Which Linux distribution is (not) recommendable?

I was thinking of installing Linux on an old laptop I have (about 500Mhz. 128MB Ram 6GB HDD ). But there are so many versions! ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions)
Are there any especially good or bad ones? I was thinking that kanotix or ubuntu sounded good?

 

Well, I can't really tell you which distributions are bad, since I haven't tried many. But I disliked Linspire.

I recommend Ubuntu.

 

On a machine with only 128MB of ram, I's say something like DSL.

 

If you are just getting started I'd say go with Ubuntu. It's really popular which means you can google something like "ubuntu broadcom 4306" and find howtos specific to your distribution, rather than having to translate them from one distro to another (not hard if you're used to linux, but probably not fun when you are starting).

 

Do you have any experience with Linux before?

If this is your first foray into Linux, you should probably try Xubuntu, which is Ubuntu, but by default it uses Xfce instead of Gnome (Xfce is lighterweight), and it has a slightly different application set (Abiword + Gnumeric for word processing and spreadsheets instead of OpenOffice). Because it's just another version of Ubuntu, you have the same massive community support that the regular Ubuntu version has.

If you've had experience with Linux, or you're willing to just jump right into the deep end (I've heard of people doing this), I personally really like Arch Linux. It's based on a KISS philosophy (Keep It Simple Stupid...), and basically, after you're done installing it, you have a shell, package manager, a couple text editors, network access, and not a whole lot else. With Arch, you build the system up exactly how you want it. The advantage of this being that you learn a LOT more about your system and how it's put together (and hence are better prepared to fix things when they break), and you only install what you need. The last part is especially important if you have an old computer and want to keep the bloat down.

Some other options for an older computer are DSL like Lysander mentioned, or Puppy Linux, both of those are made to fit on flash drives, and hence the base install doesn't take up much space, and they're very lightweight. I can't really throw my full support behind either of those however, since I've never used Puppy, and I've only used DSL booted from a LiveCD or a flash drive.

 

I am not sure if *buntu is good choice for such old laptop - they tend to be slow. How about Zenwalk? It isn't much harder to use than buntu, and lighter.

 

Xubuntu is quite fast, even on lesser hardware. I've booted it in a VMWare image, with only 64MB allocated to it, and it worked fine. Took a little while to start up Firefox, but it works

 

I would go with Ubuntu. Keep in mind, you will need to use the Alternate install disk since you have limited ram. I have it installed on an old P-III 750 Compaq lappy. Think the ram is the same. My only gripe is it is a little slow, but look at the hardware....

 

I think you should evaluate what your goal is:
Is it to learn about linux? Or is it to simply revive an old computer?

If it's the first, then go with ArchLinux. You will have to read, a lot, and ask a lot of questions to get everything working perfectly, but you will be left with an extremely usable computer. ArchLinux is a relatively easy distrobution when weighted against it's speed and flexability.

If your goal is to quickly revive an old system go with Xubuntu. There's more 'help' out there online and it's one of the easiest distrobutions out there.

I know it can be daunting at first, but you will not regret going the ArchLinux route.

 

I'd personally recommend something like AntiX from MEPIS...
http://www.linux.com/feature/115203

 

If you are new to Linux, never go Gentoo. Only Gentoo if you really know what you are doing.

Since the computer is only 500 MHz and 128 MB ram, stay away from the more known Linux distributions (i.e. Ubuntu, SuSE, Fedora, Mandriva). If you must, do not choose Gnome or KDE as your desktop environment. It is too slow for your hardware. Pick a more lightweight window manager like Xfce. With those aging hardware specifications, I would pick Damn Small Linux (DSL) or Puppy Linux.

It won't look at pretty as Gnome or KDE, but your hardware will crawl with the newer Linux distributios.

 

Even if you ARE a Linux, or even a Gentoo veteran, I wouldn't recommend it on a 500 MHz computer. It would just take too long to compile anything on a machine like that.

 

it really depends, gui or cli..........then again I guess most dont use linux for just a simple command interface

 

I'm going to stand by ArchLinux. I'll tell you right now that ArchLinux with xfce will be your best combination of speed and usability. I have a pentium-m laptop and even when scaled to 600mhz the computer is completely usable. ArchLinux is a binary distro but it's i686-- meaning that you'll have the same speed of Gentoo without having to manually compile everything. Just trust me- ArchLinux is your best bet.

My Rule of Thumb: New hardware, and you want easy use Ubuntu
questionable hardware, or you just want speed go with ArchLinux

 

Zenwalk, DSL, or Xubuntu. Check out www.distrowatch.com for a more comprehensive list of Linux distros.