As I come up with linux ,I found the commands are different in OpenSuse and Ubuntu.
Which of them is suitable to somebody who was new in linux and want to master the command
needed when programming and using linux?
I got the impression that OpenSuSE did some things a little unconventionally (kdesu, gksu), but it's a fine (KDE) distro. I've found (K)Ubuntu is a little better for beginners since it has access to huge compiled package repositories, plus the community is unbeatable.
They're pretty similar for most things, including programming.
Whichever one the people around you can ask questions of know. The value of a knowledgeable support network vastly outweigh the benefits of a particular distribution. If you don't have a local support network, I'd go with Ubuntu, they tend to have more useful resources on the 'net (and it's the distro I'd prefer out of those two options).
Any of Ubuntu/Slackware/Gentoo should be fine as a development environment. You didn't mention what kind of programming you're interested in, and that may have some influence on the answer, too.
If you are at all interested in making better code I also recommend dual booting (or running a 2nd computer) into a non-Linux system such as OpenBSD/FreeBSD, OpenSolaris, etc. Writing code that's portable across UNIX systems isn't just a good idea for portability's sake, it can also help shake out some bugs. The same can be said for working with 32-bit vs. 64-bit, big endian vs. little endian platforms. You can pick up an old 64-bit Sun workstation for cheap and use it to test your code.
We'd have to know your preferences better to be able to answer that. Basically any LINUX would do i guess. I heard nice feedback from Ubuntu, though.
I'm running on Ubuntu right now. It was easier than windows to get running. Very smooth. Of course, advanced functions are beyond me right now. With C# classes and everything else I gave up on trying to learn too much and just run it as is. It has a very good user interface, and I've heard a new version is out or coming out as well, probably more eye candy.
Check out Ubuntu. Doing a dual boot can't hurt since then you can try it out! You can also run some distributions straight off the disc to try them out.... Can't hurt to try it when it is free. Much more stable for me than XP, and faster. I HOPE Windows 7 ends up being less of a monster! I'd stick with Ubuntu if it was more compatible with windows programs. .NET development while in school typically isn't done on a Linux distribution!
best wishes, try it out!
I prefer Ubuntu. my 2 cents...
They are tools. Use the one that you are most comfortable with. Really calling them tools isn't a good analogy. Better is to call them vehicles. Use the vehicle that fits your needs and desires.
Actually , as a programmer you would face such questions everyday. Which framework? which language? which data structure ? ... you get the idea. There is no right answer.
Choose any. They are not too different. Soon you would not be a "new learner" and then it wouldn't matter anyway.
Depending on how deeply you want to learn, one possible candidate distro would be Linux From Scratch. It also has awesome documentation and by playing with it will surely make you think more "Linux"-way.
This is a very hard question; most distros aim to be "the best", or at least "good enough" for a wide variety of activities, of course including programming.
It's also an issue that easily spawn "wars", where people fight to claim that the distribution they use is the best, and that all others should conform. Heh.
My current preference is for Gentoo, and I think one (probably minor) advantage it has when programming is that since it is a source-based distribution, you typically never need to bother to get the "development version" of packages. If you have e.g. readline installed, you will have its header file(s) too, and so on. Many other distros split packages into "user" and "developer" versions, so you need to install both packages.
Of course, I guess in those cases the developer packages depend on the non-developer versions anyway, so if you always install developer versions, you'd be all set. Oh well. Nevermind, then. :)
When choosing a linux distro I usually consider two things:
1: packaging system (and release cycle):
Opensuse probably has the most up to date packages of any distro (without building your own), Ubuntu's packaging system tends to hold your hand a little bit more though. I have used both and found that as a developer I slightly preferred Opensuse since it was easier to get the latest versions of development packages (for example, IDEs).
2: default configuration/ease of administration:
All linux distros have their quirks here. Both Opensuse and Ubuntu are well documented and have good support forums. Opensuse has Yast which is a nice one stop shop for most configuration tasks. Ubuntu seems to be slightly better at automatically configuring itself. Really, either distro is fine here.
The good news is that there is not a wrong decision per se. I have used a lot (more than 10) linux distributions and I now stick to Opensuse. Ubuntu was a close second, the only reason that I don't use it is that I found I was often stuck waiting for its 6 month release cycle to get up to date dev packages (building the monodevelop beta was not feasible at the time). Opensuse's build service and the Packman third party repository seem to keep nearly current packages for everything I've ever wanted.
I use Gentoo and Ubuntu for development.
Gentoo I love because I can so easily select which packages I have available and which versions. The guy that did Flash 9 and 10 does his development on a Gentoo system as well.
Ubuntu I enjoy now because it's so stable. After a few years, a Gentoo installation will tend toward some instabilities that require sometimes rebuilding the whole installation.
Another I'd look at is Slackware.
The principles are mostly the same over the different distributions, so I'd suggest you to choose one and dig in. However, there are some considerations to make. If you want to program gui programs you need to make a decision about which graphic toolkit library to use (Qt, Gtk+ ...), which would also imply the choice of your desktop environment (GNOME, KDE, XFCE). As you will notice, in Linux world everything (or almost everything) depends on something else. I'm talking about the packages. It is quite common to reuse available libraries and not write your own so the decisions you would probably have to make are about which libraries/frameworks to use and which language.
I, however, chose Ubuntu and don't feel sorry at all.
It depends on what you want to do. If you want something easy to setup and basically just works, use Ubuntu. If you want to /learn/ Linux, I would recommend Slackware. Getting Slackware up and running will force you to know HOW and WHAT is going on with your installation. This can be good or bad, depending on your desires.
Ubuntu fits the build and the community is very helpful.
If your exploring Linux / GNU as a programmer, you might consider selecting a distribution that uses the apt packaging tool.
You will likely need to install lots of libraries with development headers and obtain the source code to other things. Apt makes it quite simple to do such things, it is very good at resolving package dependencies and fetching source packages.
Distributions using apt (either with .deb or .rpm packages) are Debian, Ubuntu (and its forks) and others.
That being said, Ubuntu does a really good job at keeping up to date with recent libraries and tools, while resisting the urge to cherry pick alpha / unstable code. My desktop is my development machine, I use Ubuntu.
I would vote for Ubuntu. The principles are the same while some of the "commands" are different. I assume you mean differences such as "sudo".
I'm very happy with my Ubuntu Server which handles all my development Windows VMs. I even used Ubuntu desktop on my laptop for a time...at least until I needed Visual Studio on it again. :-)
EDIT - "sudo" does exist in OpenSUSE
Gentoo is the easiest to use. I'd go with that
Related
I'm just starting to learn Rails (Rails 3 specifically), and everything I see leans toward working in Linux to make things easier. Since I'm bound to Windows for work, I'll be running Linux in a VM. Are there any Linux distros that are well suited for Rails development? Please give some kind of justification for your recommendations.
Go with whatever goes well for you. There's no need for a particular distro to develop in any language.
My advice to avoid installing useless stuff is to install Debian (maybe a testing version if you want the latest software) or Slackware.
I find Arch to be great for customizing to do anything so also dev environment, it's really easy to setup (as vbox guest for example) and you can easily handpick many tools from either the main repos or AUR.
If you use anything even remotely mainstream there will be packages for everything you need in the repository. Configuration is going to be broadly similar across distributions as well, with only a few minor differences.
I'd suggest looking at one of Open Suse, Fedora, or Ubuntu. All of those distributions are going to be fairly newbie friendly. Open Suse lets you select XFCE as your desktop environment, and Xubuntu is an ubuntu variant that uses xfce instead of gnome. You might want to look at one of these options if you're running in a VM since xfce is slightly lighter weight than gnome (although not all that much lighter these days).
ubuntu 9.04, fedora 11, redhat...
what are the differences from a web server/development standpoint?
None. They differ only in how they package things, but they're all essentially the same - same operating system, same software. Some people get quite emotional about this choice, but I've used several, and there's nothing to pick between them these days.
I like to choose linux distros based on whichever ones have the most help available online. I'd probably go with CentOS or Ubuntu for that reason.
Use whatever your hardware vendor is happy to support. If you're serious about running a production system, you will use a supported OS.
Having said that, most vendors don't officially support Centos, however it is sufficiently similar (i.e. almost identical) to Redhat Enterprise that they ignore the difference.
Your code might run anywhere, but your hardware vendor's tools probably won't. You'll want to use those.
For tomcat there is not any difference but as a server: Ubuntu is more cutting edge in terms of kernel and packages. Ubuntu package management is superior and easier. If you will prefer Ubuntu then use server edition it is optimized as a server. CentOS is said to be solid but I haven't got much experience with it. If you are considering a virtual server different distros have different level of support for different virtualization technologies just keep it in your mind.
If you are new to linux, then I defiantly recommend Ubuntu. You can be up and running in now time with apt-get.
How to migrate to *nix platform after spending more than 10 years on windows? Which flavor will be easy to handle to make me more comfortable and then maybe I can switch over to more stadard *nix flavors?
I have been postponing for a while now. Help me with the extra push.
Linux is the most accessible and has the most mature desktop functionality. BSD (in its various flavours) has less userspace baggage and would be easier to understand at a fundamental level. In this regard it is more like a traditional Unix than a modern Linux distribution. Some might view this as a good thing (and from certain perspectives it is) but will be more alien to someone familiar with Windows.
The main desktop distributions are Ubuntu and Fedora. These are both capable systems but differ somewhat in their userspace architecture The tooling for the desktop environment and default configuration for system security works a bit differently on Ubuntu than it does on most other Linux or Unix flavours but this is of little relevance to development. From a user perspective either of these would be a good start.
From a the perspective of a developer, all modern flavours of Unix and Linux are very similar and share essentially the same developer tool chain. If you want to learn about the system from a programmer's perspective there is relatively little to choose.
Most unix programming can be accomplished quite effectively with a programmer's editor such as vim or emacs, both of which come in text mode and windowing flavours. These editors are very powerful and have rather quirky user interfaces - the user interfaces are ususual but contribute significantly to the power of the tools. If you are not comfortable with these tools, this posting discusses several other editors that offer a user experience closer to common Windows tooling.
There are several IDEs such as Eclipse that might be of more interest to someone coming off Windows/Visual Studio.
Some postings on Stackoverflow that discuss linux/unix resources are:
What are good linux-unix books for an advancing user
What are some good resources for learning C beyond K&R
Resources for learning C program design
If you have the time and want to do a real tour of the nuts and bolts Linux From Scratch is a tutorial that goes through building a linux installation by hand. This is quite a good way to learn in depth.
For programming, get a feel for C/unix from K&R and some of the resources mentioned in the questions linked above. The equivalent of Petzold, Prosise and Richter in the Unix world are W Richard Stevens' Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment and Unix Network Programming vol. 1 and 2.
Learning one of the dynamic languages such as Perl or Python if you are not already familiar with these is also a useful thing to do. As a bonus you can get good Windows ports of both the above from Activestate which means that these skills are useful on both platforms.
If you're into C++ take a look at QT. This is arguably the best cross-platform GUI toolkit on the market and (again) has the benefit of a skill set and tool chain that is transferrable back into Windows. There are also several good books on the subject and (as a bonus) it also works well with Python.
Finally, Cygwin is a unix emulation layer that runs on Windows and gives substantially unix-like environment. Architecturally, Cygwin is a port of glibc and the crt (the GNU tool chain's base libraries) as an adaptor on top of Win32. This emulation layer makes it easy to port unix/linux apps onto Cygwin. The platform comes with a pretty complete set of software - essentially a full linux distribution hosted on a Windows kernel. It allows you to work in a unix-like way on Windows without having to maintain a separate operating system installations. If you don't want to run VMs, multiple boots or multiple PCs it may be a way of easing into unix.
Ubuntu is nicely balanced, with a user friendly desktop but the potential to set up a fully functional programming environment.
I would advise experimenting with virtual machines - there is no reason to ditch your current setup until you've tried a few of the major distributions. VMware and others have a wide variety of server and desktop builds available.
I guess it also depends on what programming languages your are comfortable with.
If you worked with C# in the past then you could look at using the knowledge by running Mono , or maybe look at using Java (which is syntactically very similar). Either way Linux would be good.
I personally would recommend you look at the Mac's OS X. Its a unix BSD based OS, but with a really slick user interface over the top. To me it feels like the best of both the Windows and Unix worlds.
I do all my unix development on it, deploying onto Ubuntu servers. If you do look at a Mac, definitely take a look at the MacPorts project, which packages a large amount of the open source unix/linux software up making installation of programming tools incredibly easy.
Ubuntu seems to be very user-friendly, and has a lot of specific information for it in forums etc. So support-wise you'll be covered.
I experienced the shift from windows to ubuntu as very much do-able, things you can do graphically in windows can be done exactly the same in ubuntu (maybe some exceptions) and a bit more. A computer savvy individual should not have any problems.
However, it helps greatly if you are familiar with the basic shell commands (you'll need them as a programmer!). Some are the same as on windows but especially ls (dir) sometimes has me wracking my brain for "what was that command again", and vice versa when I'm back on windows.
Take some time to try them out. (for example: pwd, ls, mv, rm, ps, kill)
Finally, when installing programs often a simple "sudo apt-get install X " does all the work for you, even more user friendly than the windows installer executables I find.
Edit: You might want to try a VMware player and try a few linux distributions to play around in before you install the dual boot.
Get a macbook pro. OSX is the smoothest flavour of unix and the laptop should give you the push you need.
Then when you're feeling more confident, you can decide whether or not you want to spend most of your time configuring your soundcard, running ./autoconfigure && make, and debugging package manager screwups.
Any modern version of Unix (or Linux) you can get running on your machine will be fine.
Here are the ones that I would consider:
Ubuntu. As others have noted, this is often considered to be the easiest to use. However some parts are not "standard" Unix. For example, the startup scripts do not use init. This is mostly a good thing, but if you're trying to learn Unix may not be what you need.
Fedora. Bleeding edge but with rough edges.
Slackware. Possibly the most Unix-like Linux distribution (some would say dated!).
One of the *BSDs: FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD. Different approach to some things than Linux.
Solaris. This is "proper" Unix. Seems bare-bones compared with Linux but worth playing with to see what's "standard."
In fact, I would consider running at least a couple of them, most run fine as a VM. One of the good and bad things about Unix is that what's standardised is more the philosophy than many of the details. There's no Visual Studio, there's no C# (by that I mean no canonical high level language; I know about Mono).
Excellent answers. A few comments:
Almost all distros support LiveCDs, to let you try before installing. folks mentioned VMWare and VirtualBox, also note that Ubuntu's WUBI installer lets you install Linux under Windows without repartitioning; very nice; I used it when I first switched to my 64-bit system, since I wasn't sure how good the driver support was. Ubuntu 9.04 works great in 64, though. Also, since Ubuntu is so popular, that are many versions, Kubuntu uses KDE instead of Gnome, Mint and Xubuntu are both lighter weight.
Expect to run side-by-side for a while when transitioning from Windows. Cygwin has some nice downloadable manuals for people getting used to bash, and basic information about how *nix works underneath, targeted at Windows users. There are tons of useful sites; the Ubuntu community forums have a tremendous amount of information, for both beginners and advanced.
For getting used to developing under Linux, check the Linux documentation project. In addition to KDevelop, there's Anjuta, Eclipse, and many more. Some are light, some are heavyweight.
One thing that can ease the transition is to use software that runs in both operating systems. Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, Subversion, and hundreds if not thousands of others run fine in both Linux and Windows. And with very little effort, you can use the same folders for application settings and data for many of these. Firefox and Thunderbird can easily use the same folders/files on an NTFS partition. Makes dual booting much easier. Instructions are on the Ubuntu community site and other locations.
Note that some Linux software isn't NTFS friendly; in Linux keep your Subversion working folders on a native partition.
One caveat for sharing application settings; some applications store absolute paths; as a workaround, you can create symlinks that look like Windows drive letters.
After you get comfortable with Linux, branch out and try non-Windowsy applications and tools. Sometimes different is better. Lots of people use Emacs and Vim for good reasons.
Try Kubuntu as a distro and Kdevelop and Qt to start programming with, it's all very civilised.
Kate's an ok notepad-esque text editor if you want to go that way but I don't see why you'd want to get in to Vi or Emacs apart from the geeky appeal of using something really arcane.
In my Operating Systems class we are looking to modify a Linux kernel with some simple system calls of our own in C.
What would be a good distro suited for this purpose? We don't need any frills, no GUI, a vanilla kernel, etc. The more basic the better.
I was able to modify the kernel pretty easily using a minimal Gentoo install.
Just install gentoo, follow the installation instructions, then:
$ emerge gentoo-sources
$ emerge emacs
$ cd /usr/src/linux
In my operating systems course last semester we used User Mode Linux, the big advantage being that when you hose the system, you can simply kill the process with no risk to the host environment.
Adding/Modifying system calls is tedious but trivial regardless of the kernel you use. However the 2.6 kernel is significantly more massive and complex, so if you're going to be modifying the code in a significant way the older kernels are easier to work with and much better documented. (ie: easier to find books and references)
Happy hacking :)
archlinux++
but really.. gentoo, slack, and arch are all more-or-less good choices
Arch Linux provides a great platform for kernel development that is also very functional. If you learn to use pacman, it will actually make testing your kernel modifications quite easily and provides the sources and tools in a sane manner.
I do think that if you are serious about learning linux and kernel hacking, doing a Linux From Scratch install should be on your list. It's a great distro/book and will let you build the platform for development yourself.
On all distributions, you can install the vanilla kernel.org sources instead of the distribution-related kernel packages, which is probably a good idea anyway when you want to do kernel development.
However, you'll be in trouble when you want to use any recent distribution with non-2.6 kernels, because they often build libc6 in a way that it cannot run with 2.4. Additionally, a lot of the guts of hardware management (like udev) require fairly recent kernels.
Apart from that, using Debian gives you a barebone system, and installing your own kernels is a breeze with kernel-package.
I wouldn't necessarily say any particular distro is geared towards kernel development as such, but if you want a traditional Linux distro that doesn't pile too much custom configuration stuff between you and the kernel, Slackware is a decent choice.
My suggestion is to grab the latest kernel. There will be more debugging features inside it than in an older kernel. Also, older kernels would pretty much look just as complex as the most recent to the newbie.
As for the distribution itself, you can't really go wrong. If all you want is to try some custom system calls, then grab whatever mainstream distribution which gives you a nice development environment. Then compile and try your customized glibc without installing it over the distro's.
When choosing a distro for kernel development, remember that it's the kernel you want to hack, not the distro itself. You will therefor want an easy distro that stays out of your way as much as possible. Ubuntu says out of the way fairly nicely.
IANAKH
A non-linux alternative is Geek OS, but this is very much aimed at the educational level, and is not a practical kernel. It is ultra-simple though.
well I have found one called "minix" it isn't really a linux distro, but it was made specifically for teaching, but if you can only use a linux distro, then it shouldn't matter, I am pretty sure all distros have the same kernel
Gentoo if you dont mind automated compilation (most people think that gentoo is Linux From Scratch => you have to do everything on your own).
Arch if you have slower computer (laptop).
Biggest advantage of these two is that they have very very good documentation and only installing Gentoo f.e. gives you basic knowledge about init system and what services has to run. If one copy&paste commands from guide it's worthless though (luckily handbook makes people think a bit, thus preventing kids from installing gentoo and taking over our neat #irc) :D
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to build a lightweight linux configuration to use for development. The first idea is to use it inside a Virtual Machine under Windows, or old Laptops with 1Gb RAM top. Maybe even a distributable environment for developers.
So the whole idea is to use a LAMP server, Java Application Server (Tomcat or Jetty) and X Windows (any Window manager, from FVWM to Enlightment), Eclipse, maybe jEdit and of course Firefox.
Edit: I am changing this post to compile a possible list of distros and window managers that can be used to configure a real lightweight development environment.
I am using as base personal experiences on this matter. Info about the distros can be easily found in their sites. So please, focus on personal use of those systems
Distros
Ubuntu / Xubuntu
Pros:
Personal Experience in old systems or low RAM environment - #Schroeder, #SCdF
Several sugestions based on personal knowledge - #Kyle, #Peter Hoffmann
Gentoo
Pros:
Not targeted to Desktop Users - #paan
Don't come with a huge ammount of applications - #paan
Slackware
Pros:
Suggested as best performance in a wise install/configuration - #Ryan
Damn Small Linux
Pros:
Main focus is the lightweight factor - 50MB LiveCD - #Ryan
Debian
Pros:
Very versatile, can be configured for both heavy and lightweight computers - #Ryan
APT as package manager - #Kyle
Based on compatibility and usability - #Kyle
-- Fell Free to add Prós and Cons on this, so we can compile a good Reference.
-- X Windows suggestion keep coming about XFCE. If others are to add here, open a session for it Like the distro one :)
Try using Gentoo, Most distros with X are targetted towards desktop user and by default includes a lot of other application you don't need and at the same time lacks a lot of the stuff you need. YOu could customize the install but usually a lot of useless stuff will get into the 'base' install anyway.
If you worried about compile time, you can specify portage(the getoo package management system) to fetch binaries when available instead of compiling. It allows you to get the flexibility of installing a system with only the stuff you want.
I used gentoo and never went back.
http://www.gentoo.org/
I installed Arch (www.archlinux.org) on my old MacMini (there is a PPC version) which only has 512MB RAM and a single 2.05GHz processor and it absolutely flys!
It is almost bare after installation, so about a lightweight as you can get.. but comes with pacman, a software package manager, which is as-good-as apt-get (ubuntu/debian) if not better.
You have a choice of installing many desktop managers such as: awesome, dwm, wmii, fvwm, GNOME, XFCE, KDE, etc.. straight from pacman using a single line of code.
In my opinion(!!) it's lightweight like Gentoo but a binary distro so it isn't as much hassle (although I can imagine it can be a little daunting if you're new to Linux). I had a system running (with X and awesome WM) in about 1.5 hours!
I'm in a similar situation to Schroeder; having a laptop with 512mb RAM is a PITA. I tried running Xubuntu but tbh I didn't find it that it was either useable or a great saver on RAM. So I switched to Ubuntu and it's worked out pretty well.
My 2c:
I'd recommend basing your system on Debian - the apt system has become the de-facto way to quickly install and update programs on Linux. Ubuntu is Debian based with an emphasis on usability and compatibility. As for windowing managers, in my opinion Xfce hits the right balance between being lightweight and functional. The Ubuntu-based Xubuntu would probably be a good match.
Remember - for security only install essential network services like SSH.
If it were my decision, I would set up a PXE boot server to easily install Ubuntu Server Edition to any computer on the network. The reason why I would choose Ubuntu is because it's the one I've had the most experience with and the one I can easily find help for. If I needed a windowing manager for the particular installation, I would also install either Xfce or Blackbox. In fact, I have an old laptop in my basement that I've set up in exactly this way and it's worked out quite well for me.
I would recommend to use Archlinux which I'm using now. XFCE is my choice for desktop environment by now but if you prefer more lightweight one you can try LXDE
Archlinux is much like Gentoo but with binary packages prebuilt and with more simpler configuration
If all those distos still won't work for you, you may want to try LFS - Linux From Scratch
I would recommend Xubuntu. It's based on Ubuntu/Debian and optimized for small footprint with the Xfce desktop environment.
I am writing this on a Centrino 1.5GHz, 512MB RAM running Ubuntu. It's Debian based and is the first Linux distro I have tried that actually worked with my laptop on first install. Find more info here.
Second the Arch suggestion. You will be tinkering quite a few configuration files to get everything going, but I've found none better for a lean and mean setup.
I suggest you should checkout the following three distros:
Damn Small Linux - Very lightweight. Includes its own lightweight browser (Dillo), but you can install Firefox easily. The entire distro fits on a 50MB LiveCD.
Slackware - Performance wise Slackware will probably perform the best out of the three, but I'd suggest running your own benchmarks with your hardware.
Debian- Debian is extremely versatile. This is the only distro of the three I'd recommend for both a 32 bit 1GB RAM laptop and also a 4GB RAM 64 bit machine.
I would recommend something mcuh lighter than XFCE: IceWM. It takes so time to configure it to be really usable, but it's worth it. I have a fully running IceWM which only takes about 5MB of RAM.
The primary reason I use Linux is because it can be lightweight. In 1999, I used Redhat, Mandrake (now Mandriva), and Debian. All were faster and more lightweight than my typical Windows 98 installations.
Not so anymore. I now have to research and experiment in order to find distros that are lightweight in both storage and memory footprint, and speedy. These are the ones I have played with lately:
Slitaz, a French distro (I use the English version and it works well).
Crunchbang, a lightweight Ubuntu and Debian-derived distro
Crux, which is source-only and very low-level geeky (I chose it because it has good support for PowerPC, and I was using it on my aging Powerbook G4)
Currently, however, I use Archlinux for most of my work, as it offers a good compromise between lightweight and feature-full.
But if you decide to roll your own distro from scratch, you may want to try Buildroot or Openembedded. I do not have much experience yet with Openembedded, but using Buildroot I have been able to create a very simple OS that boots quickly, loads only what I want, and only takes up 7 MB of storage space (adding development tools will increase this greatly, of course; I am merely using it as an ssh terminal, although I can do some editing with vi, and some text-only web browsing).
As far as window managers, I have been very happy with OpenBox. I frequently experiment with lighter-weight window mangers listed on this page, however.
here is my opinions as well. I have used Fedora, Gentoo, SliTaz, Archlinux, and Puppy Linux for development. The constraints: the system virtual image had to be under 800mb to allow for easy download and include all necessary software. The system had to be fast and customizable. It had to support version control SVN and Git, XAMPP or LAMP, SHH client, window environment (X or whatever) with latest video drivers/higher resolution, and some graphical manipulation software for images.
I tried Archlinux, Puppy, and SliTaz. I have to say that SliTaz was the easiest to work with and to set up. The complete base-OS install from the image is around 120mb using the cooking version. TazPkg is a great package manager but some of the listed packages were outdated. Some of the latest versions needed to be built from source code.
SliTaz is extremely lightweight and you have to live with some older packages in the supported TazPkg package list. There is increasing support and XAMPP, Java, Perl, Python, and SVN port well using TazPkg with latest versions. SliTaz is all about customization and lightweight. The final size was 800mb with all necessary software. ArchLinux and Pupppy, although also lightweight were over 1.5GB after all of the software was installed. The base systems were not comparable to SliTaz.
If anyone is interested in a virtual image for SliTaz with XAMPP to try out, contact away and link will be posted.
All the best and happy development! :)