Talk:Light-weight Linux distribution

message: i dont'know.. i added a linux distro that is used on old machine.. is that a minilinux?
i cut it.. for now
*DeLi Linux: "Desktop Light" Linux  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.28.178.147 (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  untitled 

message: I will remove menuetOS, because it isn't linux —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.85.121.132 (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  untitled 

message: I've never seen "MiniLinux" used as a standard term outside Wikipedia, even though I'm familiar with many of those mini-distributions. Also, I've never seen that logo, which is strangely claimed as a "standard logo".
-- LodeRunner 14:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: The term Mini Linux appears to be in more broad use than MiniLinux, and is derived from the original MINI LINUX. Cwolfsheep 23:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to fix the original research problem 

message: So I'm suggesting one. Fits on a standard Mini CD - 210mb or smaller.
This might be slightly original research but is a very, very useful page.
81.197.43.229 (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no standard for minidistroes. 

message: ...kernel agnostic, as in "LiveDistro".
Granted, many "mini" OS distributions are based on Linux, but not all are.  There are several non-Linux distributions that have proven themselves very useful or feature-rich despite their size--in particular, MenuetOS and KolibriOS. Further, there are a host of other specialized distributions for embedded, mobile, and real-time systems, just as Linux has. My gripe is that many people have attempted adding links to other mini (yet non-Linux) distros only to have the links deleted outright, without any recognition of their significance or any offer of compromise.
I have not been able to find any other article with this kind of focus on modern functionality using less-than-modern desktop hardware. Oh, wait, this article also contains distros for the Nintendo DS, iPod, and Embedded Debian--not only desktops. Having recognized such overlaps, its fellow article in the Linux infobox, List of LiveDistros, does contain a heading for non-Linux distros. This "mini" article is part of a much larger category of specialized systems which is being wholly ignored. Simultaniously, the scope of this article must be restructured. Do embedded, mobile, PDA, real-time, video game console, and just plain "old" distros count as being "mini"? Should they be discussed here or in a new article? At the very least, I suggest that a heading for these non-Linux fellow "mini" distros be included somewhere and accepted as relevantly related to any Linux equivalent. --Diluvial (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold. Just do the move and see if anyone complains. 62.106.49.139 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article to "Mini ''Distro''"? 

message: In looking though this article it is not in a fit state to be merged into or with another article, basically the whole thing looks like unsourced WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay with 12 days and no support for merging this I will remove the tag. - Ahunt (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with [[List of Linux distributions that run from RAM]]

message: From the proposed deletion (at Mini Linux):
:At one time there was a non-notable Linux distribution called "MINILINUX", but this article is not about that. Instead it is a collection of vague and undefined terms used to create a list of distributions without any defining criteria. The article is entirely unreferenced except for one mailing list posting from 1995 about the "MINILINUX" distribution. An extensive search to see if this term is in common use or if there is any agreed criteria for what it means or even any useful list of distributions that qualify found nothing of value. The article seems to be nothing more than original research.
I moved the article from Mini Linux to Lightweight Linux distribution. This phrase is already used in 15 articles. It's also used in List of Linux distributions to refer to 10 distributions.
The article needs work for sure. Maybe it should be a list. --Pnm (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I see that you have moved the article, but now it is on a somewhat different topic altogether. A search shows that while many Linux distros are self-described as "light weight", it is a completely relative term and there does not seem to be any accepted definition of what that means. Personally I am writing this on Lubuntu which the developers officially describe as "lubuntu is a faster, more lightweight and energy saving variant of Ubuntu using LXDE, the Lightweight X11 Desktop Environment." So it is light weight, meaning uses less RAM and CPU power, in comparison to Ubuntu. However in comparison to, say, Puppy Linux it is not light weight. Since there doesn't seem to be a consensus to proceed with the prod I can see only two courses of action here: 1. Go to AfD or else 2. stub it down to something that can be supported by refs, which is what I will do. I will also start a list of distros that at least have one ref that describes them as light weight, perhaps also "in comparison to what" and let's see where that goes. Let's just make sure it does not end up as another WP:OR fanboy mess. How is that? - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed deletion

message: http://delicate-linux.net/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.204.207.229 (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeLi(cate) Linux is missing 

message: Slax weighs only around 200MB and has portable profile. It should be mentioned in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zymnos (talk • contribs) 14:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It was here before, but was removed for no ref. To be included it needs a ref where someone says it is "lightweight". - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  SLAX missing 

message: 1. We should mention the minimum system requirements for all OS's. This way, there is an objective comparison possible. At present, there are many OS's mentioned as "lightweight" while in fact the resource use is still huge (for example Crunchbang, LXLE, ...)
* Lubuntu runs on  800 mhz cpu, 40 mb ramMinimum system specs of Lubuntu being an 800mhz cpu and 400 mb ram
* Antix runs on a 266 mhz cpu with 128 mb ram Antix minimum sys reqs
* Crunchbang runs on a 1 ghz cpu with 128 mb ramhttp://crunchbang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=21017http://www.distrogeeks.com/distributions/crunchbang/
* Slitaz runs on a Pentium2 with 64 mb ramhttp://vanilla.slitaz.org/index.php?p=/discussion/2055/slitaz-minimum-sys-requirementss/p1
* Porteus runs on a ? cpu with 128 mb ram http://www.porteus.org/info/features.html
Following refs were also removed:
Leightweight Linux distro list by techradar
Zenix discontinued
2. Also, can someone add Zenwalk (Openbox version); I haven't found minimum sys requirements for this btw. Zenwalk (Xfce) runs on a Pentium III class processor about 500 mhz I suppose) with 256 Mb RAM and 4Gb HDD 
11 October 2014‎, KVDP
: I think that minimum system requirements would add too much informations, I think it may be OK if the information is very short (ie: only minimal RAM). --Dadu (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimum system requirements 

message: Because these informations are often outdated, painful to maintain, and almost useless for people (how many cares to know the current full version number of distribution when comparing these ?), I suggest to replace the columns "Current stable version" and "Release date" to a new column named "Latest release year" (same principle as the "Initial release year"). --Dadu (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I may do it but I wish some feedback before. --Dadu (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello!  Hm, that's debatable...  However, I'd suppose that merging the columns would be acceptable because the table surely isn't maintained that well.  In other words, we might have fewer outdated rows with the latest release year instead of the (perhaps often) outdated version & datestamp combo. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. --Dadu (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about making the table easier to read and maintain by merging 2 columns to "Latest release year" ? 

message: perhaps add Debris linux, Slax, wattOS and Vector Linuxhttp://www.linuxinsider.com/story/82538.html?rss=1
KVDP (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional linux distros

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Lightweight Linux distribution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101124090146/http://lubuntu.net:80/newsletter/lubuntu-1010-released to http://lubuntu.net/newsletter/lubuntu-1010-released
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100711035158/http://www.raymond.cc:80/blog/archives/2010/07/08/puppy-linux-5-0-review-lightweight-fun-fast/ to http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2010/07/08/puppy-linux-5-0-review-lightweight-fun-fast/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , all fine. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please add this photo  to Wikimedia. I can't  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2436:549:EC09:393A:4A01:4CA3 (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use the Files for upload process to do it. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone please help me by uploading this online photo. Am unable to. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Lightweight Linux distribution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130307053530/http://featherlinux.berlios.de/docs.htm to http://featherlinux.berlios.de/docs.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160322235935/http://www.mepiscommunity.org/mx to http://www.mepiscommunity.org/mx/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Somebody added Turnkey to the "Overview" and "Comparison" sections. This is a virtual appliance. I think it should be removed from the list on the basis that it doesn't meet the common understanding of what we mean by the term, "distribution". Especially since it is comprised of mainly server software, and is basically suited to that task only. Therefore, it isn't a "full-featured" distro as are the vast majority of other entries on the list. It might fit in better on a list of virtual appliances or a list of server software packages. Huggums537 (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turnkey Linux a distribution? 

message: I think using a hyphen can make such phrases more easy to read and write special for non-European people, examples:
"Unix-like", "non-governmental organization", "non-alcoholic beverage" and many other non-** phrases, Light-sport aircraft and also open-source software.
So I think it is better to move this page to Light-weight Linux distribution like its related article the Light-weight process.
I also nominated the :Category:Mini Linux distributions to be renamed to :Category:Light-weight Linux distributions, because all people knows such distributions as "light-weight" no one don't call them "mini".
see  nomination in here.
There are also a bunch of articles and categories that use proposed style, so it is not exception:
* :Category:Light-bantamweight boxers
* :Category:Light-emitting diodes
* :Category:Light-emitting diode materials
* :Category:Light-emitting diode manufacturers
* :Category:Light-emitting diode pioneers
* :Category:Light-flyweight boxers
* :Category:Light-heavyweight boxers
* :Category:Light-middleweight boxers
* :Category:Light-sport aircraft
* :Category:Light-sensitive chemicals
* :Category:Light-welterweight boxers
Editor-1 (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving page to "Light-weight Linux distribution" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Light-weight Linux distribution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111009120921/http://old.nabble.com/BL-on-CF-IDE-drive-td25683600.html to http://old.nabble.com/BL-on-CF-IDE-drive-td25683600.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130102095918/http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/2009/07/01/tiny-core-linux-2-1/4/ to http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/2009/07/01/tiny-core-linux-2-1/4/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think it would be very useful if the comparison table included the information about the distro being a rolling distro or not. By rolling distro I mean one that can be upgraded from the running OS and does not require someone to install the upgrade from a CD or a USB flash drive.
Luckylemming (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling distro? - Yes/No 

message: It would be very useful to indicate in the table if the distro supports Firefox or not. I know some distros have for instance Midori, but don't have and can't have Firefox installed.
Luckylemming (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supports Firefox? Yes/No 

message: We had better to delete simple advertising and also old description parts as follows:
The perceived weight of a Linux distribution is strongly influenced by the desktop environment included with that distribution.[1][2] Accordingly, many Linux distributions offer a choice of editions. For example, Canonical hosts several variants ("flavors") of the Ubuntu distribution that include desktop environments other than the default Unity or Gnome. These variants include the Xubuntu and Lubuntu distributions for the comparatively light-weight Xfce and LXDE desktop environments.
The demands that a desktop environment places on a system may be seen in a comparison of the minimum requirement of Lubuntu 10.10 and Ubuntu 10.10 desktop editions. The only significant difference between these two distributions released in October 2010 was their desktop environment: While Ubuntu 10.10 included the Unity desktop, Lubuntu 10.10 included LXDE. And, while the minimum requirements of Ubuntu 10.10 were a 2 GHz processor and 2 GB of RAM,[3] the minimum requirements for Lubuntu 10.10 were 128 MB of RAM and a Pentium II.[4]
The above-mentioned descriptions are wasteful here. This article should show a list of distributions with simple notes. I would like to ask for other Wiki-writers' opinions for my proposal. -- Green (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ask for deletion of advertising and old descriptions  

message: All the sizes listed for the OSs are very, very, VERY wrong. For example Absolute Linux says it's only 698 MB but in reality it's 2231 MB. This is a common theme as I checked a few of them and they were all wrong. I don't know if every single one is wrong, but I recommend that someone go through each making sure they're correct and changing them as needed. LegionaryIX (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: * The correct and best approach is to remove them wholly! because it is not in the scope of WP and there is no one to keep them up to date.--Editor-1 (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: * Yeah it seems like something that will change too much and since the page isn't very active they can get very wrong very fast. What about the minimum requirement, though? They can change pretty quickly as well, but the low requirements are part of the definition. When they first proposed them in 2015 someone mentioned that it would be too much information, and looking over it I think they were right. As you said, no one can really keep this stuff up to date. But again, there needs to be some qualifications for a distro to be considered light-weight. LegionaryIX (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *Being light-weight is not related to the size of install image. I'm not sure, maybe it is better to keep these information but add  and  to the article or that section.--Editor-1 (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sizes are almost all wrong