Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Which Linux OS is best as per Hardware?
#1
Hello .

I wish to compare linux OS's with system hardware.

Simply i ask if i have
CPU 2 cores
RAM 512 or 1GB
vSwap 512 or 1GB
Bandwidth between 512 to 1TB
Connection 100mbps
1x IPv4

Then which linux Os is best for it
Archlinux ... ?
Ubuntu 32bit
Ubuntu 64bit
Debian 32bit
Debian 64bit
Centos 32bit
Centos 64bit

Even Explain the versions of these OS's
Reply
#2
RAM+vSwap is less or equal 2GB, so no need in 64-bit system - it helps save some RAM, as 64-bit systems reserve more memory than 32-bit one does. And the excess can be quite a lot (up to 20%). If I'm wrong, please, tell the truth.

I remember the official Ubuntu poll many years ago: for what do you need Ubuntu server OS ? In the comments below the first answer was: "Ha ! Even the Ubuntu developers doesn't know for what Ubuntu server is useful". So, let's Ubuntu be on personal PC/laptop only. It's not the case, right ?

Arch is totally unknown to me (I never worked with it.). I suppose it's more suitable for dedicated experiments. For universal server OS Debian or CentOS left. Due to different package systems some people (me too) prefer the first everywere, others - the second. Debian with Ubuntu (as a popular derivative) have also a large library of howto and solutions, thus it's simple to google for different advices.

So my answer: Debian 32.
Reply
#3
My basic need to start this expert discussion is what i get 10 different ideas from 10 different experts. and everyone have a clue of success. that i can't denied. so here we discuss and finally found what best for us. even as per our usage. because i know a person who want a webserver. has different need to a game server manage vps holder. same as per hardware. we can differentiate OS as what hardware we get from service providers.
in my personal opinion, for 64bit system you have to be upto 2GB RAM for fast running and low cpu and RAM eating system.
so i like your answer personally

but we need more and more user opinions. and i know its really helps everyone here.
Reply
#4
The easiest and best thing is Ubuntu 64-bit. There is no reason to go 32-bit unless you use some old rare software or something. There are a ton of tutorials on Ubuntu and it also has the biggest repositories. You don't really need to know much else. As for your systems:
Arch Linux uses pacman and is highly customizable, but I don't recommend it to a beginner.
Ubuntu is the easiest one and your best bet.
Debian is basically what Ubuntu is built on. You could also use Debian as a server as that's done more nowadays anyway because of more frequent updates for example, but I haven't used Debian that much and from what I've heard it's just a "harder" version of Ubuntu (ofcourse harder for beginners, more versatile for advanced users)
And finally CentOS. This one I haven't used but it's very popular for it's stability, community and focus on enterprise servers.
Thank you, Haze out, good luck Smile
Reply
#5
Is that a desktop PC or a VM ? If it is a VM then you don't need any desktop environment and you can install debian or centos on it to use it as a server but if it is a desktop hardware then your choices are a lot more limited because most modern desktop environments like Gnome, KDE, Unity, ... need at least 1 GB of ram for themselves and you can not expect to get any more left for openning a browser and surfing internet. So you should go for very light weight desktop environments and you are lucky because many can be found among linux distros.

1. XFCE : probably this is the most popular light weight desktop environment but I personally don't like its design. It is one of the most complete desktop environments and if you don't want to install lots of apps after installing a desktop environment then this is one of the best choices you have. You can get ubuntu with this desktop environment preinstalled as Xubuntu,

2. LXDE : this is another popular desktop environment, xfce is a lot more beautiful than this one but lxde is less resource hungry so if you need more ram for other tasks you can consider this option. There is also an ubuntu with lxde taste available as lubuntu.

3. Elive : many other desktop environments can be named here but I wil go for elive because it is my favorite one, elive linux can run only with 128mb of ram and I think it is a lot more beautiful than XFCE and LXDE and you will enjoy looking at it while providing a great performance for your old hardware. It is based on debian so you will get a great support as well.
Reply
#6
(11-20-2016, 08:50 AM)kortek Wrote: 1. XFCE
2. LXDE
3. Elive

1. XFCE is known to me quite well as XUbuntu (used in ~2009) so-called lightweight DE. Well, I concluded it's completly wrong ! The "lightness" not much better than full featured Gnome2 was at that time. The window rendering got slowness on old hardware too. I'd said, no profit to use it. Nowadays Gnome2 transformed into Mate, so I tell not about ghosts of software. All is correct. So, if you need the fastest DE, I don't recommend XFCE. Let me note, that even Ubuntu changed this mind when had launched the Lubuntu project with LXDE as main DE. The reason was as I wrote above.

2. Simple and fast DE with most important functions and good default settings (WinXP style). Fast indeed, simple indeed. I recommend it for "install and use". The only part I missed: the hotkey manager. You can correct XML file for customization, but it's not suitable to do it with leafpad. The one problem, the developers became use QT libraries as part of it, so the simplicity was vanished, but in Debian stable (8, Jessie for now) it has no qt garbage and still perfect.

3. Elive project if I understand it properly is Debian with e17 DE. e17 is also available in Debian stable, but not configured well. Also it's still buggy, so the latest versions of e17-e18 are preferable, but it's conflict to the "stable" concept in Debian, that's why the project has been arised. I must say: I didn't test it, so I tell about e17 in Debian. And I have something important to say. It's very nice, fast indeed... But terrible in configuration ! I'll get Nobel prize before I'll complete it ! Also (as buggy stuff) some parts of e17 DE had disappeared after turning PC on or so. So, good for experiments, not good for everyday use.

4. For now I'm looking at JWM. It's very simple DE and it's used in Puppy Linux. Some addons are developed in it. For now I'd say it has no other functions besides windows manipulation, so the complete user workspace is not installed with one command, but it's the interesting base for different builds. Very fast. I noticed some important features, like png icon support, are triggered while compilation, not with conf file, so the default build in Debian stable is very limited. At contrair, it requires minimum dependencies to build. So I'll continue investigate it within Tiny Core Linux. I want to get fast DE not only for old PC, but mainly for new ones without stupid cpu and memory wasting usage.
Reply
#7
@devilalice

You use XFCE back in 2009 for a bit? You should try it now. It is better than GNOME and Mate and is really light on resources. Of course LXDE is even smaller and faster than XFCE but XFCE is not bad. A lot of Linux distributions use XFCE or atleast offer it during the installation. A big example still is Xubuntu, Debian offers XFCE since Debian 8 in the installer and will continue to offer it in further versions. There are some well known Linux distros that by default only use XFCE.
Reply
#8
(11-22-2016, 08:27 AM)Hidden Refuge Wrote: You use XFCE back in 2009 for a bit? You should try it now.

Ah, sorry ! I've pointed to year 2009 because that time I've been using XFCE almost everywhere (also as the default environment for coworkers). I've got trouble list long enough to conclude what I wrote in my previous post. By the way, my comparison with Gnome is like a sarcasm, as Gnome became hard even on 2.x, the third version is not talked about in decent society. So I've migrated to LXDE (and still using it) and can say that XFCE can't offer me something more to return to it back.

And when I've changed my job, my new PC workplace was at... XFCE again ! About year (2013-2014) I was tolerating long opening of network dirs in thunar, main panel crashes, troubles with correct session start (rarely appeared due to low electricity voltage or similar cases). Once after the regular update I've got pure screen without any panels and icons. Nice ! (The reason was the default path of user XFCE settings has been changed. But I need move or delete old conf files manually.) So I've asked my boss the permission to change it to LXDE. No problems to me at all from that moment. (To be honest, I've met rare panel and pcmanfm crashes, but 1) once in month and 2) panel restarts automatically in one second (pcmanfm is restarted manually, but in a sec too.)

One more reason to say against XFCE: nowadays PC are powerful enough to see no difference between LXDE and XFCE. But I have (collected) some UMPC devices (Wibrain B1H, Futjisu U810) and old notebook (Panasonic CF-18), where the difference is visible. As well as in case of virtual machines in VirtualBox (on the VDS, where many VM's are running) and while nx remote sessions or "ssh -Y" mode. The responsibility of LXDE is better. And the armageddon has to be occured to change my mind. So, no more interest in XFCE at all. I need universal solution for both new and old computers. It's very comfortable to work on any piece of hardware with the same DE. As I said it's LXDE for now and may be JWM in future.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)