<p>I want to build a lightweight linux configuration to use for development. The first idea is to use it inside a Virtual Machine under Windows, or old Laptops with 1Gb RAM top. Maybe even a distributable environment for developers.</p>

<p>So the whole idea is to use a LAMP server, Java Application Server (Tomcat or Jetty) and X Windows (any Window manager, from FVWM to Enlightment), Eclipse, maybe jEdit and of course Firefox.</p>

<p>Edit: I am changing this post to compile a possible list of distros and window managers that can be used to configure a real lightweight development environment.</p>

<p>I am using as base personal experiences on this matter. Info about the distros can be easily found in their sites. So please, focus on personal use of those systems</p>

<hr>

<p><h1>Distros</h1></p>

<h2>Ubuntu / Xubuntu</h2>

<p><strong>Pros</strong>: </p>

<ul>
<li>Personal Experience in old systems or low RAM environment - @<a href="https://stackoverflow.com/users/2386/schroeder">Schroeder</a>, @<a href="https://stackoverflow.com/users/1666/scdf">SCdF</a></li>
<li>Several sugestions based on personal knowledge - @<a href="https://stackoverflow.com/users/658/kyle">Kyle</a>, @<a href="https://stackoverflow.com/users/720/peter-hoffmann">Peter Hoffmann</a></li>
</ul>

<h2>Gentoo</h2>

<p><strong>Pros</strong>: </p>

<ul>
<li>Not targeted to Desktop Users - @<a href="https://stackoverflow.com/users/2976/paan">paan</a></li>
<li>Don't come with a huge ammount of applications - @<a href="https://stackoverflow.com/users/2976/paan">paan</a></li>
</ul>

<h2>Slackware</h2>

<p><strong>Pros</strong>:</p>

<ul>
<li>Suggested as best performance in a wise install/configuration - @<a href="https://stackoverflow.com/users/1811/ryan-guest">Ryan</a></li>
</ul>

<h2>Damn Small Linux</h2>

<p><strong>Pros</strong>:</p>

<ul>
<li>Main focus is the lightweight factor - 50MB LiveCD - @<a href="https://stackoverflow.com/users/1811/ryan-guest">Ryan</a></li>
</ul>

<h2>Debian</h2>

<p><strong>Pros</strong>:</p>

<ul>
<li>Very versatile, can be configured for both heavy and lightweight computers - @<a href="https://stackoverflow.com/users/1811/ryan-guest">Ryan</a></li>
<li>APT as package manager - @<a href="https://stackoverflow.com/users/658/kyle">Kyle</a></li>
<li>Based on compatibility and usability - @<a href="https://stackoverflow.com/users/658/kyle">Kyle</a></li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p>-- Fell Free to add Prós and Cons on this, so we can compile a good Reference.
-- X Windows suggestion keep coming about XFCE. If others are to add here, open a session for it Like the distro one :)</p>

[{'answer_id': 37400, 'author': 'Kyle Cronin', 'author_id': 658, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/658', 'pm_score': 2, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>My 2c:</p>\n\n<p>I\'d recommend basing your system on <a href="http://www.debian.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Debian</a> - the <a href="http://wiki.debian.org/Apt" rel="nofollow noreferrer">apt</a> system has become the de-facto way to quickly install and update programs on Linux. <a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ubuntu</a> is Debian based with an emphasis on usability and compatibility. As for windowing managers, in my opinion <a href="http://www.xfce.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Xfce</a> hits the right balance between being lightweight and functional. The Ubuntu-based <a href="http://www.xubuntu.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Xubuntu</a> would probably be a good match.</p>\n\n<p>Remember - for security only install essential network services like SSH.</p>\n\n<p>If it were my decision, I would set up a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preboot_Execution_Environment" rel="nofollow noreferrer">PXE boot server</a> to easily install Ubuntu Server Edition to any computer on the network. The reason why I would choose Ubuntu is because it\'s the one I\'ve had the most experience with and the one I can easily find help for. If I needed a windowing manager for the particular installation, I would also install either Xfce or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbox" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Blackbox</a>. In fact, I have an old laptop in my basement that I\'ve set up in exactly this way and it\'s worked out quite well for me.</p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 37410, 'author': 'cschol', 'author_id': 2386, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2386', 'pm_score': 1, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>I am writing this on a Centrino 1.5GHz, 512MB RAM running <a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ubuntu</a>. It\'s Debian based and is the first Linux distro I have tried that actually worked with my laptop on first install. Find more info <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>.</p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 37411, 'author': 'Ryan Guest', 'author_id': 1811, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1811', 'pm_score': 0, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>I suggest you should checkout the following three distros:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><p><a href="http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Damn Small Linux</a> - Very lightweight. Includes its own lightweight browser (Dillo), but you can install Firefox easily. The entire distro fits on a 50MB LiveCD.</p></li>\n<li><p><a href="http://www.slackware.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Slackware</a> - Performance wise Slackware will probably perform the best out of the three, but I\'d suggest running your own benchmarks with your hardware.</p></li>\n<li><p><a href="http://www.debian.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Debian</a>- Debian is extremely versatile. This is the only distro of the three I\'d recommend for both a 32 bit 1GB RAM laptop and also a 4GB RAM 64 bit machine.</p></li>\n</ul>\n'}, {'answer_id': 37414, 'author': 'SCdF', 'author_id': 1666, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1666', 'pm_score': 2, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>I\'m in a similar situation to <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37396/linux-lightweight-distro-and-x-windows-for-development#37410">Schroeder</a>; having a laptop with 512mb RAM is a PITA. I tried running Xubuntu but tbh I didn\'t find it that it was either useable or a great saver on RAM. So I switched to Ubuntu and it\'s worked out pretty well.</p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 37415, 'author': 'Peter Hoffmann', 'author_id': 720, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/720', 'pm_score': 2, 'selected': True, 'text': '<p>I would recommend <a href="http://www.xubuntu.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Xubuntu</a>. It\'s based on Ubuntu/Debian and optimized for small footprint with the Xfce desktop environment. </p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 37419, 'author': 'paan', 'author_id': 2976, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2976', 'pm_score': 2, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>Try using Gentoo, Most distros with X are targetted towards desktop user and by default includes a lot of other application you don\'t need and at the same time lacks a lot of the stuff you need. YOu could customize the install but usually a lot of useless stuff will get into the \'base\' install anyway.</p>\n\n<p>If you worried about compile time, you can specify portage(the getoo package management system) to fetch binaries when available instead of compiling. It allows you to get the flexibility of installing a system with only the stuff you want. </p>\n\n<p>I used gentoo and never went back.<br>\n<a href="http://www.gentoo.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.gentoo.org/</a></p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 213986, 'author': 'Milan Babuškov', 'author_id': 14690, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/14690', 'pm_score': 0, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>I would recommend something mcuh lighter than XFCE: <a href="http://www.icewm.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">IceWM</a>. It takes so time to configure it to be really usable, but it\'s worth it. I have a fully running IceWM which only takes about 5MB of RAM.</p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 264364, 'author': 'number5', 'author_id': 29489, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/29489', 'pm_score': 2, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>I would recommend to use <a href="http://www.archlinux.org" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Archlinux</a> which I\'m using now. XFCE is my choice for desktop environment by now but if you prefer more lightweight one you can try <a href="http://lxde.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">LXDE</a></p>\n\n<p>Archlinux is much like Gentoo but with binary packages prebuilt and with more simpler configuration</p>\n\n<p>If all those distos still won\'t work for you, you may want to try <a href="http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">LFS - Linux From Scratch</a></p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 264434, 'author': 'Community', 'author_id': -1, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1', 'pm_score': 1, 'selected': False, 'text': "<p>Second the Arch suggestion. You will be tinkering quite a few configuration files to get everything going, but I've found none better for a lean and mean setup.</p>\n"}, {'answer_id': 847180, 'author': 'Community', 'author_id': -1, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1', 'pm_score': 2, 'selected': False, 'text': "<p>I installed Arch (www.archlinux.org) on my old MacMini (there is a PPC version) which only has 512MB RAM and a single 2.05GHz processor and it absolutely flys!</p>\n\n<p>It is almost bare after installation, so about a lightweight as you can get.. but comes with pacman, a software package manager, which is as-good-as apt-get (ubuntu/debian) if not better.</p>\n\n<p>You have a choice of installing many desktop managers such as: awesome, dwm, wmii, fvwm, GNOME, XFCE, KDE, etc.. straight from pacman using a single line of code.</p>\n\n<p>In my opinion(!!) it's lightweight like Gentoo but a binary distro so it isn't as much hassle (although I can imagine it can be a little daunting if you're new to Linux). I had a system running (with X and awesome WM) in about 1.5 hours!</p>\n"}, {'answer_id': 3011128, 'author': 'jdbow75', 'author_id': 363002, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/363002', 'pm_score': 0, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>The primary reason I use Linux is because it can be lightweight. In 1999, I used Redhat, Mandrake (now Mandriva), and Debian. All were faster and more lightweight than my typical Windows 98 installations.</p>\n\n<p>Not so anymore. I now have to research and experiment in order to find distros that are lightweight in both storage and memory footprint, and speedy. These are the ones I have played with lately:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Slitaz, a French distro (I use the English version and it works well).</li>\n<li>Crunchbang, a lightweight Ubuntu and Debian-derived distro</li>\n<li>Crux, which is source-only and very low-level geeky (I chose it because it has good support for PowerPC, and I was using it on my aging Powerbook G4)</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Currently, however, I use Archlinux for most of my work, as it offers a good compromise between lightweight and feature-full.</p>\n\n<p>But if you decide to roll your own distro from scratch, you may want to try Buildroot or Openembedded. I do not have much experience yet with Openembedded, but using Buildroot I have been able to create a very simple OS that boots quickly, loads only what I want, and only takes up 7 MB of storage space (adding development tools will increase this greatly, of course; I am merely using it as an ssh terminal, although I can do some editing with vi, and some text-only web browsing).</p>\n\n<p>As far as window managers, I have been very happy with OpenBox. I frequently experiment with lighter-weight window mangers listed on <a href="http://gilesorr.com/wm/memory32.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this page</a>, however.</p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 26446356, 'author': 'Overclocker', 'author_id': 3579170, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3579170', 'pm_score': 0, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>here is my opinions as well. I have used Fedora, Gentoo, SliTaz, Archlinux, and Puppy Linux for development. The constraints: the system virtual image had to be under 800mb to allow for easy download and include all necessary software. The system had to be fast and customizable. It had to support version control SVN and Git, XAMPP or LAMP, SHH client, window environment (X or whatever) with latest video drivers/higher resolution, and some graphical manipulation software for images.  </p>\n\n<p>I tried Archlinux, Puppy, and SliTaz. I have to say that SliTaz was the easiest to work with and to set up. The complete base-OS install from the image is around 120mb using the cooking version. TazPkg is a great package manager but some of the listed packages were outdated. Some of the latest versions needed to be built from source code. </p>\n\n<p>SliTaz is extremely lightweight and you have to live with some older packages in the supported TazPkg package list. There is increasing support and XAMPP, Java, Perl, Python, and SVN port well using TazPkg with latest versions. SliTaz is all about customization and lightweight. The final size was 800mb with all necessary software. ArchLinux and Pupppy, although also lightweight were over 1.5GB after all of the software was installed. The base systems were not comparable to SliTaz.</p>\n\n<p>If anyone is interested in a virtual image for SliTaz with XAMPP to try out, contact away and link will be posted.</p>\n\n<p>All the best and happy development! :)</p>\n'}]
['https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/37396', 'https://Stackoverflow.com', 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2274/']