Contemplating moving to linux

Question

i'm strongly considering moving over to linux completely, mainly because i want to get away from windows and because i'm looking for something new and interesting. for the past few weeks, i've been trying out various distros, but none has impressed me as much as arch, which seems to be the fastest and lightest one i've tried. still, a number of issues, more conceptual than technical, are keeping me from making the switch.
1. i686 vs. x86_64? i have a core 2 duo t5450. is there a reason not to use x86_64? i was unable to get it to work in virtualbox (cpu not detected as 64-bit), so i couldn't test it.
2. minimalism. i've nlited my xp installation iso down to 150mb by removing unused programs, components, and files. the windows directory is 467mb. can i get arch linux down to this size? i try to use the smallest installations possible, but it always seems like the fully installed system is far larger than xp.
3. light programs. on xp, i prefer to use portable applications, simply because they're cleaner (they don't add files all over the place) and often lighter. k-meleon, e.g., is around 8mb and fully self-contained in its directory. miranda is around 6mb. i like how the programs are separated from the rest of the system.
now, based on my experience, it doesn't look like this is possible on linux. first, applications don't seem to be self-contained in this way (i.e., files go all over the place). second, it looks like a whole lot is installed for each application. pcmanfm, e.g., required over 100mb of space. why are these packages so large? am i doing something wrong?
4. my objective is to recreate my xp system. here's a screenshot: http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6729 … hotjd7.png
i suppose the bare minimum i'd need would be:
-wireless
-bluetooth (mouse)
-openbox
-multi-protocol im (pidgin light?)
-light browser (midori?)
-light music and video players
i think i have a good idea of the direction i'd like to take, at least for these, but any suggestions would be appreciated.
thanks.

Answer 1

Ranguvar wrote:
No offense, but most of the stuff in this post has been discussed to death. Real quick:
64-bit: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 99#p452499
Minimalism: The core packages can be slimmed some, but not too much. I wouldn't worry about it - it's not bloat I am a fan of minimalism too.
Light programs: There are many threads on this, etc... for IM, I'd go with bitlbee and your IRC client. For a light video player, MPlayer.
Enjoy!
i realize that and i read through a lot of the discussion, but i was hoping for some simple, focused answers. e.g., regarding 64-bit, i had read about possible incompatibilities.
Honken wrote:
Well, for a window manager I guess the most minimal choice would be DWM. It's a single binary and it's only a few kb big, but it is still very functional. See suckless.org for more info.
There is a wiki article on light applications:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Lig … t_Software
There's also the common applications list which list quite many light software:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Common_Apps
I guess the LnF awards topic is worth mentioning as well:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=41168
thanks for the links. i had read through those earlier, but i had not heard of dwm. i'll check it out.
tomk wrote:If you're really stuck on the self-contained-app thing, have a look at gobolinux.org - that's their main selling point.
i wouldn't say i'm stuck on it, as i'd rather have a sprightly system than a barren one, but i value organizational simplicity.
i hadn't heard of gobolinux, but it looks very interesting. i'm trying it out right now.
Runiq wrote:
There is still GoboLinux, which makes apps remain in a single directory, each in its own. I don't use it, though, so can't make any further comments on minimalism or anything else. (edit: Too late. ^^)
On the minimalism thing: It's hard to find linux apps that are "self-contained", they mostly depend on each other. A Linux system is more like a patchwork system of sorts (at least that's what I have always imagined it to be ). It might not always look beautiful, but it works surprisingly well. In addition to that, the need for self-contained apps is usually eliminated as soon as you have decent package management (Yes, pacman, I'm looking at you). Say, if you install pcmanfm, pacman also installs all the libraries it depends on. But, since libraries are shared, when you install another program that needs exactly those libraries, they won't be installed again.
Apart from that, we have a plethora of lightweight apps - see wiki article above. (Many lightweight apps involve the use of the command line, btw). For lightweight IMing, I'd recommend either centerim or mcabber (with transports, as you seem to use msn). There ain't a thing that can beat MPD when it comes to playing music. Mplayer is a jack-of-all-trades for videos.
You can use x86_64 pretty well, though there are still issues with it. Some apps only have i686 binaries, and for these you'll have to install 32-bit libraries (arch isn't a multilib system by default).
[OT]On a sidenote, how in the world did you get your XP to look like THAT? Awesome, man. I wish mine'd look like that. XD[/OT]
one of the problems i have is finding files. e.g., whenever i install a program, it's not clear where the files go. sometimes they go into usr/bin sometimes into usr/local/bin, etc. and then i have no idea where the other files (e.g., dependencies) go. one thing i don't like about windows is that installations often involve files, usually dll files, getting thrown all over the place, into the program files directory, into system32, etc. i'm not sure how much transparency or control i can have with file installations on linux. that's why i was asking.
as for my xp system, it took me several years of learning how to modify system files to get it to look like that. here's a better shot: http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/7508 … hotke3.png
some notes:
-bblean as my shell with my own theme
-miranda as the chat program, my own icons
-my own visual style
-run box, open/save dialog, shutdown dialog, copy dialog, etc. all reshacked. in particular, i reshacked appwiz.cpl, batmeter.dll, browselc.dll, comctl32.dll, comdlg32.dll, desk.cpl, explorer.exe, hdwwiz.cpl, inetcpl.cpl, intl.cpl, main.cpl, mmsys.cpl, moricons.dll, msgina.dll, mstask.dll, ncpa.dll, netshell.dll, nusrmgr.cpl, powercfg.cpl, shell32.dll, shimgvw.dll, stobject.dll, sysdm.cpl, timedate.cpl, wiashext.dll, wscui.cpl, wuaucpl.cpl, xpsp2res.dll.
is it possible to do the same on linux? when i say minimalism, i mean minimalism!
R00KIE wrote:Short answers
1) No reason why you shouldn't use x86_64, virtual machines are a different story, just try to boot Arch64
i'll definitely try it.
2) You will not be able to get Arch to use just 150MB but don't worry you will be able to get Arch with everything and the rest packing more punch that vista and still using less than half the space ... the path is forward
well, to be precise, 150mb is the size of the iso. 467mb is the size of my windows directory. still, i don't mind if linux is a little larger as long as it's cleaner, stabler, and faster.
Mr.Elendig wrote:XP is 8 years old now. A lot have happened in 8 years. No, you probably won't be able to get arch in as little disc space as XP without a lot of work. Specially since arch isn't optimized for disc space to begin with. Eg we don't split out -devel stuff.
i know it's old. that's one of the reasons why i'm looking at alternatives. i don't mind doing a lot of work to slim down arch, though.
Last edited by anti-destin (2009-02-14 18:37:32)