[SOLVED] Need light-weight Debian based distro with best resource utilisation
Linux - DistributionsThis forum is for Distribution specific questions.
Red Hat, Slackware, Debian, Novell, LFS, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Fedora - the list goes on and on...
Note: An (*) indicates there is no official participation from that distribution here at LQ.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Sorry but I have never used systemd before, all I know is that internally it helps services and programs being processed right. What will be your say about using or not using systemd.
I am not sure which mega thread about systemd on this forum is the best.
But replies by other members will explain what I mean better than I can explain myself. I'd have already done installed something by now if in your shoes.
Good luck and Happy Trailz, Rok
Edit: My opinion is biased because systemd breaks my /usr/local/bin contents.
One of the newer features is, that upon time of install, it gives you a choice of multiple desktop environments. Just choose the lightest weight one, which I think is LXDE. (If you wish, you can choose multiple DEs and switch among them. I have tested this in a VM.)
Generally, the "weight" of a Linux installation is much more related to the desktop envuronment than to the distro itself, and Debian is rock-solid.
[RANT MODE]
One of my peeves is the notion, which seems more common than it should, that, in order to use a lightweight desktop environment/window manager, one must install a distro that defaults to it. Linux is much more versatile than that.
Just load up the distro of your choice, then install the lightweight desktop environment/window manager of your choice, and use that.
Grumble grumble grumble.
Also, get off my lawn. And don't track dirt on my nice clean floor. And pick up your room. While you're at it, get a haircut.
[/RANT MODE]
I said Debian based since I know it's package installers, nothing else. The processing that I would basically do is compression of episodes mainly around 23 to 40 minutes, but sources will be mainly 720p/1080p. What I want is an OS which will need less resources to itself but can allocate as much as any program demands, say ffmpeg. So that the program runs in it's fastest possible way given the resources. Yes, a CLI based system would be perfect but I am not that good at using it truth be told. And can you like say anything about Arch, can it really utilize the RAM on the best way possible as it's homepage claims ??
I think your computer should be up to doing that. I also think you should avoid overkill: get the most convenient solution and only try something less convenient if that isn't good enough. There's no sense in making hard work unnecessarily. For that reason, I would not recommend a CLI system. I also would not recommend Arch. To date I've tested over 100 distros and Arch was the most difficult (mind you, I've never used Gentoo). As for performance, from the data I've collected I see that Arch used the same amount of RAM as AntiX and more of the CPU, with the same GUI.
PS You have now learned three useful things about Linux Questions.
(1) Threads get hijacked.
(2) Some people cannot discuss anything would referring to systemd.
(3) Some posters are incomprehensible.
Distribution: Windows 10, Debian and derivatives, Mint, Whatever I find new and interesting
Posts: 57
Original Poster
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann
To date I've tested over 100 distros and Arch was the most difficult (mind you, I've never used Gentoo).
Isn't that why we love it, because it makes us love Linux and being to know it's nitty gritty. Just tell me about your feeling when something gets stuck and after a lot of head banging and blood curdling you fix it ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann
PS You have now learned three useful things about Linux Questions.
(1) Threads get hijacked.
(2) Some people cannot discuss anything would referring to systemd.
(3) Some posters are incomprehensible.
What will you recommend for the base , Arch(I like doing it's setup, so a bit inclined there), Debian(only proper recommendation here yet) , anything else ???
i think arch might be better because it will give you more up-to-date versions of multimedia utilities.
that is, if you're familiar with the installation process and not put off by doing it manually.
Distribution: Windows 10, Debian and derivatives, Mint, Whatever I find new and interesting
Posts: 57
Original Poster
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho
i think arch might be better because it will give you more up-to-date versions of multimedia utilities.
that is, if you're familiar with the installation process and not put off by doing it manually.
On the contrary, it's the usage and installation of it that excited me the most.
I think your computer should be up to doing that. I also think you should avoid overkill: get the most convenient solution and only try something less convenient if that isn't good enough. There's no sense in making hard work unnecessarily. For that reason, I would not recommend a CLI system. I also would not recommend Arch. To date I've tested over 100 distros and Arch was the most difficult (mind you, I've never used Gentoo). As for performance, from the data I've collected I see that Arch used the same amount of RAM as AntiX and more of the CPU, with the same GUI.
PS You have now learned three useful things about Linux Questions.
(1) Threads get hijacked.
(2) Some people cannot discuss anything would referring to systemd.
(3) Some posters are incomprehensible.
Honestly, I don't really get how Arch is considered hard. The install isn't so much hard as annoyingly long and unintuitive if you've never done it before. If you had the foresight to print out the instructions, it's not HARD. It just takes a while because it doesn't walk you through anything.
That said, I don't like Arch. I find that I have to repair the install too often for my tastes. If Arch had a "stable" brandch that didn't break every other day (although my current install has almost a month without breaking), it probably would be one of my absolutely favorite OS's. The package manager is absolutely fantastic, the performance is great, and IMO it probably has the second largest repos after Debian. With AUR, just as large as Debian. The installer is annoying, but I've switched to using Antegros as the installer since it's semi-automated, but if you don't reinstall regularly (I do), it's actually simple and easy.
One of the newer features is, that upon time of install, it gives you a choice of multiple desktop environments. Just choose the lightest weight one, which I think is LXDE. (If you wish, you can choose multiple DEs and switch among them. I have tested this in a VM.)
Generally, the "weight" of a Linux installation is much more related to the desktop envuronment than to the distro itself, and Devuan is rock-solid...
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
That last bit needed a [/DAD MODE].
