Light/small Linux file-sharer advice

Long story. Bear with me.

We recently moved and the DSL modem is in a bad location - we now run everything via wireless. I used to regularly use a "server" (my old gaming box) for filesharing / media streaming and the like but space is a problem and the wireless signal is weak in that location. It's also getting old and draws a lot of power for the (old but powerful) video etc.

So, we've migrated entirely to wireless laptops (even for gaming). All good. I still like somewhere to store files, so I thought about a getting a NAS box and sitting it on the fridge - where the wireless router now has to live. But I used to like using the "server" to download large files and the like, so I could game on the laptop without overhead or interruption. I'd use VNC to access the "server".

Then I remembered I have an old micro-PC stored away - a tiny, special case with a custom M/B that would be small enough to sit on the fridge. It's old - Athlon 1600?, 256-512Mb? Running XP.

I thought a nice slim Linux distro would turn it into a filesharing box that would fit on the fridge but still give me a browser etc for downloads and whatnot.

What to use? Will something nice like Ubuntu work well on that older config? Or go for Damn Small Linux or Puppy Linux? Is there a distro just for filesharing/media streaming - but with a GUI and browser etc? I'm not a Linux newbie but also not an expert - I'd rather a GUI, thanks. I assume I need SAMBA for the Windows notebooks to connect to but the small distros don't seem to include it.

Thoughts or advice?

If you have to ask, go with Ubuntu; it has the friendliest installers and the biggest support forums. It does work well on older hardware; the oldest I've successfully set it up on is a Compaq laptop from the mid-1990's. Your hardware doesn't even count as particularly old from a Linux perspective.

Do you intend to have a screen and keyboard for the machine, or only use it remotely? If the latter, you probably won't do much with a GUI; you'll be administering it via terminal or Web interfaces of whatever you put on it. In that case, use the server edition. Otherwise just use the latest default Ubuntu desktop edition, or if you want to make it a bit lighter, xubuntu (it has xfce instead of Gnome).

I'd say Debian. You have to press one or two buttons during the installer, but if you know anything about PC's you'll be fine. It's rock solid and once you get it in thereyou won't have to worry about it ever again. Ubuntu is basically debian with a couple of fancy buttons and eye candy and newer (less stable) software thrown in. Just install the debian base system and reboot, login as root and start throwing in all the sofware you need using the command "apt-get install [nameofthepackage]" this way you'll avoid all the useless bloat and you'll easily get a system tailored for your need. The debian package manager takes care of all the dependencies/requirements so no worries there. Simple and efficient. And it works.

Oh, and it says on the internet that "ubuntu" is an ancient african word for "can't install debian"

You can say that about just about any of the major distros -- openSuSE, Gentoo, Fedora… "Can't install Debian" is a pretty powerful hurdle for people just getting into Linux -- and it's very, very easy to forget just how big that hurdle is once you *are* familiar with it.

As a trivial example, the advice you just gave is completely incomprehensible to someone who doesn't know what apt-get is -- because he won't know (a) what packages he wants or needs, nor (b) what they're called and how to find out. The GUI for the package manager that groups the software by purpose and lets you just check a box and click "install" makes all the difference. ('Course, Debian has one too -- but to get it, you have to install all the "useless bloat" and "fancy buttons" you're sneering at.)

So I still say "if you have to ask, go with Ubuntu." Once you're comfortable with it, by all means experiment with other distros; you may well find one that you like more.

CrunchBang Linux (article, homepage) is a new, Ubuntu-based distribution with an OpenBox window manager - extremely lightweight. Everything else is "plain" Ubuntu, so any Ubuntu advice should apply too. Ubuntu itself might run a tad slower, but probably still acceptable; there's also Xubuntu if you want a more official "lightweight" choice (XFCE (Xubuntu) is lighter than GNOME (Ubuntu), but still far from OpenBox - does look more like familiar, though).

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
You can say that about just about any of the major distros -- openSuSE, Gentoo, Fedora… "Can't install Debian" is a pretty powerful hurdle for people just getting into Linux -- and it's very, very easy to forget just how big that hurdle is once you *are* familiar with it.

True. However, with the current generation of debian (and linux) software I was actually surprised (as a linux newbie couple of years back) how simple it actually was after spending an hour or two checking out a couple of tutorials. Installing debian "the hardway" is an excellent learning experience I would recommend to anyone interested in linux. Also, I am in no way a linux expert myself. I know to handle the apt package manager, fuck around with some network settings and handle some simple console commands.

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
As a trivial example, the advice you just gave is completely incomprehensible to someone who doesn't know what apt-get is -- because he won't know (a) what packages he wants or needs, nor (b) what they're called and how to find out. The GUI for the package manager that groups the software by purpose and lets you just check a box and click "install" makes all the difference. ('Course, Debian has one too -- but to get it, you have to install all the "useless bloat" and "fancy buttons" you're sneering at.)

Also, true. However…
It was not advice actually, more like demonstration that once the base system is in (with the very simple menu based installer) you can start adding software with a single very simple command. And "useless bloat" and "fancy buttons" are very undesireable in an older hardware server system. I am not in anyway saying that based on my "advice" the installation could be done by anyone in a couple of minutes, we all know that in order to get anything done with linux, googling through a couple of tutorials is necessary.

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
So I still say "if you have to ask, go with Ubuntu." Once you're comfortable with it, by all means experiment with other distros; you may well find one that you like more.

Fair enough. However, based on my own experience I feel that taking the time to get a customized debian system up and running is not only a great learning experience and an interesting one, but provides you with a rock solid and a pretty good operating system. If he is going to do some server stuff, he will need to get his hands dirty anyway, so I would claim that simply clicking buttons in shiny installers won't cut it anyway.

Originally Posted by Zakhary
Fair enough. However, based on my own experience I feel that taking the time to get a customized debian system up and running is not only a great learning experience and an interesting one, but provides you with a rock solid and a pretty good operating system.

Oh, I agree. It's just that if that's the first Linux install you're doing, it's more likely that you'll give up in frustration before then, and just go with the WinXP that already runs on the box. And we wouldn't want *that* to happen, now that an easier alternative is available, would we?

If he is going to do some server stuff, he will need to get his hands dirty anyway, so I would claim that simply clicking buttons in shiny installers won't cut it anyway.

Nope, but it's a huge short cut. And all the lovely dirt is still there underneath; if he wants to reconfigure his system later, there's nothing to stop him. Ubuntu is simply a great way to get your feet wet with Linux, whether you stick with the distro for the long run or not.

@ Dhruin,
I'm in the process of switching to completely wireless and have been thinking along these lines as well. Please post back when you have time and let us know your chosen solution and how it turned out.

Ubbax
"Consciousness: that annoying time between naps" - My Father

I haven't had the chance to wrap everything up but the light Ubuntu distros seem the go. I'm leaning towards CrunchBang! (thanks, VPeric), though Zubuntu seems perfectly fine.

I'm not a complete linux newbie (used to run a Red Hat server back in the day) but I'm well out of the loop these days and don't want to spend ages getting what is essentially a big hard disk working.

Based on the live disks, both CrunchBang! and Zubuntu seem to work fine on the old hardware. It even popped up that it had found a wireless network and that was going in seconds - even easier than Windows.

I'll report back when it's complete in a week or two.