linux distro

Droogie

New Member
i'm looking to put a distro of linux on a secondary PC of mine.

specs:

pentium D: 2.66GHz
2 gb ddr2 533mhz ram
integrated graphics card (ati radeon xpress)

anyway, vista is running sorta sluggish on it right now, so i'm looking for the fastest most light weight distro of linux.

suggestions?
 
Your specs will run any distro I am not sure what you mean by light weight? Like you want a micro kernel?

What is this computer going to be used for?
 
Your specs will run any distro I am not sure what you mean by light weight? Like you want a micro kernel?

What is this computer going to be used for?

not gaming or anything intensive at all, just basic stuff like web surfing, instant messaging, stuff like that. i meant light weight as in the easiest distro to run, which ever uses the least resources. i have ubuntu on another PC, and i'd like to try something new (i'd like it to be fairly easy to use)
 
Debian, redhat, SuSe, Puppy, Slackware, Gentoo, I mean if you really want to learn Linux Gentoo is a roll your own and smoke it sort of distro where you get to compile everything yourself.
 
Check out fedora 10. It has a great UI and if your used to Ubuntu the learning curve is really not that bad.
 
Debian isn't a good beginner distro, but it's very good for more advanced users. I don't personally like Mandriva, but it's definitely not a bad distro either.

Personally I'd recommend Ubuntu, the latest version really sets it apart from a lot of the other distros... it has a very polished feel to it. Definitely a very nice distro.

EDIT: Woops! I see you want to try something other than Ubuntu... Dreamlinux is a great distro. Fedora is supposed to be as well, although I've never tried it myself. A new version of Fedora is coming out on May 26th, so if you decide to go with Fedora you may want to wait.
 
Last edited:
I've actually loaded and fooled with some of the distros lately. If you are asking the questions you are asking then I would avoid things like Gentoo and Slackware. Stick with the "plug and play" graphical distros. Here are some basic observations.

Fedora 10 - a very good and sophisticated distro. It connected to my network easily. The add/remove software and repository system is complete and easy to use. I was never able to get the thing to play videos. I spent 4 or 5 hours fooling around with codecs and media players and finally gave up.

Open SuSe 11 - I can say about the same things that I said about Fedora 10. One nice thing is that, if you get the DVD version you get both Gnome and KDE desktops so you can load it up either way. It is tied with Fedora 10 in my opinion.

Ubuntu 8.1 - 9.0 just released but I've only tested it with KDE so I'll just comment on 8.1. This is probably the best all around "plug and play" type distro. I had a horrible time getting it to connect to my network. I finally had to load and install SMB4K which is a share browser for KDE into my Gnome desktop. That finally allowed me to connect to my network and mount all the volumes. There was no way to do it either manually with shell commands or with the normal network connection packages. No other distro has given me this kind of trouble with my network. I'm thankful SMB4K did the trick. No problem getting Ubuntu to play videos like the other two distros above. I just downloaded a recommended codec pack and it worked like a charm. Very nice collection of packages included on the DVD version and the repositories are probably the best in the business.

Linux Mint - Based on Ubuntu 8.1, it is pretty similar but actually has some nice utilities that work well for a Windows user. I would view it as a beginner version of Ubuntu and shares the same comments. It has a more limited collection of packages but they can be downloaded from the Ubuntu repositories just fine.

Debian - I have a perfectly good working DVD with Debian but it won't install on my new technology computer - Intel Core 2 Duo 3 Gz with a Sapphire ATI 4550 card - ASUS P5QL mainboard. It goes "out of range" and the installation freezes. The "plug and play" distros all load fine on my Core 2 Duo system except for Mandriva which seems to be as fussy as Debian. Debian loaded fine in my AMD quad core system but, obviously, it is fussy about hardware. You may want to skip it unless you have a computer that is a couple of years old. The distro itself is actually pretty sophisticated. You can install it manually or automatically as you see fit. An example of its sophistication is that the automatic installation allows you to do custom drive partitioning, something that is usually only available with manually installed distros. This is the grandfather of many other distros including Ubuntu.

Mandriva - Same installation problems. Fussy about hardware.

Slackware - See Madriva above

Gentoo - See Mandriva Above

Scientific Linux - This is based on the Red Hat commercial distro and behaves very much like Fedora 10 except that it is not as sophisticated or complete in terms of the packages included. They can be downloaded from the Fedora repositories, of course. Basically nothing there that Fedora 10 won't give you and Fedora will always have newer releases that Scientific would need to catch up with.
 
Interestingly, I find most of the differences between the various distros in the way they are operated graphically has less bearing on their heritage than on their popularity and the size of the outfit that distributes it. As an example I see more differences in Scientific Linux and Fedora (both Red Hat babies) than I do between Ubuntu and and Fedora (one Debian/GNU and one Red Hat.)

Suse is distributed by Novell, the old networking company. Fedora is a part of the Red Hat community and it is a public company. Ubuntu has become popular because of its ease of use and its distributor, Canonical, has become pretty large as a result. These distros from the larger organizations are usually easier to deal with and of better quality.

Basically the Linux core is pretty standard although all of it isn't implemented in all the distros. Certainly there are more similarities than differences. Also the desktops - primarily Gnome and KDE - are more similar than different in the various implementations. The truth is if you boot up a few distros in text mode they are pretty similar. If you boot up a few with a Gnome desktop, they are also pretty similar. I think more is made of the differences in the distros than they deserve.

But for the OP, you will do fine with any of the first four distros I listed above and I would suggest you avoid the others. It's fun to play around with Slackware but I don't recommend it unless you want your operating system itself to be a hobby.
 
is there a 64 bit version of fedora? because when i go on the website there is only one download option, the one for the live cd.

is Fedora/x86_64 what i'm looking for? (this will be going on the rig in my sig)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top