Most lightweight distro?

Off topic: How did you managed to get wicd to work with both Ethernet and wifi without having wicd to crash/or become unusable.

 

I've never had that problem. My wicd works perfectly well with anything I throw at it.

If you're having those problems, it might be because your daemons aren't properly set. The wicd daemon has to be started without the network and networkmanager daemons running. Also, any calls to dbus must happen before the call to wicd. The hal daemon calls dbus automatically, so it should also come before wicd.

 

in ubuntu, network-manager and network-manager-gnome are removed when installing wicd so they shouldn't cause a problem. not sure about other distros. one of the things i like about wicd over the default nm is if you get kicked off or disassociated from the access point, there's an option you can select to 'reconnect if disconnected.' i used to use swatch to reconnect with a script but wicd's way is much more efficient. and it's definitely more predictable than network manager.

 

I've tried Linpus Linux and it's fairly lightweight, but the only thing though is that it's not very customizable and definitely not well supported.

But the GUI does look really good (it uses a really nicely modified xfce).

 

My biggest gripe against Network Manager is that it requires nm-applet to start working, which generally means you have to enter runlevel 5 to start it. Wicd is simpler. Once it's been configured, it will automatically connect to an available access point when the wicd daemon is called at boot. That way, even if you remain in runlevel 3, you can still have WLAN.

I know there are even more basic, purely CLI ways of doing that, but I find wicd to be by far the easiest method.

 

Agreed. I love Wicd. Doing a replacement now as I forgot to

 

In arch, you must know that no one is going to hold your hand. When you install networkmanager and wicd, neither one will be remove but neither one will start unless you setup your daemon properly. When using pacman, it does inform you confliction but you are pretty much the end-user and administrator. One of the reason I switch over to arch, I am more in control, real clean install of linux, no more 6 month reinstallation, and learn how linux work in a week than using ubuntu for nearly a year. Even eeepc's xandros taught me a few thing about the terminal that I would never use in ubuntu.

Of course, ubuntu is very stable, more people use it, and focus more on security.

Right now, I am using wicd but I am afraid of checking off "alway show wired interface" since that alway cause wicd to crash/not usable. I want to use wicd since its does not use any dependency. Another minor problem is that it does not show much of other network when using your own. Is that normal?

Edit: Nevermind, I took the risk and it appear that wicd have improved over the last time I use (3-4 month ago).

 

i know what you mean. i've spent the last few years installing different distros over and over on laptops. you learn really quick when your primary laptop doesn't boot up. randomly. on several occassions. with no x. or network. etc, etc. i also still have fedora core 3 running on one laptop so i can understand the manual process people go through. of course, my issues stem from things not being supported so it has to be done by hand, so to say. a lot of people go into ubuntu/linux backwards. you should let the o/s beat you up for a while then when you know it's most intimiate details, you know how and why to automate them. i'm at a point now where i don't mind ubuntu holding my hand. of course, i know how to get my dinner and movie out of linux instead of getting raped.

 

if you know what youre doing the most lightweight would be a source/compiled based distro like gentoo (i think slack also? never used it though)

if you dont know what youre doing though dont do this as it will take forever and a day to set up...

 

I've installed about 100 distros just this summer.
lol