Still Waiting for SliTaz

Written by:  • Edited by: Michael Dougherty
Published Jul 13, 2010
• Related Guides: Puppy Linux | Linux
2

The mini distro SliTaz has made significant changes in the last year or so, and even generated some buzz by being picked as the "best" lightweight distro on another site. But has it really addressed any of the issues that keep most reviewers from wholeheartedly recommending it?

SliTaz Linux
Rating Average

Since I first wrote about SliTaz on my blog, this mini Linux distro has come along way, earning a lot of buzz when Tuxradar rated it as the best lightweight Linux out there. Unfortunately, it has yet to overcome the issues I presented in my original post, making me unable to recommend it over Puppy Linux as the best Linux for old computers.

  1. Positive Reviews: Obviously, Tuxradar loves SliTaz, but reviews listed on Distrowatch do not seem to back up Tuxradar's lofty opinion. Jun Auza considers SliTaz 2.0 "prematurely released," and Dedoimedo says it's "inadequate for laptops." Others argue that it's great as a backup system, but not for everyday use. Don't get me wrong: all reviewers recognize that SliTaz is a miraculous distro for its size, but it does not get the nearly unanimous praise that some other distros get, making it a challenge to wholeheartedly recommend it. In this area, there's little change from my previous assessment.
  2. Technical Issues: The first release had known problems with Flash and wireless support, and, unfortunately, they still seem to be issues with the newest one as well. Dedoimedo calls multimedia the "Achilles' heel" of SliTaz and was still unable to get Flash working. Wireless connectivity was also a problem for both Dedoimedo and Linuxologist. To this, I'll add the fact that SliTaz did not support my monitor resolution out of the box, another issue many others have had. The wiki made it seem easy to address this problem, but none of the tips worked for my computer. I haven't had any of these problems with Puppy Linux 3 or 4, though I'll admit version 5 only works at low resolution in Vesa.
  3. Better Than the Best? Speaking of Puppy Linux, does SliTaz have anything to offer over this superb lightweight distro other than its minuscule size? Tuxradar seems to think so, praising SliTaz's repository of over 1,000 items while complaining about Puppy Linux's limited library. However, the recent release of Puppy Linux 5 has opened up the entire realm of Ubuntu software to Puppy users, and more options will be coming in future builds. Dedoimedo, which reviewed both distros, clearly prefers Puppy Linux, particularly since "everything (wireless, multimedia) works out of the box."

SliTaz is an admirable effort from a team of smart, hard-working developers. Unlike other distros, SliTaz is not riddled with glitches and does what it was designed to do very well. Unfortunately, its appeal is rather limited. For those who want a lightweight distro that's likely to work as-is, it's hard to beat Puppy Linux. If you want an absolutely barebones distro that you build from the ground up, Tiny Core Linux, even smaller than SliTaz, is designed just for this purpose.

As an everyday operating system, SliTaz is for the few users out there who just so happen to have the hardware that SliTaz supports (i.e., older desktops with smaller screens) and whose software interests align with the developers (i.e., limited multimedia, barebones browser). Otherwise, use SliTaz as most reviewers suggest: as a tiny but powerful backup distro that can help restore and repair other computers.


Comment

Showing all 1 comments
 
Darkbee Nov 27, 2010 6:30 PM
I'm Torn
I'm torn, I've been a long time fan of Puppy Linux; it just works. Especially for older PC, it's ideal. I love it! However, I've been reading good things about Slitaz and was recently tasked with putting my mother-in-law's old Pentium 3 (450Mhz) PC to good use. I was going to install Lubuntu but had nothing but problems, although in fairness some of this stemmed from a corrupt (irrepairable) hard drive. With only a 400mb hard drive for parts, my options were limited. I elected not to go with Puppy simply because, as much as I love it, I can't help feel that it's a little "cheaply made" and feels somewhat awkward for users comfortable with Windows. It seemed like a good chance to run Slitaz 3 through its paces and I was very impressed. It runs admirably with the miniscule disk space and memory available (256MB) and I'm using it now to make this comment. While I agree that Slitaz is sometimes very cut down, lacking GUI apps to do basic settings, for an Internet browsing, instant messaging box, it works just fine. It's true that sometimes the user must go to the command line, but I think this is really only for setup. Once the PC is configured, I'm hoping my end user won't have to touch all those advanced settings. Another thing I like about Slitaz is that with very little customization I've been able to make it look and behave more like Windows, which I always found a little inconvenient with Puppy. The upshot is though, both are great distros and both have their place. I can now say I'm a fan of at least two lightweight Linux distros (three if you count Lubuntu).
 
blog comments powered by Disqus
Email to a friend