To make a distro smaller when designing it, there are two choices: include very few applications and simply let the users install almost everything, or install lots of applications--but smaller ones. Every small distro I've tried, such as antiX, has chosen the latter option. I wonder why; installing only the bare essentials (which in my case would probably be the kernel and everything needed to load it, X, and some internet connection software that's easy to use) seems an obvious enough choice.

The problem may be my skill level--"advanced novice," probably. I use a GUI; I know a handful of terminal commands but can't do my daily routine without a GUI; I know how to install and uninstall software; and I can't connect to a network without a program that does it for me (if I enter the password). And I'm slightly annoyed at very newbie-friendly distros such as the *buntus. But since I use a GUI, I don't know what else to call my distros except ultimately newbie-friendly.

Designers who make these bare-bones distros seem to design them for higher skill levels than that, possibly because they think only experts would want them. I once tried a one-disc version of Debian, but found it too stripped down for me to handle: it didn't include even the software I needed to log on to my network, and without the internet, how was I supposed to install the software?

I recently found and tried a distro called Q4OS; it intrigued me because it's the first distro I've seen that comes with KDE Trinity. It's also the first distro I've seen that works for my skill level but comes with almost no extra applications, leaving me to install everything I want myself--which I'm happy to do. As a result, it's about 300 MB--less than half the size of antiX. The point is, I find it strange that designers don't take that route more often: installing no applications instead of smaller applications.

Yes. The idea of a minimal system that leaves it to the user to install wanted applications is not appropriate for most newbies. How can one choose applications if one does not know what is and is not needed? Such a system is for the user to customise, which requires at least minimal knowledge.

?
CD1 or DVD1 have everything needed by most people. Or are you referring to wireless internet? That is not included in Debian ISOs, because of a philosophical stance regarding free software.

1 members found this post helpful.

Moved: This thread is more suitable in <Linux - Distributions > and has been moved accordingly to help your thread/question get the exposure it deserves.

antiX does have 2 other flavours that you might prefer if you want to build up.

From the antiX main page:
At the moment antiX-13 "Luddite" comes as a full distro (c690MB), a base distro (c400MB) and a core-libre distro (c135MB) for 32 bit and 64 bit computers. For those who wish to have total control over the install, use antiX-core and build up.

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

And, of course, there are other distros with a minimum option available — Salix — or which only install a minimum — Bodhi.

Most people do need a selection of applications, and don't want to have to guess which ones to install. Also, adding your own software demands a good broadband connection: there are many parts of the world (more in your country than mine, actually) where the only reliable way to get Linux is to order a DVD by post.

1 members found this post helpful.

I use AntiX base for my regular machines.

TinyCore & SliTaz are probably worth looking at as they are small functional distros that leave you to add most of what you want.

1 members found this post helpful.

I think Crunchbang strikes a great balance, personally.

I'm getting that you want a stock install that gives you a working X desktop with a network manager and a graphical repository frontend, and as little else as possible. That's how Crunchbang looks to a user like me.

I think I sampled Crunchbang once. I'll examine it again.

Build you own at SuseStudio maybe.

The problem with the special distro's is the ability to then run on systems and run modern apps. You can't have it both ways.


A Tom's boot disk is still the most gnu linux that I've found. Would be nice to update that.

a very minimal OS would REQUIRE a lot of knowledge from the USER to select the software they NEED

you have to KNOW what the software is FIRST to know to install it

just look at Fedora
it is a bit bloated but not as much as suse

do a search here on this forum about installing multi media on fedora

it is NOT installed by default do to copyright issues

and EVERY!!!! new user has a TERRIBLE TIME even trying to install the basics


or
OpenSUSE

getting a "new to linux" user to use the"packman" repo( and set the priorities)
and allow a VENDER CHANGE is like pulling teeth


and that is ONLY!!! for multimedia

add in office,desktop,mail,internet browser ( people STILL think Firefox is Internet Explorer ) and so on

Yes, I'm finding that out. Even with antix-base: I know almost everything I need to install, but not quite everything, so I end up with a few annoying holes, such as icons missing from the panel. (But whatever the icons ran is still available; they just show up on the panel as blank spaces.)

The smaller and less included, the more knowledge is needed for adding extras.

Look at some of more compact like Gentoo, LFS, Arch, and such. They require you RTFM pretty much for anything and everything. This isn't bad, but it can be a task in of itself.