Best Linux for Ancient machine

dolphin_oracle · 01-26-2014, 12:27 PM

you still can in antix 13. I tried it yesterday. It was a VM and it used a lot of swap, but it worked.

rob.rice · 01-26-2014, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamison20000e

Old Linux in most cases can be a security risk and other problems plus is not necessary from old and\or slow stuff I've played with.

even old linux distros are much less of a security risk than the latest windoze
we're talking about a laptop here cracking in tacks time and effort
would it be worth the effort I doubt it
would there be enough time at a public access point to crack in NO WAY

we're not talking about a bank's network here just a personal laptop

jamison20000e · 01-26-2014, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob.rice

... even old Linux distros are much less of a security risk than the latest windoze ...

I'd like to think so too but... with personal use it's all on the user. I've been finding and installing new OSs on old machines just fine and works better than--some distros that haven't worked for newest at all like Fedora for example I use to have a stack of versions e.g: 5, 6, 7,,, and would go backwards installing(or trying to) each until one worked "well..." but, security-patches + + can't update with old software so online banking, shopping, email, etc, even if after expert tweaking why add more risk?

:edit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob.rice

...
would it be worth the effort I doubt it
would there be enough time at a public access point to crack in NO WAY
...

Is that a router you're connected to or someone spoofing and rerouting in which case could be just a matter of plucking packets from the air?

JWJones · 01-26-2014, 08:06 PM

antiX would be a great fit:

http://antix.mepis.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

TobiSGD · 01-26-2014, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob.rice

even old linux distros are much less of a security risk than the latest windoze
we're talking about a laptop here cracking in tacks time and effort
would it be worth the effort I doubt it
would there be enough time at a public access point to crack in NO WAY

we're not talking about a bank's network here just a personal laptop

Security is much more than just not being actively hacked by someone, it also includes drive-by installation of malware made possible by ancient browser versions that don't get security fixes anymore. Using unsupported software on systems connecting to the net is always a bad idea. That Windows possibly is less secure doesn't change anything about that.

About Slackware and its requirements, the recommendation of 1GB+ is only valid if you run it with KDE, if you use one of the more lightweight WMs that come with Slackware (Fluxbox, Blackbox, Windowmaker, FVWM2, Twm) it will run fine on that machine, but you might want to get a more lightweight browser than Firefox.

Soderlund · 01-27-2014, 04:03 AM

I've installed Debian Squeeze (note: not Wheezy) on a machine with a 6 GB HDD and 256 MB RAM. Worked fine. The Squeeze base system + X + openbox took about 1 GB.

You can probably get a smaller Slackware install, but you have to know which packages you need. You won't be alerted if you lack something crucial -- you are recommended to install all of the Slackware software series in a normal install and the dependencies in the base system are, as far as I know, not even documented.

In Debian you install the base system and then apt-get install what you need. It's much easier. I recommend putting this in /etc/apt/apt.conf before installing anything to pull in fewer useless dependencies:

Code:

APT::Install-Recommends "0";
APT::Install-Suggests "0";

If some package doesn't work, check the recommended ones.

Quote:

150MB to launch a modern web browser (with a blank start page).

Or 3 MB to run Lynx. About 9 MB for Links with X graphics.

Pater268 · 02-06-2014, 04:30 PM

Linux Lite (based on Ubuntu) might be worth a look. I'm using it as my main distro on an older Mac Mini (wireless Internet only).