Lightest Linux distros, easy for noob, with virtual winOS?
- Thread starter pamojja
- Start date
- Status
A linux where you connect to the web with a browser, crop pictures, watch movies. When I tested linux on stick those all worked out of the box. Without leaning the scripts for the console.
Thanks, but so much fast answers to read. Links to check. I'll get there..
If they're not helpful to the topic at hand, that'd be fine.
If y'all will just calm down and move on, I'm pretty good at ignoring and forgetting stuff.
We've also all got to be civil and assume good faith. Even I've failed at that in the past. I dare say we've all done so.
We love Linux, that's one thing we have in common. We're passionate about it. So, it's easy to slip into a defensive mode, easy to assume bad faith, and easy to want to argue a point when there's no benefit to debating it.
That's basically every Linux distribution anyone has mentioned so far replying to your original question. Why would you still need to run a Windows vm?
There... I've gone ahead and moved a giant chunk of posts.
You're now in your own thread, which is probably how this should have started.
Again, be civil and practice kindness.
You're now in your own thread, which is probably how this should have started.
Again, be civil and practice kindness.
Thanks, but I was aware of that in the begining. That's why I asked if anyone with experience in the very most lightweight Linuxes (RAM), like: Slax, Puppy, Elive, whatOS, Slitaz, or Debian can confirm, that these are intuitive to use without console and have browser, office, picture editing, media player and virtualization for Windows on board out of the box.
The heaviest of them, Debian still needs 256kb of RAMonly, so most of the 8GB RAM still available for virtualization of Windows. You may not forget, in only very rary cases. The main linux OS this way would be incredible fast, and that most of the time.
Thanks. I tried this way many different times, as I already explaind and why this didn't work for me in the past.
Last edited:
Thanks, but again: I need a Windows for that extreme rare cases I would have to learn machine-language with the console. Which with Linux always happens at one point, in my previos experience with it. I have too little time and interest in that. My priorities is communication with real people and meditation. In the little free time left beside work.
Therefore not most, but only the lightest-weighted linux distros would work. I listed the most lightest, and asked which of those few wouldn't?
Since such a specific distros related question can only be answered by those in the known of them, I also would be happy to hear of any other advantages of disadvantages of the most light-weight distros.
Last edited:
My words and intentions..
ah, I think I understand. you are calling terminal commands "machine language". Terminology thing. using the command line is pretty basic in linux. There are many graphical interfaces that reduce the need to use CLI(Command line interface) not machine language. I am not picking here I am saying that if we do not use the same language and terms we all get confused.
You want to get away from CLI entirely. so maybe that is how we need to word it so everybody is on the same page.
Thanks for your effort in finding the bug in my naive expressions.
For me it feels like learning a whole new language, so the computer knows what I want it to do. I don't want to be able to do everything, as mighty linux is able to with CLI, I just want to browse, calculate, watch, etc. only. And getting finally stuck for a rare task not possible without CLI, switch to Windows for that short time. On an otherwise too weak mini-PC, preferably without having to reboot.
And for that, including my e-bike, the about 300Wh Solarpanel on my balcony should suffice. For this additional practical reason too, the most light-weighted LinuxOS.
Last edited:
I had a feeling you were on alternate energy because you are being very energy conscious. I have to split 20 amp service for my entire store so I understand. The mini computer is good there but some of the optiplex with the small form factor (sort of between what you are using and a full PC) may be more powerful and better to use as they are expandable to a degree. I have some I use that have 275watt power supply. Just keep it in mind if your hardware is not up to the task.Thanks for your effort in finding the bug in my naive expressions.
For me it feels like learning a whole new language, so the computer knows what I want it to do. I don't want to be able to do everything, as mighty linux is able to with CLI, I just want to browse, calculate, watch, etc. only. And getting finally stuck for a rare task not possible without CLI, switch to Windows for that short time. On an otherwise too weak mini-PC, preferably without having to reboot.
And for that, including my e-bike, the about 300Wh Solarpanel on my balcony should suffice. For this additional practical reason too, the most light-weighted LinuxOS.
My finding your bug in your expression is just so we are all talking the same. Designed to help you. Never think yourself naive, just learning.
A possible wrench in your works is the graphical interface, that is where the memory and power get eaten up most. You want to avoid the CLI so fedora has "light" spins using various GUI. Gnome will kill what you want to do, so perhaps XFCE as your GUI which is much lighter and I use it on systems with 2G RAM. the underlying linux is still your choice tho, ubuntu fedora etc etc...
Thanks. But why not something so light-weight as for example wattOS with 192kb of RAM usage, especially drimmed to such low power? Or Slitax the same, or even Puppy or Elive needing even less..
Really only once I know which of the few lightest weight distros can do what I want from them out of the box, could I decide. That's why I repeatedly asking only about these. And not the big ubuntu, fedora etc. which I know are too much overloaded with things I never use, 99% of the time. For the only purpose to waste energy?
Ask me anything about the many countries I visited, and I could tell. Why that is not possible with light-weight linux distros already tested and known?
Last edited:
Linux lite needs 1GB of RAM, Linux Mint 2. For what good reason should I choose those over other much lighter distros, needing down to 10% of that?
you have quite the tall order. the best I can find is Lubuntu that can run on 128M Ram which is about the 10% you are asking for. I have no experience with that flavor tho. obviously it is based on ubuntu so fairly compatible.
Um.
It seems to me that we're kinda getting away from what the OP originally asked about.......a suitably easy-to-use, lightweight distro that would run a VM.
Never having tried it, I can't say whether Fedora would do what the OP wants. I imagine it would, but.....why have we become 'fixated' on one specific distro, which, with the best will in the world, could never be described as 'lightweight'?
I appreciate that some people will always recommend their own favourites, especially if they're really happy with them. I've been a 'Puppy' Linux nut for many years, yet - as I think most of the regular members here are now aware - I won't recommend it to most folks unless they specifically show interest in it. 'Puppy' has its own peculiar ways of doing things; and for most people, who are used to doing things in 'standard' ways in mainstream distros, our Pup can come as summat of a rude shock..!
Equally, I won't recommend it to beginners, for the simple reason that if they learn how Puppy does things, then decide to 'spread their wings' and try more mainstream distros, they're going to have to learn how to do a lot of stuff all over again. And I don't think that's fair. Far better to get 'mainstream' experience first, THEN come to Puppy if, as & when they become interested in it.....especially if they LIKE things that are not exactly 'bog-standard', OOTB.
(ouch...)
Personally, I'm not aware of any distros that come with a VM pre-installed, though that isn't to say that such a thing doesn't exist.
Mike.
It seems to me that we're kinda getting away from what the OP originally asked about.......a suitably easy-to-use, lightweight distro that would run a VM.
Never having tried it, I can't say whether Fedora would do what the OP wants. I imagine it would, but.....why have we become 'fixated' on one specific distro, which, with the best will in the world, could never be described as 'lightweight'?
I appreciate that some people will always recommend their own favourites, especially if they're really happy with them. I've been a 'Puppy' Linux nut for many years, yet - as I think most of the regular members here are now aware - I won't recommend it to most folks unless they specifically show interest in it. 'Puppy' has its own peculiar ways of doing things; and for most people, who are used to doing things in 'standard' ways in mainstream distros, our Pup can come as summat of a rude shock..!
Equally, I won't recommend it to beginners, for the simple reason that if they learn how Puppy does things, then decide to 'spread their wings' and try more mainstream distros, they're going to have to learn how to do a lot of stuff all over again. And I don't think that's fair. Far better to get 'mainstream' experience first, THEN come to Puppy if, as & when they become interested in it.....especially if they LIKE things that are not exactly 'bog-standard', OOTB.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That said, IF the OP is willing to consider it, Puppy will certainly run a VM.....though it is of course subjective, since all VMs run better the more resources you can allocate to them. Certainly CPU 'virtualization' is required, along with, IMHO, a minimum of at least 16GB RAM.....and the ability to allocate a decent chunk of 'virtual' storage (essential for Windows). I haven't run Windows for at least a decade, but I think I'm right in saying that Windows 10 can occupy nerly 20GB once installed?
(ouch...)
Personally, I'm not aware of any distros that come with a VM pre-installed, though that isn't to say that such a thing doesn't exist.
Mike.
aniX is a further contender, using as much as the least mentioned Debian. Why would it be better than the others?About antiX – antiX Linux
antixlinux.com
About Us – MX Linux
mxlinux.org
MX Linux I can't find the system requirement after 10minutes of search, but lets asume as antiX - why this over the others?
actually fedora comes with boxes which is a GUI for qemu which is also there.Um.
It seems to me that we're kinda getting away from what the OP originally asked about.......a suitably easy-to-use, lightweight distro that would run a VM.
Never having tried it, I can't say whether Fedora would do what the OP wants. I imagine it would, but.....why have we become 'fixated' on one specific distro, which, with the best will in the world, could never be described as 'lightweight'?
I appreciate that some people will always recommend their own favourites, especially if they're really happy with them. I've been a 'Puppy' Linux nut for many years, yet - as I think most of the regular members here are now aware - I won't recommend it to most folks unless they specifically show interest in it. 'Puppy' has its own peculiar ways of doing things; and for most people, who are used to doing things in 'standard' ways in mainstream distros, our Pup can come as summat of a rude shock..!
Equally, I won't recommend it to beginners, for the simple reason that if they learn how Puppy does things, then decide to 'spread their wings' and try more mainstream distros, they're going to have to learn how to do a lot of stuff all over again. And I don't think that's fair. Far better to get 'mainstream' experience first, THEN come to Puppy if, as & when they become interested in it.....especially if they LIKE things that are not exactly 'bog-standard', OOTB.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~That said, IF the OP is willing to consider it, Puppy will certainly run a VM.....though it is of course subjective, since all VMs run better the more resources you can allocate to them. Certainly CPU 'virtualization' is required, along with, IMHO, a minimum of at least 16GB RAM.....and the ability to allocate a decent chunk of 'virtual' storage (essential for Windows). I haven't run Windows for at least a decade, but I think I'm right in saying that Windows 10 can occupy nerly 20GB once installed?
(ouch...)
Personally, I'm not aware of any distros that come with a VM pre-installed, though that isn't to say that such a thing doesn't exist.
Mike.
You can install windows in 20G but you'll have no room to do anything else. You'll want 50 to 60G minimum for windows VM, RAM as you showed is the big issue. 8G may not be enough. 12G would be the minimum I can think of for it. I am afraid that the hardware in question may not be up to that task.
If you are that much an expert in puppy, maybe you can go one on one with this person and see if you can set up something that meets his needs and "burn" it off to a usb chip that he can then install. I say this because from what I am seeing it may be his only option.
Funnily, puppy was one of the few distros tried repeatedly years ago. And funny, didn't found it difficult as newbe at all. But don't remember other details.
Bingo! So untill now I didn' get answers about the lightest-weight distros, simply because almost no-one dedicated to Linux is really using them something that small?
At least now with your experience I'm very ready to use Puppy,
if no other of the handfull lightweights distros have experienced users able to report.So many thanks.
- Status
