Linuxed - Exploring Linux distros: Crunchbang

From performance point of view, these days, Openbox is my favorite desktop environment. I found it actually to be more efficient and less resource consuming than either LXDE or XFCE and works very efficiently on low powered P4 machines. Perhaps the most famous distros with Openbox DE are Archbang and Crunchbang. Recently, SparkyLinux came up with their version of Openbox spin. In this article, I review SparkyLinux 2.1 "Ultra" Openbox as well as do a brief comparison with Archbang and Crunchbang.

From Sparkylinux 2.1 “Ultra” http://mylinuxexplore.blogspot.in

This assessment is done entirely by me. My assessment is based on installation on Asus K54C laptop with 2.2 Ghz Core i3 processor and 2 GB RAM and experience of using it for the last 3 days. I downloaded the 32-bit ISO (1.4 GB in size) for this testing. Sparkylinux 2.1 “Ultra” has an Openbox DE with Linux kernel 3.2.0. PCManFM 0.9.10 is the default file browser.

Read more!

Accept it friends, with attractive interface and eye-catching effects the major Linux distributions like Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora and even Debian, all have become very CPU & RAM intensive. And if you have anything less than a Pentium Dual Core, you are bound to face difficulties in multi-tasking; sometimes even loading the distribution becomes a big pain.

So, you can have two options:

either to stay with prev-gen Linux OS like Ubuntu Hardy, Lucid or Natty without any security updates where installation of latest Firefox would be increasingly difficult as time passes by
install a lighter linux with almost full features as Ubuntu or a Mint

I actually tried quite a few so-called light-weight Linux OSs and compared them with the latest OSs like Ubuntu Precise or Fedora Beefy Miracle. Before we actually jump into the topic, if you browse across net, you can see plenty of light-weight Linux OS are there which can effectively turn your antiquated machine, lying in the garage, to a workhorse. The common names which you get on searching are: Slitaz, Puppy Linux, Crunchbang, Lubuntu, Xubuntu, and certain derivatives of these distros.

Background and machine used:
I tested these common distros on my 9 year old computer with the following specs: P4/2.4 GHz Single Core processor/1.5 GB RAM with (80 + 160) GB IDE HDD. Till Ubuntu Natty, things were not bad for the machine. But it could not handle Ubuntu 12.04 LTS or Mint 13. Finally I moved to Debian Squeeze and it is running better, though live streaming is not that smooth even in Debian and consumes up 100% CPU.

That also motivated me to try out a few so called light-weight Linux distributions.

Evaluation Criteria:

CPU & RAM usage, out of the box with no applications running except desktop and CPU-RAM usage monitor
Appearance
Built in applications provided and ease of downloading from repository
Ease of Use
Linux knowledge level (n00b, intermediate, expert)
HDD installation process
Community support

Distributions Used:
I haven't included DSL as I feel it is meant of very antiquated PCs and hence, looked for the more complete ones which have higher ratings at Distrowatch.

Slitaz 4.0: My review
Puppy Linux: My Review on Slacko 5.3.3, Lucid 5.2.8 and Precise beta1 5.2.60
CrunchBang 10: My Review
Lubuntu 12.04: My Review
Xubuntu 12.04 LTS: My Review
Archbang 2012.12: My Review

I booted all these distros from USB drive and checked the evaluation points for each in last couple of months. Further, I used each one of these OSs for at least 7 days continuously to finally compare.

I left out quite a few distributions like Simple Linux, Vector Linux, DSL, Slax, Feather Linux, Tiny Core Linux, etc. either because they didn't load well from USB or are kind of antiquated with no major update in last 2 years or similar to the distributions I reviewed with some minor changes. I assumed for the derived distros (like Peppermint) to be similar to their parent distro.

Another gem of light weight linux I could not include is Bodhi 2.0.0 as it is still in Alpha stage. It's minimum specs beats many with 300 Mhz processor, 128 MB RAM and only 1.5 GB HDD space. I have got very good feedback about it. And waiting for the beta version to release. I won't recommend the Bodhi 1.4 as it is based on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS which has expired in Apr'12. Better wait for the stable version.

Results:

-->

Evaluation Parameters	Slitaz 4.0	Puppy Slacko 5.3.3	Puppy Lucid 5.2.8	Puppy Precise 5.2.60	Crunchbang 10	Lubuntu 12.04	Xubuntu 12.04
CPU Usage	2-5%	4-8%	3-7%	4-8%	3-10%	1-11%	6-10%
RAM Usage	54 MiB	307 MiB	370 Mib	480 MiB	150 MiB	126 MiB	130 MiB
ISO Size	36 MB	115.2 MB	132.6 MB	142 MB	662 MB	700+ MB	700+ MB
Appearance	Looks like Gnome 2	Typical Puppy, A bit clumsy	Typical Puppy, A bit clumsy	Typical Puppy, A bit clumsy	All Black, minimalistic, no menu	Simple, similar to Windows XP	Elegant, looks like Gnome 2
Window Manager	Openbox	JWM	JWM	JWM	Openbox	LXDE with Openbox	XFCE Window Manager
Default Applications (in ISO)	No Office, No modern browser	Complete, Separate download for java, flash	Complete but Midori browser, Separate download for java, flash	Complete, Separate download for java, flash	Most complete package	Complete Package	Complete package
Repository	Good	Very good	Ubuntu Lucid	Ubuntu Precise	Debian Stable	Ubuntu Precise	Ubuntu Precise
Ease of Use	Menu driven, easy	Menu driven, easy	Menu driven, easy	Menu driven, easy	Moderately Easy	Menu driven, easy	Menu driven, easy
Linux knowledge required	Intermediate	n00b	n00b	n00b	Intermediate	Intermediate	n00b
HDD installation process	Difficult	Easy but grub update is difficult at the first time	Easy but grub update is difficult at the first time	Easy but grub update is difficult at the first time	Intermediate knowledge of gparted required	Very easy through Windows installer	Very easy through Windows installer
Community Support	Medium	Good	Good	Good	Excellent	Best	Best
Minimum Specs (as given in the websites of individual distribution)	Intel, 80 MB RAM	500 MHz processor, 128 MB RAM, 512 MB HDD space	500 MHz processor, 128 MB RAM, 512 MB HDD space	500 MHz processor, 128 MB RAM, 512 MB HDD space	128 MB RAM	P4, 256 MB RAM	P4, 256 MB RAM

Puppy Linux RAM usage shows higher as it totally loads on RAM if there is an opportunity (> 1 GB of RAM). Hence, it's actual RAM usage is (RAM Usage - ISO Size). Puppy Wary is similar to Puppy Lucid and Precise in RAM and CPU usage as well as software bundle provided.

27th July 2012: This review was before I checked AntiX 12. It is the most complete distro, in my opinion, and uses only 64-70 RAM! Desktop manager is IceWM & Fluxbox and offers a complete ensemble of LibreOffice, MPaint, MPlayer and a whole lot more. Please check my post on AntiX here. But, it has a bit problem with Wifi.

31st Dec 2012: Also check out Archbang, the fastest distro I have seen. Wifi, touchpad and others settings work well with Archbang. My review.

Conclusion:
There is no straight forward conclusion to this debate of light linux distributions. My conclusions are:

1. Very low resource computer: If you have anything antique than P4 and less than 128 MB RAM, Slitaz is for you. If you have 256-512 MB RAM, AntiX and Puppy Linux are more suited as they offer a more comprehensive package and better repositories. Plus, if you install Ubuntu or Slackware derived puppies, you can install majority of the sought-after and high utility apps like VLC, Gimp, Opera, Chrome, Firefox, Wine, etc. Further, AntiX is derived from Debian testing and you get cutting edge apps from Debian repo.

2. P4 with around 1 GB RAM or Intel Atom Netbook with 1 GB RAM: You can choose between CrunchBang, Lubuntu or Xubuntu.My personal favorite is Xubuntu as it offers a more customizable desktop. Lubuntu is equally functional and many users prefer Lubuntu for its speed and energy saving abilities. Crunchbang is too minimalistic for me.

Personally, my verdict is for Archbang and Puppy if you truly need a low resource intensive desktop with complete software packages. Currently I am using Puppy along with Archbang on my P4 1 GB RAM PC. Archbang works better but is more difficult to set up than Puppy. Even with live streaming of videos with Adobe flash plugin, Abiword & Gnumeric files open, Puppy consumes only 50% CPU and about 600 MB of RAM, Archbang consumes 100 MB less RAM under similar conditions.

8th July, 2012: ArchBang and Porteus 1.2

I tried out a couple of more distros - ArchBang, very similar to CrunchBang and gives identical performance and Porteus 1.2, unique KDE lightweight Linux OS. If you hate minimalistic distros and like to have a complete but lightweight OS, you can give Porteus a try - I am sure it will impress you. How the developers packed a KDE desktop in 250 MB CD is still amazing to me and if your PC has decent capability but unable to run Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, you can give Porteus a shot! It uses 102 MB RAM and 5% CPU with no other app, apart from task manager, running. The interface is really cool. It is also available in LXDE and XFCE desktop environments, which are far lighter than KDE. You can go through my review to assess yourself.

If you are looking for a complete distro which performs like a beast even on low resources, Archbang is for you. However, it would require a bit of learning and unlearning to make it useful. Archbang is easier than Arch, has a rolling release and is bleeding edge distro. Means, you would get the updated apps, linux kernel, etc. before any other distro in the list gets it. It has its own problems as well, like things may break in between because of the updates. However, there is a rich Arch wiki and Archbang forum to help you out. Archbang is primarily Openbox desktop and takes about 50-60 MB RAM and 0-5% CPU at steady state. You can check my review if interested. Archbang is perhaps the best lightweight Linux distro I have ever seen and certainly the fastest one. It is faster than Puppy but a bit difficult to set up. Puppy works right out of the box.
If you are interested to see the desktop environments of each OS, my earlier posts will give you very detailed views. I am putting single view for each distro reviewed for user reference.