LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Software
User Name
Password
Linux - Software This forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 09-28-2005, 01:54 PM   #1
Rick069
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Distribution: ROSA
Posts: 194

Rep: Reputation: 30
Heavyweight vs. Lightweight Distros


Does it mean anything in terms of speed if a distro comes fully loaded sort of speak? I'm talking about heavyweight distros like SuSe, Mandriva, Fedora. Would lightweights like ubuntu and others I can't think of right now run faster because of thier relative small size?
 
Old 09-28-2005, 02:08 PM   #2
Boffy
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Durham, UK
Distribution: Ubuntu 8.04
Posts: 419

Rep: Reputation: 30
Linux's speed is only affected by what is running at any one time. If you install mandrake with everything and you don't then configure what you want to have running it will go slow. But if you configure it to your needs it can be just as fast(or at least the difference isn't noticeable).
 
Old 09-28-2005, 02:14 PM   #3
anomie
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Texas
Distribution: RHEL, Scientific Linux, Debian, Fedora, Lubuntu, FreeBSD
Posts: 3,930
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
The desktop environment that is used can play a big role in the resources being used. For example, KDE and GNOME are pretty resource intensive. Xfce is a lighter-weight example. (I had a SuSE/Xfce box running very nicely on an old AMD K6-2 400MHz with 256MB RAM.)

Mandrake and SuSE both use KDE by default. FC and Ubuntu both use GNOME by default. You can run pretty much any DE (or at least the few I've mentioned) on any of these, though.

Last edited by anomie; 09-28-2005 at 02:15 PM.
 
Old 09-28-2005, 05:30 PM   #4
foo_bar_foo
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,553

Rep: Reputation: 51
the rpm based distros run like crap no matter how few proccesses are running
I'm not sure exactly why but have some suspicions.

The .deb based distros run ALOT faster but are just as large -- i think debian is actually largest

exactly how the distribution is built and put together and the kernel are the underlying answers i think
 
Old 09-28-2005, 05:41 PM   #5
aysiu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2005
Distribution: Ubuntu with IceWM
Posts: 1,776

Rep: Reputation: 66
Quote:
Originally posted by foo_bar_foo
the rpm based distros run like crap no matter how few proccesses are running
I'm not sure exactly why but have some suspicions.

The .deb based distros run ALOT faster but are just as large -- i think debian is actually largest
I've found PCLinuxOS and Blag to be quite fast, and I use Debian-based distros regularly.
 
Old 09-28-2005, 06:18 PM   #6
Vgui
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Canada
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 496

Rep: Reputation: 31
Haha I would hardly consider Ubuntu too be "lightweight". As one poster said about trimming down a Mandrake install, I would tend to disagree. A lot of times the core libraries aren't compiled to be stable / fast, perhaps they are a fairly generic (bloated) compile job. Just cutting out processes and excess software should help a bit, but you won't be touching a true lightweight distro even with a trimmed Mandrake (or SuSE, or whatever). There are core choices made that don't focus on speed, and so heavyweight distros could probably only get trimmed down to "medium weight"
PS: I've found RPM based distros slow too, but then again I'm biased and dislike RPM
 
Old 09-28-2005, 07:37 PM   #7
reddazz
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: N. E. England
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Debian
Posts: 16,298

Rep: Reputation: 73
I have heard the arguement that rpm based distros run slower than Debian based distros, but its a lot of hogwash. The way you configure your distro and the number and type of programs running at any given time determine the performance of your system amonst other things. I run both Debian Unstable and a lot of RPM based distros and don't really see the difference in performace on the same hardware.

I have also used Mandriva on minimal installations, using fluxbox and it makes a big difference when compared to using it with KDE or GNOME. My point here is that regardless of the size of a distro, you can customise it the way you want and it will work fine.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
lightweight tunnel eantoranz Linux - Networking 6 07-22-2005 06:20 PM
On KDE-centric distros and 686 distros, what you think? mebrelith Linux - Distributions 4 03-23-2005 02:09 PM
Lightweight WM / Desktop ??? 24jedi *BSD 12 12-07-2004 09:53 AM
Heavyweight Distribution? kc0ltv Linux - General 7 05-10-2004 10:35 AM
Lightweight programs under X yelp666 Linux - Software 2 08-05-2003 07:32 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:04 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration