can buy the book or use it on-line. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it has served me well and if you've ever tried to do a search on Linux instructions, you'll appreciate a manual which is complete and up-to-date.


I have to second that. Because of the manual, FreeBSD was almost the only thing I could get my old WLAN card to work with.

ppo
September 11th, 2010, 08:19 AM
Yip plenty of ram if you want a gui. I've got Mandrake 6.1 installed on the 486 Presario 64megs running WindowMaker. Any RH 6 based distro will run fine. The good thing about DSL is it can be installed on the hdd as Debian (i forget the varient). Its creator has now moved on to Tiny Core Linux and DSL is no longer being developed I believe. Here's the link anyway http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/
There's also a few 2 fd disk distros available as well.
SliTaz may be usefull too http://www.slitaz.org/en/about/index.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SliTaz_GNU/Linux

You may want to read this too ;). http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

Do keep us posted on your progress.


Thanks a lot, that's what I was looking for.

And I already know linux a little, as a matter of fact I'm browsing this forum with firefox on ubuntu, my problem is installing an OS.

Caluser2000
September 11th, 2010, 11:44 AM
You've got a few other choices of OS/Gui combinations. But they're outside the scope of this thread though ;).

ppo
September 11th, 2010, 12:13 PM
You're welcome to give any suggestions.:)

I just went for linux because it seems to be the easiest to install.

Caluser2000
September 11th, 2010, 12:37 PM
FreeDos, MSDos 7.1, Open/DrDos or a variant, one of the earlier NT variants (4 for example), OS/2? Tons of free software out there to keep them usefull.

Mind you if you're familiar with Linux it makes sence to go that route or FreeBSD as others have suggested.

barythrin
September 12th, 2010, 08:24 AM
Another popular choice back in the day was to install either a removable drive bay or more than one hard drive and swap them out when you wanted another OS. Install Os/2 on one of them and play around remove that drive, pop in your linux drive and back to linux. This of course was for folks and a time where multi-booting wasn't as feasible due to hard drive space. Now adays yes you could practice installing on different partitions and getting them both listed in your boot loader (not very difficult and good practice to know/understand anyway).

On the bright side a lot of operating systems aren't as difficult to install as they used to be, as your post suggest the most difficulty you'll have is finding the right distro for the performance of that system. But it's only time if you like to play around, burn a few to CD and see if you can get them to install. If so, great, if not maybe an internet guide to help, and if it seems like it may be too new or complicated move on to the next toy OS.

Another fun one btw would be BeOS.

ppo
September 12th, 2010, 10:39 AM
My problem is that I can't transfer any files to a floppy disk, because my main floppy disk drive is broken, and I found out yesterday that the computer isn't recognizing the cd drive.

I have Windows 2000 on an HD, but I can't get the computer to recognize the HD, and the computer as it is turned on, asks for the system disk which I don't have.

What can I do now?

ppo
September 12th, 2010, 10:43 AM
FreeDos, MSDos 7.1, Open/DrDos or a variant, one of the earlier NT variants (4 for example), OS/2? Tons of free software out there to keep them usefull.

Mind you if you're familiar with Linux it makes sence to go that route or FreeBSD as others have suggested.

I'd like to keep the computer as it was originally, just like a classic car.

I'd like to use Dos or Windows or OS/2, I'll just use linux if I can't install nothing else.

And I have the floppy disks for the Windows NT 4.0, it's just that the installer asks for the cd rom and I don't have it and my cd drive isn't working.

Raven
September 12th, 2010, 11:50 AM
I second Damn Small Linux but it's worth noting that it seems to have stalled in development. On the upside that means that it's also frozen in a state that's good for old hardware. That OS screamed on my P2 300Mhz laptop (which is now broken) years ago. There's also "DSL-N" if HDD space isn't much of a concern - almost equally fast but a bit more useful.

As for getting Windows on there, you can install from a network drive - get a network card and a DOS network driver and map a drive.

barythrin
September 12th, 2010, 01:06 PM
Ok so a few hitches in your way. The computer prompting you to insert a system disk or complaining that a non-system disk was found is just it's way of telling you "Hey, I don't have an operating system.. I'm done unless you have something for me to boot off of." Check your BIOS settings if it's not seeing your hard drive it may not be cabled, jumpered (single/master or cable select), or may not be set up for auto detect in the BIOS on the adapter you have it plugged into (IDE1/Primary or IDE2/Secondary). Could be a similar issue with the CDROM. Some older equipment didn't like cable select and needed to be jumpered specifically for master/slave.

So I would suggest that the parts are cheap and common enough you might want to look around to just replace the cdrom or floppy if they're giving you problems. Oh.. also some older Pentiums didn't support booting off CD so that's another thing that could be the case. In that case you'd boot off a floppy with cdrom support or with a boot loader installed and then jump to the cdrom.

The only other thing you could try is installing dos with cdrom drivers on a hard drive while it's on your main system and then boot it on the other computer since dos was simple enough to be able to move from system to system since it didn't utilize that many drivers unless loaded.

Caluser2000
September 13th, 2010, 02:16 AM
I'd like to keep the computer as it was originally, just like a classic car.

I'd like to use Dos or Windows or OS/2, I'll just use linux if I can't install nothing else.

And I have the floppy disks for the Windows NT 4.0, it's just that the installer asks for the cd rom and I don't have it and my cd drive isn't working.Folk seem to be giving away NT4 CDs these days. It shouldn't be to hard to get hold of one along with booklet and installation code. I've been lucky enough to get two in the last month.

It's no good that the hardware is playing up. barythrin's covered it well in his post above.

The reason Win2k isn't loading is probably because the drive is too large for the bios to recognise correctly. This can be overcome in a couple of ways. A hard drive controller with it's own bios or overlay software. Overlay software probably is the least ideal if you want to extract important data of the drive.

Ole Juul
September 13th, 2010, 11:16 AM
I'd like to use Dos or Windows or OS/2, I'll just use linux if I can't install nothing else.
I can't imagine there being any problem with installing DOS! You just need to fix the hardware. If you have a broken computer you're going to have trouble with anything. :)

pearce_jj
September 14th, 2010, 10:58 AM
Something to be aware of is that the Ubuntu/Debian 2.6 kernel need Pentium Pro or better and won't run on Pentium class machines. But it's RAM footprint for command-line only install is quite low still, 64MB enough even.

Ole Juul
September 14th, 2010, 02:45 PM
Something to be aware of is that the Ubuntu/Debian 2.6 kernel need Pentium Pro or better and won't run on Pentium class machines. But it's RAM footprint for command-line only install is quite low still, 64MB enough even.

Just for the record, last night I tried to install Ubuntu server (command line only) on a PII 266 w/128MB ram, and it wouldn't go. I ended up using a Debian minimal install which went on fairly quickly.

saundby
September 15th, 2010, 12:55 AM
I've got two comparable systems that have been in use since then. One has four partitions with three OSes (last partition is a place for mastering CDs for burning.) The OSes are:
DOS 6.2/Win3.11
OS/2 Warp
Yggdrasil Linux (the original LiveCD Linux.)

The second system runs Win95, NT3.51, and a version of SuSE--7 dot something, I think. It was originally SuSE 6 dot something off of a Linux distro sampler, but I upgraded about 18mos later.

Both are Pentium 90s or close to it (they may have been upgraded a bit or overclocked a bit). The first is a Frankenstein's monster built out of components from fallout systems, the second is a system that was an NT domain administration workstation back in the day that got turned into a Quake server when it got put to pasture. The RAM is either 32MB or 64MB in them, I forget which. They have NE2000 compatible 10Base-T NICs in them.

The Yggdrasil is not compatible with present Linux binaries, but nothing goes on to that system in binary form, anyway. Most of the software on it was ported from source for HP-UX 9.0x. It's still running Mosaic as a browser. It doesn't do Javascript or Flash, but it's secure as all get-out. ;)

Caluser2000
September 15th, 2010, 10:14 PM
Intriguing setups saundby. Nice.

Ole Juul
September 15th, 2010, 10:38 PM
Indeed, saundby has a nice collection. It's been a while since I've come across the name Yggdrasil. :)



BTW: If anyone is interested in historical software, here are a couple of interesting links. You could try Linux 0.01 http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/ or perhaps an early Debian 0.91or MCC or SLS: http://linux-distributions.org/

Ole Juul
September 15th, 2010, 10:39 PM
Indeed, saundby has a nice collection. It's been a while since I've come across the name Yggdrasil. :)

BTW: If anyone is interested in historical software, here are a couple of interesting links. You could try Linux 0.01 http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/ or perhaps an early Debian 0.91or MCC or SLS: http://linux-distributions.org/

TNC
September 17th, 2010, 01:25 AM
Something to be aware of is that the Ubuntu/Debian 2.6 kernel need Pentium Pro or better and won't run on Pentium class machines. But it's RAM footprint for command-line only install is quite low still, 64MB enough even.

At least for Debian, this isn't true. As far as I know, Debian installs an i486 or i686 kernel on demand, depending on your CPU.

PrintStar
September 17th, 2010, 09:27 AM
At least for Debian, this isn't true. As far as I know, Debian installs an i486 or i686 kernel on demand, depending on your CPU.

I can second this. I have Debian "etch" (the previous release) running on a Geode-powered device, and it is using an i486 kernel (2.6).

See http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s01.html.en#id2756691 for more information.

saundby
September 17th, 2010, 05:39 PM
Intriguing setups saundby. Nice.

Indeed, saundby has a nice collection. It's been a while since I've come across the name Yggdrasil. :)

Thanks. I thought I'd throw out examples of what runs on a system of that vintage based on what I've actually got running--FWIW for the OP.

A lot of the systems I have around here are pretty much "as they were" the day someone pulled the plug on them, walked toward the dumpster, and had me throw myself between the computer and the dumpster.* What I usually do with my systems is try to fill them out a bit with add-ons, but run software on them that's the stuff that was written for them, rather than something newer.

On Yggdrasil, it was the first Linux I ran that I didn't have to compile from source, and I liked it a lot, so I still run it. It came as a LiveCD, and it really surprised me how long it took for this idea to catch on with other distros.

*Apparently I've become somewhat known for this. I have had people I don't know walk up to me in a parking lot, hand me a trash bag while saying, "This is for you", then walk off. The trash bag had a C64, disk drive, about 75 original disks & a few manuals and boxes in it. Later investigation still hasn't gotten to the root of why they (correctly) thought I'd want a trash bag full of old computer. The best I can figure is that they were friends of friends who told them where to expect me and what I drive or look like. *shrug*

TNC
September 18th, 2010, 12:26 AM
My opinion is, that you install a actual debian system for "work-related" things, if you have such things. I think this makes sense for security reasons. You can install some old operation systems along debian, thats no problem. If your 486 has PCI, throw in a Promise IDE controller.

From them you could boot cdroms and install harddisks up to 2000 Gigabytes (if I remember the manual correctly, this is no fault from me the size is correct). RAM is always important, but as I remember a Debian 5.0 "Lenny" installs with 32 Megabytes. For a text system, of course. You may throw in a "fancy" graphics card, that you could use some higher framebuffer resolutions. 1024x768 in framebuffer compared to the gerneric 80x25 is very comfortable.

If you install 64 Megabytes or more, you could try some X oriented things. Fluxbox or Openbox for example. They are quite lightweight. LXDE is also an opinion (and only the deskop system!), it uses Openbox and gives you a Windows like menu feeling. I made some tests with lenny and a Pentium 166 some time ago, to get the specific RAM requirement, and the summary is, that, even with 64 Megabytes, the system is quite "usable" as long you do not run some "heavy" applications like firefox or openoffice.

Caluser2000
September 18th, 2010, 10:41 AM
Promise made ISA IDE controllers that overcame bios hd limits as well, but PCI would be better. A lot of the earlier packaged distros had the advantage of having 3.5" disks you could boot your system into the installation routine if it could'nt boot from the CD, much like win9x boot disks. A few later distros, including liveones, have floppy disk images available for this purpose.

Later 486s and earlier Pentiums were quite capable of using 8 gig drives IIRC. Doesn't the Linux kernal usually bypass such bios limitations once loaded? A lot of usefull things can be done using a 4 gig drive though. I run a p200mmx with one using RH 7.2 with a built in 1meg video card, networking etc. As for X front ends WindowMaker is also an option as mentioned earlier. WM works well on my 486DX2/66 with Gtk1 applications. Quite like the chunky oldskool Gtk1 look n feel. As TNC mentions stick to some of the lighter stuff. I learnt early on to kick Nautilus and the likes into touch. It dragged the P200 to a crawl. Use the likes of mc or gnome-commander instead. That system now has 256meg of ram, folk throw it out these days :), started out as a 32meg system.


Screen shot below is of the 486. The 200mmx in the second pic with my newly aquired lcd monitor.

Raven
September 19th, 2010, 04:41 PM
I have an 80GB drive in my 200MMX box (Presario 3020) and it crawls web browsing on 98SE with K-Meleon - how is web browsing on yours under Linux, and what browser do you use? (If you don't browse on there, what WOULD you use?)

Caluser2000
September 19th, 2010, 05:02 PM
Opera 8.5 Runs fine via the networked 2.4mhz box. I've got a P2 300 win98 box I rarely use now, was the main household PC for many years, with an earlier Firefox on it. That runs fine too. Depending on what you are actually doing on the internet a text browser may be usefull.

When I say runs fine I mean acceptable to me. It's subjective.

TNC
September 19th, 2010, 11:01 PM
I will make some tests in the next days... :)

Caluser2000
September 25th, 2010, 01:03 AM
Just hooked up a hdd to the 200 with SuSE 7.2 Professional (an older commercial distro with floppy boot disk to start the installation) on it along with Opera 9.64 (not part of the install but added later). Runs real well. Use the text based YaST to configure it instead of the graphical YaST2(believe me its slowww-KDE based) It comes with a great set of manuals (certainly better than its contemparies), as well and enough applications to keep anyone happy. Minimal requirements are a 486DX and 32 megs of ram (text only I'd imagine as mention earlier). Still plenty of usefull links out there to configure stuff like cdwriting.

Originally installed it on an Athlon 900(my old test rig) or thereabouts then put it in the 200. Obviously the 200 had a different video setup so X bulked, not surprising, then proceeded to the logon prompt. It was a simple matter of log in as root, run YaST selecting the correct video card, network card etc, let the config script do its thing, exit then log out. Then just login in as user, start X(not that its' needed as the underlying OS is fully functional in itself but I personnally like eye candy) and back into it. You can set it up to auto login to any user account on startup and into your desktop/gui of choice. I've mentioned before mine is Window Maker. I like the way it resets the desktop to where you where at when if closes down and it's resonably light compared to Gnome and KDE.

Another light window manager is http://www.icewm.org/

yuhong
September 25th, 2010, 10:07 PM
Something to be aware of is that the Ubuntu/Debian 2.6 kernel need Pentium Pro or better and won't run on Pentium class machines.
The Ubuntu -generic kernel up to 10.04 will run on Pentiums, for next release they are raising the minimum up to to Pentium Pro.

Ole Juul
September 25th, 2010, 10:41 PM
The Ubuntu -generic kernel up to 10.04 will run on Pentiums, for next release they are raising the minimum up to to Pentium Pro.
So how would you propose to do that? I just tried to install a basic (no GUI) Ubuntu on a Pentium I with 64MB ram, which is twice what the OP has, and it just wouldn't do it.

Caluser2000
September 25th, 2010, 10:54 PM
This may sort things out https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements
Call me old fashion but 1 gig hard disk space, and 128megs of ram seems an lot for a cli only installation.

Ole Juul
September 25th, 2010, 11:36 PM
This may sort things out https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements
Call me old fashion but 1 gig hard disk space, and 128megs of ram seems an lot for a cli only installation.
I'm old fashioned, like you, :) and enjoy a DOS "install" which can fit on a 360K floppy.

I'm actually very familiar with the Ubuntu Server CLI install. That's how I usually do it. and it goes on pretty quick, and then you just add whatever desktop you choose after that. KDE, Gnome, Fluxbox, you name it and hit enter. One can probably pare the CLI only down a bit, but note that the Ubuntu Server installation will serve web pages, run mySQL databases, and on and on. It is a most functional system. I run a server with that and I love it.

That said. I also have a P1 with 64MB ram and a CLI FreeBSD installation that takes up 292MB. (I just put that together 10 minutes ago - lol) It is also pretty functional, but it will not run web sites, blogs, and forums, like the Ubuntu install will.

Caluser2000
September 25th, 2010, 11:50 PM
Must give FreeBSD a shot sometime.

How's about OS/2 on a 486DX2/66 with 16megs of ram and total install including usefull apps and networking, of about 120meg. Graphical of course ;)

enricohenry
September 26th, 2010, 12:46 PM
I suggest you install this version of Linux that I find suitable for old computers.
It 's done very well, lightweight, simple, fast and you can install other software if you have disk space.
I'll give you the link to read his potential and try it.

http://puppylinux.org/main/index.php?file=Overview%20and%20Getting%20Started. htm

Bye,

Enrico.

Ole Juul
September 26th, 2010, 01:21 PM
Puppy is indeed an excellent, and favoured, choice for old computers. One thing to keep in mind though, is that is is not secure like other Linux distros. Regular users run as root! I know it sounds bizarre in this day and age, but perhaps it's not any worse than MS-windows OSs which I've heard do the same. :)

Caluser2000
September 26th, 2010, 07:01 PM
There is a multi-user Puppy distro-
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=47409

tingo
October 3rd, 2010, 02:42 PM
How's about OS/2 on a 486DX2/66 with 16megs of ram and total install including usefull apps and networking, of about 120meg. Graphical of course ;)

Cool but easy. For a challenge, try the Warp install on a amchine with only 4 megs of RAM. :-)

Pepinno
December 15th, 2010, 11:54 AM
I have a Pentium, with a 4 GB HD, circa 1995.

What linux should I install?

What do you want to do?

A Pentium is a quite able machine, your options are numerous.

I would try a Linux with a 2.4 kernel, or a SCO UNIX for a change. You could try OS/2 or BeOS or Minix or Windows 95 or Windows NT 3.51.

You could also run CPM-86 and MS-DOS.

You have a LOT of options with such a machine.

Pepinno
December 15th, 2010, 12:04 PM
Slackware Linux is a good choice for older systems. Depending on your RAM limitations, you may want to install an older version of Slackware. I had no problems running 10.0 on a 486 with 20 MB RAM in console-only mode.

I had some problems but managed to run Slackware 3.0 with Linux kernel 1.2 on an old laptop Texas Instruments Travel Mate 3000 with a 386SX at 16 MHz, a 40 MB HDD and only 2 MB of RAM.

I could succesfully run a FTP client and a telnet client. Using Lynx to surf the web was possible but painful as it started trashing the swap like mad... I had to copy over the Lynx binary from a RedHat 2.0 system, and then as it was ELF instead of COFF (Slackware 3.0 was all COFF, if I remember right) I had to copy over some extra libs -- I don't remember the details, but it involved ftp'ing to a named-pipe-file and some crazy shit...

Then the floppy drive died, and I finally decided to dump the machine. The challenge was done, and the floppy replacement was too expensive.

I used a pocket ethernet adapter to get network support.

ppo
February 2nd, 2011, 05:48 AM
I have finally managed to install a new HD and even changed the floppy disk drive.

Now the computer doesn't recognize the floppy disk, I have changed various times the drive and am sure that the cables are all correctly installed.

I'm out of ideas.

Caluser2000
February 3rd, 2011, 09:56 PM
Could be a faulty onboard fdd controller or possibly the cable. You may be able to use a multi i/o card to get the fdd functioning.

WolverineDK
March 4th, 2011, 10:39 AM
I like Peppermint OS, which is a variation of Lubuntu and both OSes can go extremely low in minimum specs. I installed Peppermint OS, instead of Lubuntu because (to me anyway) a "flaw" in Lubuntu. And that was because Lubuntu uses Chrome (which I personally think is a piece of shit/garbage) of an internet browser. But Peppermint OS (Peppermint One, not Peppermint Ice) uses Firefox as their default internet browser. I read some time ago, while I was a part of a reddit discussion in their "The Stallman Subreddit", that the Opera browser would be even better for extremely low ram systems. So anyway I recommend you Peppermint OS/One if you like Firefox or Lubuntu(and Peppermint Ice), if you like Chrome as your default internet browser.

If linking is okay, I will post links to Lubuntu and Peppermint OS

http://lubuntu.net/

http://peppermintos.com/

Both OSes can be run from a USB stick , along being live discs CD versions. All you need to put them on a USB stick is to use

Universal USB Installer

http://www.pendrivelinux.com/universal-usb-installer-easy-as-1-2-3/

And their main page is

http://www.pendrivelinux.com/

Klee
March 4th, 2011, 11:33 AM
I like Peppermint OS, which is a variation of Lubuntu and both OSes can go extremely low in minimum specs. I installed Peppermint OS, instead of Lubuntu because (to me anyway) a "flaw" in Lubuntu. And that was because Lubuntu uses Chrome (which I personally think is a piece of shit/garbage) of an internet browser. But Peppermint OS (Peppermint One, not Peppermint Ice) uses Firefox as their default internet browser. I read some time ago, while I was a part of a reddit discussion in their "The Stallman Subreddit", that the Opera browser would be even better for extremely low ram systems. So anyway I recommend you Peppermint OS/One if you like Firefox or Lubuntu(and Peppermint Ice), if you like Chrome as your default internet browser.

If linking is okay, I will post links to Lubuntu and Peppermint OS

http://lubuntu.net/

http://peppermintos.com/

Both OSes can be run from a USB stick , along being live discs CD versions. All you need to put them on a USB stick is to use

Universal USB Installer

http://www.pendrivelinux.com/universal-usb-installer-easy-as-1-2-3/

And their main page is

http://www.pendrivelinux.com/


You could just remove Chrome and install Firefox via synaptic.

WolverineDK
March 4th, 2011, 11:40 AM
You could just remove Chrome and install Firefox via synaptic.

True, but I seem to like Peppermint now :)

Raven
March 4th, 2011, 04:33 PM
Some of us like Chrome, tyvm.. I always have to uninstall Firefox from things because my opinion is exactly reversed. The only thing Firefox has going for it IMHO is that it's ad blocking capacity is slightly better, but eventually Adblock Plus for Chrome will also block video ads, and that difference will be nullified.

In my opinion Firefox has become bloated with "features" and interface options that I don't want or need. It takes a long time to start up, and longer to render pages than Chrome or IE9 (and I've used FF4, I'm not comparing 3 to Chrome Beta or IE9).

Anyway your distro of Linux shouldn't be based on what browser they include - that's just a matter of what's on the surface. Anything related to Ubuntu is (essentially) Ubuntu, and Ubuntu is only separated by Debian in it's release schedule, repositories, and bundled software. Debian has a long family tree..

When you pick a Linux it's basically a matter of which "root" distribution it's related to:
-Debian (APT System/DEB Packages)
-Slackware (Source compilation)
-Gentoo ("Emerge" system)
-Redhat (RPM packages)
-SuSE (YAST package manager, various package types including RPM)
(There are other "base" distributions, but these are the bigger names)

Most distributions today are based on Debian, most notably Ubuntu, and with Ubuntu's growth a whole line of distributions are based on Ubuntu, rather than Debian, which is an odd turn in the family tree. I'm not aware of any Gentoo-based or SuSE-based distributions except themselves (and maybe live versions thereof, if those count as separate). The only Redhat-based distribution besides Redhat seems to be CentOS. Slackware basically represents "Linux" itself, the kernel and base set of tools. It doesn't add user-friendliness and package management like other distros do.

Basically you choose a "family" based on what underlying distro you are comfortable with, and then you pick which distribution within that family you prefer for it's bundled software (or lack thereof) and service structure, and in some cases (Ubuntu) can go another step and find specialized versions of that distro (and apparently another step, as we've seen here, in the case of Lubuntu->Peppermint).

Also worth keeping BSD variants in mind. They're very similar to Linux with their own advantages and disadvantages - FreeBSD and NetBSD are the big names in that category.

WolverineDK
March 4th, 2011, 05:27 PM
Raven, sorry for cursing at Chrome. I just get a bad feeling when I use Chrome. Cause it does not feel right so to speak for me. Cause I started out with Netscape, and then IE, then I experimented with Maxthon. And then I tried FF 2 point something, and I was hooked, cause it has the "IE" feeling but was so much better. And to me Chrome feels more like add and spyware . Than a real browser. So that is why I personally dislike Chrome. But as I said, if you like Chrome as your internet browser. Then fine. And sorry for going off topic, cause I agree with you , when it comes to the choosing of the Linux family, since "within" the Debian family, then some of the variations/derivations has both been using Ubuntu and then Debian (Linux Mint comes to mind here), hell you can basically call it (if you have some twisted humour), that there has been some serious incestuous relationships/inbreeding along the way ;) when it comes to the overall Debian family of Linux operating systems. But I recommended Lubuntu and Peppermint OS, cause both of them are effective light weight systems. Since he mentioned he had enough memory to make it happen. And to make it even cooler, There are even certain gentoo distributions that uses LXDE as their Window Manager. And the distro I am thinking off, is Sabayon Linux which has the choice of many different window managers from the getgo.

A good site for finding either a BSD or Linux distro that will fit his needs is

Distrowatch.com

http://distrowatch.com/

And if he is after a total customisation of his Linux distro, then there are Linux From Scratch

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/