Best OS for low end netbook? reddit / BSD ---------------------------------------------------------------------- kyleW_ne · 2019-07-20 21:37 Hi, I have a 32bit Atom powered netbook with 1GB of ram that I would like to keep alive as a secondary system. Linux is too power hungry for it plus lots of distros are forgoing 32bit i386 architecture processors. I am thinking netbsd or freebsd with UFS would be best. Do you guys think Free, Net, or Open BSD would be best for this system? Thanks! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2019-07-20 21:40 Definately not openbsd because it disables hypsrthreading amd it would be slow as fuck. Probably netbsd or a light freebsd install. They are all pretty light but I would stay away from OpenBSD and prebuilt BSDs like GhostBSD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- icantthinkofone · 2019-07-20 21:47 \> Do you guys think Free, Net, or Open BSD would be best for this system? You kind of cleared the bases with those choices. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- calrogman · 2019-07-20 23:40 >iT DiSaBlEs HYpSRthrEadINg Good god. Don't ever use OpenBSD, you might have to type `sysctl hw.smt=1`! You know what, maybe *you* *should* steer clear. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FUZxxl · 2019-07-21 00:55 Linux works fine on these machines and so should the BSDs. It's just a matter of what software you use on the system. For example, pick a lightweight desktop environment like XFCE instead of Gnome and so on. I strongly recommend you to avoid ZFS if you go with FreeBSD though. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Kernigh · 2019-07-21 03:04 The usual problems with BSD, like a missing driver for video or Wi-Fi, are less likely to happen on an old machine; so any of {Free,Net,Open}BSD might run well. If you have nVidia graphics or use Bluetooth, avoid OpenBSD. I sometimes hear that OpenBSD uses more power than Linux. OpenBSD doesn't adjust the cpu speed by default; one must enable [apmd(8)](https://man.openbsd.org/apmd) -A, as with [rcctl(8)](https://man.openbsd.org/rcctl). I don't know how other BSDs adjust the cpu speed. OpenBSD can also sleep zzz(8) and hibernate ZZZ(8) some i386 and amd64 machines. BSD might boot faster than Linux. I observed that NetBSD booted about twice as fast as Debian GNU/Linux, but that was in an emulator qemu- system-ppc, not on real hardware. Debian uses systemd to boot; other Linux distros with different init systems might be better. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2019-07-21 03:36 That defeats the purpose of openbsd which is tight security. Stop being elitist dude. It was just a recommendation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- kyleW_ne · 2019-07-21 03:48 Thanks for the detailed reply. I'm most familiar with Linux first and FreeBSD second. Then NetBSD that I've ran on some old Pentium 3 boxes before and tinkered with the Dreamcast port. Yeah it's from 2009 so might not have any driver issues or at least that's what I hope for with the WiFi card. Since I'm wanting to learn more about FreeBSD I might give that a go since it's just a backup laptop. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Nanosleep · 2019-07-21 04:51 regardless of operating system, you're going to have a rough time making a system with a gig of ram feel useful as a desktop in 2019. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 7ootles · 2019-07-21 04:53 I'v be inclined to put Windows XP on it tbh. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2019-07-21 04:55 In my experience, the WiFi card is always the one thing most likely not supported (unless you have a Lenovo/IBM or Dell). You can get a USB dongle with a supported chipset if it turns out the WiFi isn't supported, such as the Edimax EW-7811Un. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2019-07-21 05:01 I really don't notice much difference in performance if the hyperthreading is enabled or disabled. I'm not mining bitcoin or running the latest games (which I probably couldn't anyway) and it performs great. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- calrogman · 2019-07-21 06:43 This toggles one, tiny part of a vast array of security advantages presented by OpenBSD. I'll stop being elitist when you stop being wrong. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- kyleW_ne · 2019-07-21 07:07 That's what it shipped with. Firefox with one tab open or sometimes 2 would bring it to it's knees. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2019-07-21 08:00 [deleted] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Towtow10 · 2019-07-21 08:10 Why avoid ZFS? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2019-07-21 08:20 Imagine having so little life that another person's choice of operating system makes you this incensed. Depressing actually. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- calrogman · 2019-07-21 08:21 I don't give a shit about which OS *you* use. I give a lot of shit that you are spreading falsehoods about OpenBSD in /r/bsd. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2019-07-21 08:32 Does or does not openbsd disable hyper-threading by default? Sure it's possible to toggle it on, then again it's possible to do a lot of things, just because it's possible doesn't mean it's not on by *default*, baked into the design of the system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 7ootles · 2019-07-21 08:44 So don't put it on the Internet, use it for old games or typing documents or something. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2019-07-21 11:04 deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.4170 [^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?](https://pastebin.com/FcrFs94k/22139) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PitifulView · 2019-07-21 12:12 You might want to use noscript, or at least ad block (uBlock origin is good). javascript is the big hog. otherwise, if you can get faster storage it'll be a big performance improvement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- langalangalang · 2019-07-21 12:13 Needs a ton of ram ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FUZxxl · 2019-07-21 14:35 Because it requires a lot of memory to run effectively. Typically, 1 GB RAM per TB of storage is required just for ZFS. If you are short on RAM, you should look into other file systems. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- grbler · 2019-07-21 17:34 32 bit ZFS is basically untested. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- UncleSlacky · 2019-07-21 17:42 No reason that antiX, Q4OS, Refracta, EXE Linux or even Bodhi shouldn't run well on that kind of system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Towtow10 · 2019-07-21 22:35 Good to know, any particular reason? Or have the devs just not gotten around to it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- lealxe · 2019-07-22 21:35 NetBSD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hamilcar98 · 2019-07-23 04:06 I still use a 32-bit N270 Atom laptop as well. Modern websites are just too loaded down with CSS, Javascript, and large assets to be comfortably accessed regardless of operating system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- kyleW_ne · 2019-07-23 04:24 Yeah it was my primary and just opening google docs in firefox on default Win XP took forever and I think it made working on school projects harder so I got me an Acer chromebook for like $200 something. Can run Linux in a chroot on it. FreeBSD support wasn't good for it before but things may have changed. Guess I'll keep the Atom netbook around as just an emergency backup then since it isn't ever going to be really usable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- wakwak652 · 2019-07-23 06:35 Stay with Win Xp! ;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- gumnos · 2019-07-24 14:57 The "1GB of RAM per TB of storage" myth seems to continue to persist. This is indeed a reasonable rule of thumb if you have deduplication turned on. But if you're not deduplicating (the default), ZFS works quite nicely as long as you tune your `vfs.zfs.arc_min` and `vfs.zfs.arc_max` settings in your `/boot/loader.conf` and your `kern.maxvnodes` in your `/etc/sysctl.conf` so that they don't consume all your RAM. There might be small speed penalties, but at least for me, that's a small price to pay to ensure the data doesn't get corrupted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- gumnos · 2019-07-24 14:57 only if using deduplication. [see below](https://www.reddit.com/r/BSD/ comments/cfr8hm/best_os_for_low_end_netbook/euqkdoj/) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EnzymeStu · 2019-07-25 19:51 I suggest trying NetBSD first and checking whether you get the network/audio/video support you need. OpenBSD in my experience is easier to maintain but NetBSD offers better performance, especially on low-end hardware. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- icantthinkofone · 2019-07-26 09:20 Why are telling me? I have no interest in this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- xplosm · 2019-08-04 18:17 Late reply but just my two cents: I have a very similar system in which I tried the 32-bit XFCE-based Manjaro install and the machine flies. Everything was detected, and even the Fn keys work out of the box. You could try it as a base and install a lighter DE/WM like i3, for example. Mine is an ASUS EeeePC with an Nvidia GPU. No Optimus, thank Heavens...