Comments on: Lightweight Crunch Bang Linux

By: Ed Morgan

Ed Morgan — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:47:34 +0000

Crunchbang is superior to me to Xubuntu because, like Giancarlo says, Xubuntu has a lot of bloat, #! has none (or very little). I’ve tried numerous distros, and bar Arch Linux, Crunchbang is by far the fastest. Added to that it’s ability to draw upon the Ubuntu repositories you’re onto a winner.

I still prefer Arch but it’s not necessarily suitable for someone with limited time to tinker, or without the necessary skills or knowledge to configure it.

Cheers,

By: Giancarlo

Giancarlo — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 00:16:52 +0000

I am using XUBUNTU 8.10 in a very old Sony VAIO PCGN505 laptop (Celeron 300MHz, 128MB of RAM, 9 years old) and it works good but sometimes it feels sluggish specially when I have multiple tabs in Firefox, it uses all the memory plus the Swap file is maxed out. I think that XUBUNTU still loads a lot of unnecessary things. I will give CrunchBang a try, specially since this laptop is mostly for travel, all I need is internet access, maybe listen to music and an occasional video. This machine came with W98 and two years ago it barely ran with it, so I decided to try XUbuntu and it gave this computer a new life. I even started with the full Ubuntu v6 and amazingly it ran, slow but ran.

By: Edward

Edward — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:20:32 +0000

Have you tried Xubuntu? It’s also a lightweight version of Ubuntu and its official. Although not as light as OpenBox, XFCE has a good balance of speed and appearance. I also heard of Ubuntu for netbooks called Ubuntu Netbook Remix. Looks nice.

I’m also a pinoy Ubunturero.