Debian vs. DSLForum: User Feedback Topic: Debian vs. DSL started by: brokenkingpin Posted by brokenkingpin on Aug. 09 2005,15:26
I have been distro hopping like crazy lately trying to get something that worked well with my desktop which is a P3 256mb ram. I have tried Fedora, SuSE, Yoper, Mepis, and a couple other ones that all seem to not run fast, or die after a couple days. Then I came across DSL and everything is going awesome. I would just like to know is DSL as full of an OS as Debian? I am not talking about software included because DSL does not have all the software that Debian has because it is only 50mb. Can DSL have all the software that are available for Debian threw apt without breaking stuff? I hear you guys saying that you run DSL on your old computers, but are you also using it as your main distro on you new computers as well. Would there be an advantage to using Debian over DSL if your computer can run Debian? Do you guys use this over the main distros such as Debian, Fedora, Mandriva, and so on? Thanks for your thoughts and opinions.
Posted by kopsis on Aug. 09 2005,15:52
DSL is Debian based and as such you can use apt to install additional software. However there are a bunch of things you need to be aware of:1) When you run off the Live CD or a frugal or poorman's HD install, apt is installing everything to a ramdisk. That means the additional software chews up memory (which slows some things down) and it goes away when you reboot. There's a script to turn apt installed packages into DSL extensions to solve the second problem but you still have the memory consumption issue. 1a) A full HD install solves both problems above but eliminates many of the benefits of using DSL (including toram option, easy upgrades, read only core OS, etc.). 2) DSL is built largely from packages in the Debian "oldstable" distro. That mean much of the software you can apt-get is fairly old (3+ years) versions. Switching to newer repositories (stable or unstable) will cause apt-get to replace many of the DSL packages with newer, larger, and sometimes slower versions. 3) Some of the DSL packages are "customized" and replacing them with standard Debian versions (even though newer) may break things. 4) Much of DSL's speed is a direct result of the software that is "missing". Using apt to install one of the mega-desktop-environments like Gnome or KDE is going to make DSL just as slow as other distros that use those DEs by default. Big software runs slow on old PCs -- doesn't matter what the distro is. Posted by green on Aug. 09 2005,19:06
if you want something that is full of stuff like Debian, get all dozen CD' or how ever many they have these days. I have run DSL as my main OS on a newer boxen: AMD 2800+ Barton @ 2250Mhz, 1Gb RAM. I know what I want to do with my boxen so DSL is perfect when I include the .dsl's that I need and etc. You need to decide what you want from your boxen. Then check out the extensions that are available in the repository. If what you want is not there, you can either build the one you want or go with the "full figured" distro's. I prefer skinny ones myself.
Posted by adssse on Aug. 10 2005,04:28
After reading through these posts it made me think of some old posts I have read through about the security of dsl compared to more full figured distros. Is there any reason to be concerned about being able to log into root without a password when running frugal? I think I understand why dsl uses this method from reading the other posts, but if someone could explain some of the details I would be gratefull. I have been using dsl more and more and I love it, I was just wondering what others opinions are about security.
Posted by mikshaw on Aug. 10 2005,13:15
I guess that would depend on how easy it is for others to access the system. As far as I know, DSL refuses remote connections unless you have set a password, yes? If that's the case, the only thing I'd be concerned about is local users (which in my situation is a non-issue).I suppose there is the possibility of running some malicious code by accident, but you should really know your sources and not download random scripts and programs from unfamiliar places. After all things have been said, I think you'll find that protecting your system with good passwords (and changing sudoers) is undoubtedly more secure than the default system, but how secure do you need a frugal system anyway? Posted by adssse on Aug. 10 2005,16:56
Does that mean it refuses connections by default with a frugal install? I dont have to worry about other users on my computer and I am not one to download many unkown things. I do use the rcfirewall extension, not sure if I really need it. I guess I have just always been kind of a paranoid user when it comes to security (possibly from using windows my whole life). Is there any documention on the security of DSL? I have done some brief reading on Linux security in general, but would be very interested in anything specific to DSL. Posted by mikshaw on Aug. 11 2005,02:51
I've never used it in DSL, but from what i've seen here in the forums it seems that you need to set up a root password before sshd will run, so i guess that would prevent any incoming ssh connections.Haven't seen any documentation on DSL security. |