Ubuntu is becoming bloated!

[Dekkon]

This is probably just in my personal opinion. About 66% of the stuff that comes with a default install of Ubuntu is unneeded for me but could be useful for others. Therefor, I am purposing a different method that could be still be simple for new users, yet advanced enough for us who want Amarok installed over Rhythmbox.

http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/17358/

Solution number six, just wanted to see what peoples opinion on this matter is? and any further solutions to this or you see this as not a problem.

[odda]

This is probably just in my personal opinion. About 66% of the stuff that comes with a default install of Ubuntu is unneeded for me but could be useful for others. Therefor, I am purposing a different method that could be still be simple for new users, yet advanced enough for us who want Amarok installed over Rhythmbox.

http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/17358/

Solution number six, just wanted to see what peoples opinion on this matter is? and any further solutions to this or you see this as not a problem.

Mandriva did that about 4 years ago, when installing let you chose what apps to install, i have not been on mandy for a couple of years so....

[Dekkon]

Mandriva did that about 4 years ago, when installing let you chose what apps to install, i have not been on mandy for a couple of years so....

It's somewhat similar to what I had in mind. Fedora also does this with there DVD(I think), and Net Installer, but this can be very cumbersome for new users because they don't know what programs they want.

I purposed that we give them options and ask them what they want to do with there computer, they select that they want to listen to music, watch movies, browse and check there email, and sync there blackberry, and then they have to worry about unneeded crap in there case, but someone else might want that unneeded crap. ;)

[avaralom]

I like the idea of having a more detailed installer. But also having the option to basically install everything for people who don't know, or want all that stuff.

I know there's a bunch of programs I installed and others I went back and uninstalled because I had no need for them.

[Mehall]

I like the idea of having a more detailed installer. But also having the option to basically install everything for people who don't know, or want all that stuff.

I know there's a bunch of programs I installed and others I went back and uninstalled because I had no need for them.

Instead of having options on install, there should be "Ubuntu desktop" and "Ubuntu Desktop lite" like many distro's have. Even if they kept OO.o in instead of using Gnumeric/Abiword, they could still make a very lite version, which would be ideal for those wanting to customise it. (K/X)Ubuntu is one of the few ditro's I see that have a bunch of "excess" programs and don't offer a lite version.

My beloved Crunchbang Linux (an Ubuntu derivative) however, does (and a EEE version :P)

[quazi]

On the other hand, it's not all that difficult to open up synaptic after an install and purge everything which you don't need. Sure, you might end up not COMPLETELY maximizing your disk space, but if a few megabytes here and there matter, you probably need a larger hard drive.

[Faolan84]

Instead of having options on install, there should be "Ubuntu desktop" and "Ubuntu Desktop lite" like many distro's have. Even if they kept OO.o in instead of using Gnumeric/Abiword, they could still make a very lite version, which would be ideal for those wanting to customise it. (K/X)Ubuntu is one of the few ditro's I see that have a bunch of "excess" programs and don't offer a lite version.

My beloved Crunchbang Linux (an Ubuntu derivative) however, does (and a EEE version :P)

I don't ever recall OpenSuSE or Fedora ever having a lite version. Most of the big distros do not carry a light version, but they do offer other desktop environments to be installed with a lighter set of apps: ie, Xubuntu or you can set OpenSuSE to install XFCE instead of Gnome during the install.

[Mehall]

I don't ever recall OpenSuSE or Fedora ever having a lite version. Most of the big distros do not carry a light version, but they do offer other desktop environments to be installed with a lighter set of apps: ie, Xubuntu or you can set OpenSuSE to install XFCE instead of Gnome during the install.



Fair point on both of those I suppose.

[Vince4Amy]

It has been for a long time but in all fairness it's not supposed to be designed for older PCs. Fedora is already much lighter than Ubuntu and achieves the same thing, but the point is Ubuntu isn't really intended to be light.

[Giant Speck]

It has been for a long time but in all fairness it's not supposed to be designed for older PCs. Fedora is already much lighter than Ubuntu and achieves the same thing, but the point is Ubuntu isn't really intended to be light.

True. Ubuntu's recommended minimum system requirements are:


700 MHz x86 processor
384 MB of system memory (RAM)
8 GB of disk space

This puts Ubuntu 8.10 somewhere between Windows XP Professional and Windows Vista Home Basic in terms of hardware requirements.*

* This statement is for comparison purposes only. This statement is not meant to compare Ubuntu to Windows in any aspect other than minimum system requirements. Due to differing system configurations, your actual hardware requirements may vary.

[Eisenwinter]

On the other hand, it's not all that difficult to open up synaptic after an install and purge everything which you don't need.
Yeah, like evolutin. Oops, what's that? Gnome crashed? Damn.

[Vince4Amy]

That's more a flaw of a dependency handling distro and just a pure Gnome mess up than it is completely Ubuntus fault.

[smartboyathome]

How about we go to profile-based setups, like Arch is now doing with AIF?

[Faolan84]

Evolution is a piece of crap that should never have to be installed alongside Gnome if you don't want it. If those functions are really that important they should be moved to a library and renamed something to the tune of: "libgcontactserver" or "libgnomeevo."

In fact, I personally think the Ubuntu should replace Evolution with Thunderbird and do all the necessary work so that that it works without messing anything up. The current solution is to spread out the the shared parts of Evolution into several vaguely named libraries -- which then the unsuspecting noob deletes and Gnome begins to become unstable OR you are prompted with the option to install most of Gnome.

As for the calendar feature -- yeah, I got that too -- it's called Sunbird and it's awesome. If you want something more integrated you can try the Lightning plug-in for Thunderbird. Or just use Seamonkey if you want an all in one solution.

Also, if more improvements were made for Xfce (4.8 and 4.10 are going to be awesome, you just see), then most of the distros might just start dropping the bloated mess that Gnome is becoming.


Oh, and also I am not a Gnome hater and for the record I am actually using it right now on OpenSuSE which is actually a decent distro. My only beef is that Mono in my opinion needs to be scrapped in it's present form. Honestly, what is the point of using a byte compiled language. Why not just make a gcc-mono extension and compile it to machine code? That way there is no man-in-the-middle and everything runs faster. Or is there something that makes this concept of compilation impossible with C# and the rest?

[Tibuda]

Evolution is a piece of crap that should never have to be installed alongside Gnome if you don't want it. If those functions are really that important they should be moved to a library and renamed something to the tune of: "libgcontactserver" or "libgnomeevo."

In fact, I personally think the Ubuntu should replace Evolution with Thunderbird and do all the necessary work so that that it works without messing anything up. The current solution is to spread out the the shared parts of Evolution into several vaguely named libraries -- which then the unsuspecting noob deletes and Gnome begins to become unstable OR you are prompted with the option to install most of Gnome.I prefer Evolution over Thunderbird, but I agree that dependency should be fixed. Everyone should be able to not use Evolution if they prefer an alternative (including webmail).

My only beef is that Mono in my opinion needs to be scrapped in it's present form. Honestly, what is the point of using a byte compiled language. Why not just make a gcc-mono extension and compile it to machine code? That way there is no man-in-the-middle and everything runs faster. Or is there something that makes this concept of compilation impossible with C# and the rest?I don't undesrtand very much about compiling stuff, but Mono apps are not slow for me.

[Faolan84]

I don't undesrtand very much about compiling stuff, but Mono apps are not slow for me.


Mono apps run slower on older computers such as my HP Pavilion that I got back in 2001. It has had its share of upgrades done to it but I can still get kind of slow at times. Some Mono apps like Banshee and Beagle can be too much for it. Although, Banshee has gotten a lot better recently at not stalling up mu box, it does still happen sometimes.

[Tibuda]

Mono apps run slower on older computers such as my HP Pavilion that I got back in 2001. It has had its share of upgrades done to it but I can still get kind of slow at times. Some Mono apps like Banshee and Beagle can be too much for it. Although, Banshee has gotten a lot better recently at not stalling up mu box, it does still happen sometimes.
Makes sense. Thanks.

[BGFG]

If you're good enough to know that Ubuntu is Bloated then you're good enough to do a minimal install then add to your system as you need. Not being sarcastic or mean, it's just what I plan to do in a few weeks time.

http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/minimal

this will be my first apt-get command:

sudo apt-get install xorg gnome-core firefox gksu synaptic packagekit


researching how to startx without GDM currently.

[swoll1980]

If you're good enough to know that Ubuntu is Bloated then you're good enough to do a minimal install then add to your system as you need. Not being sarcastic or mean, it's just what I plan to do in a few weeks time.

http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/minimal

this will be my first apt-get command:

sudo apt-get install xorg gnome-core firefox gksu synaptic packagekit


researching how to startx without GDM currently.

just type startx you will need to install dbus, and hal to use your mouse, and such

[Simian Man]

The Fedora install DVD is the best install method I have seen. Want to replace the default apps? Easy. Want to trade Gnome for KDE? Easy. Want a minimal system w/o X or anything? Easy. Want to download packages from the net instead of the DVD to save having to update later? Easy. You can really install any combo of software you want.

[dhysk]

If you're good enough to know that Ubuntu is Bloated then you're good enough to do a minimal install then add to your system as you need. \

In short I think, at least in the Linux world this is true.

At first I thought 'wow that would be awesome' however upon further thinking I think it would be a mistake. Once you go down that road it will become more and more like a Linspire install that turned me off of linux for a long time. Just too many options. Think of it from a noob perspective. The best thing is to give them a 1 click install that will be their 90%-95% solution. Ubuntu was how I got hooked into Linux and opened my eyes to freedom. It gave me everything I needed to get started and as I used it more I learned about other apps that were best for 'me'. That's why I point new people to Mint becouse they don't have to deal with codes and flash that gave me such a headache in the beginning.

So I think its a great idea however not really for this distro because in order to know that other 'better' apps are out there most likely you are equipped enough to add/remove yourself or do a minimal install. Maybe I'm wrong but Ubuntu seems to have more the newb in mined and it is reflected in their install process.

Lastly since I have made NUMEROUS changes in the last 2 yrs or so I must say I'm glad I don't have to reinstall Linux all the time like I did another more so called 'user friendly' OS.

Just my 2 cents.

[haran_elessar]

We must also remember that one of the goals of Ubuntu is to attract new users and they won't be able to tell the difference between Open Office and Abiword or Amarok vs Rhythmbox.

I think that although it does come with many programs sooner or later you'll get to use most of them. At least I have and I was glad that the programs were already pre-installed. It makes the OS seem much more complete than the competition.


I still can see benefits with offering different installations. Choice is never bad. So as others have said you could have a custom install for experienced users in which you can choose the programs you want and an easy install which would be as it is right now.

I said this before in another post but I also think that it would be great if during the first boot after a clean install new users would get a few prompts highlighting some of the great Ubuntu features. This would be great with the theme changing option so that people can see how easy it is to change the look of the system. I'm thinking about something minimal...not like those annoying windows xp new install pop-ups.

[SunnyRabbiera]

The Fedora install DVD is the best install method I have seen. Want to replace the default apps? Easy. Want to trade Gnome for KDE? Easy. Want a minimal system w/o X or anything? Easy. Want to download packages from the net instead of the DVD to save having to update later? Easy. You can really install any combo of software you want.

yes but not everyone has a DVD burner.

[Simian Man]

yes but not everyone has a DVD burner.

True, which is why it isn't the only way to install Fedora. I'm just saying it's a great option for those of us that have access to them.

[directhex]

Oh, and also I am not a Gnome hater and for the record I am actually using it right now on OpenSuSE which is actually a decent distro. My only beef is that Mono in my opinion needs to be scrapped in it's present form. Honestly, what is the point of using a byte compiled language. Why not just make a gcc-mono extension and compile it to machine code? That way there is no man-in-the-middle and everything runs faster. Or is there something that makes this concept of compilation impossible with C# and the rest?

There are three ways to do what you propose. Only one is mature - and the end result is actually slower at execution time than the JITter (startup time, admittedly, is shorter).

The three options are AOT compilation of assemblies (add the --aot flag to mono, and a platform-specific .so will be produced for every .dll/.exe) - but in doing so, you lose the JITter's ability to make intelligent decisions about optimization based on your hardware, so you end up slowing it down.

The second option is new in the latest Mono releases, a static compiler (it's used for iPhone and Xbox developers). It's not faster either - it just means you no longer cause problems for people who can't run interpreted/JITtered code.

The third option is gcc's CLI backend, at http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cli.html - it's not mature enough for use yet.

Generally speaking, there's a damn good reason for languages that aren't "machine code" based - they suck for development of more than the most low-level of apps. Why do you think Python is so popular (despite being 10x slower than Mono)? Ease of programming is an important detail. After all, Mono only exists because Evolution was unmaintainable in C.

[Faolan84]

I didn't know Python was slower than Mono. I'd like to see some proof of that.

Also it's interesting that Evolution was the main cause for the creation of Mono, because it seems if C was the problem they could get the same effect by using C++ and the GTKmm libraries.

Anyways those are all just my speculation of course.

[directhex]

I didn't know Python was slower than Mono. I'd like to see some proof of that.

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=csharp&lang2=python&box=1 - between 50% and 25300% of the performance of Python, depending on benchmark

http://scripts.mit.edu/~jdong/wiki/moin.cgi/LangShootout - 17-59x faster, depending on whether you use a tuned performance lib for Python or not.

Will that do you?

Also it's interesting that Evolution was the main cause for the creation of Mono, because it seems if C was the problem they could get the same effect by using C++ and the GTKmm libraries.

Still means hours of developer time wasted on memory management etc - tasks which a computer does better than a human

[wolfen69]

ubuntu is not getting more bloated, your computer is becoming more dated. i see people that want to run 900mhz, 256ram forever. ridiculous. or should ubuntu cater to the bare bones user forever? things change, adapt. (aka get a new computer)

[Giant Speck]

ubuntu is not getting more bloated, your computer is becoming more dated. i see people that want to run 900mhz, 256ram forever. ridiculous. or should ubuntu cater to the bare bones user forever? things change, adapt. (aka get a new computer)

Funny, isn't that what people say to do when they are complaining about Vista?

[Bart_D]

In my opinion, this is one of those utterly useless points of discussion about features that need to be/don't need to be "improved" in Ubuntu. There is nothing wrong with the default ubuntu installation, so there is nothing to fix. If your machine is slow, you are advised(on the Ubuntu website) to consider Xubuntu. Whether their implementation of XFCE is light enough or not is a different issue.

If most of the pre-installed software is not to your liking (aka, you are an intermediate-advanced user) then.......

....About 66% of the stuff that comes with a default install of Ubuntu is unneeded for me but could be useful for others. .....

........you NEED to be using the alternate/mini-cd.

End of story. Don't complain!

[Mehall]

Funny, isn't that what people say to do when they are complaining about Vista?

Exactly.

I'm not running Ubuntu or Kubuntu (and don't get me wrong, I like KDE) I am running Crunchbang on my system.

Lightweight is important. Allows for better multi-tasking.

And my system runs Vista well, I cna assure you. it came with it.

[wolfen69]

........you NEED to be using the alternate/mini-cd.

End of story. Don't complain!

well said. just make it happen!

[linuxisevolution]

ubuntu is not getting more bloated, your computer is becoming more dated. i see people that want to run 900mhz, 256ram forever. ridiculous. or should ubuntu cater to the bare bones user forever? things change, adapt. (aka get a new computer)

Instead of yelling at them we need to suggest a lighter distro, like Debian. My sister has a 1ghz machine with 256mb ram and she can do a lot of stuff. She runs fluxbox on Xubuntu with fbpanel. My server is 550mhz. For god sakes, we are not all rich enough to own a Geforce 9600GT!!!

(although I have an 8600gt..:D)

[quazi]

Funny, isn't that what people say to do when they are complaining about Vista?

It's more the "Vista capable" label that is often untrue (or applies only to barest bones Vista systems). Vista performs well on systems that meet its requirements (which are much higher than Ubuntu's).

[wolfen69]

Lightweight is important. Allows for better multi-tasking.


to you it is important. i didn't buy 4gigs of ram so i could see how little i could use. if i'm using 2.6gigs of 4, it means i'm actually doing things with my computer, like running 2 other OS's in vbox, burning, torrents, watching tv, compiz, surfing and whatever else. work it baby!

i didn't build a nice machine to "cut back". it multi-tasks just fine.

[wolfen69]

It's more the "Vista capable" label that is often untrue
i know that for a fact. 2 laptops that said "vista capable" choked soon after install.

back on topic, people with low specs should not complain about stock ubuntu. there are many variants of debian/ubuntu out there to handle the job. antix/crunchbang/debian net install come to mind.

[Bart_D]

to you it is important. i didn't buy 4gigs of ram so i could see how little i could use. if i'm using 2.6gigs of 4, it means i'm actually doing things with my computer...i didn't build a nice machine to "cut back". it multi-tasks just fine.

I agree 100%, but, unfortunately, people on here don't post their usage specs before tearing a distribution to shreds. They automatically assume that less means that the distro is better and more prevents the less from ocurring rendering the distro blolated.

[WatchingThePain]

I reckon your right.
A bit more streamlining would be tasty.

[wolfen69]

They automatically assume that less means that the distro is better

i hear ya. why does a distro have to use as little ram as possible to be good? it's not like you need 1 gb minimum to run ubuntu. unfortunately, ubuntu can't satisfy everyone. they have to leave someone out in the cold in order to move ahead.

[directhex]

I reckon your right.
A bit more streamlining would be tasty.

Okay.

Mono on Jaunty is 20-30% smaller than on Intrepid.

Does that count?

[WatchingThePain]

Lol maybe if I knew what mono is?
Lol don't tell me ..my brain might explode.
As an intrepid noob my ram is getting exhausted.

[Simian Man]

I didn't know Python was slower than Mono. I'd like to see some proof of that.

Also it's interesting that Evolution was the main cause for the creation of Mono, because it seems if C was the problem they could get the same effect by using C++ and the GTKmm libraries.


Python uses pure interpretation whereas C# uses JIT compilation. JIT compilation can actually have significantly better execution than native code because the runtime has access to dynamic profile information that native compilers don't have. Right now native code is slightly faster but JIT is a relatively new field. I guarantee you that 10 years from now it will be a significant performance improvement to move from C to something like Mono.

Pure interpretation ala Python will always be slow. The trick is to right the performance critical parts of an application in something like C and use Python where you can get away with it. As a general rule 80% of the code only does 20% of the work which is why this approach works.

[Faolan84]

JIT compilation can actually have significantly better execution than native code because the runtime has access to dynamic profile information that native compilers don't have. Right now native code is slightly faster but JIT is a relatively new field. I guarantee you that 10 years from now it will be a significant performance improvement to move from C to something like Mono.

Don't take this to be disrespectful: but I have to say on the surface that sounds like total BS. I can understand how JIT can out perform Python and the explanation is actually simple, but how is it even possible to outperform native code? I mean, the JIT itself has to translate the code into something so somewhere along the line there is native code running to transform byte-code into normal instructions. It just doesn't make any sense. Basically what I am puzzled over is how can more instructions be processed faster than less instructions on the same CPU with the same RAM and specifications. It seems to defy all logic. Although I do agree Mono and C# does have some very good strong points and a lot of good apps are built using it.

Or am I overlooking something here in what i'm trying to picture.

[Dekkon]

ubuntu is not getting more bloated, your computer is becoming more dated. i see people that want to run 900mhz, 256ram forever. ridiculous. or should ubuntu cater to the bare bones user forever? things change, adapt. (aka get a new computer)

You completely missed my point, exactly. I was complaining about the excess amounts of applications that come bundled with Ubuntu, when I certainly won't use 63% of them apps, but other users might. So I purposed they rethink the way things are installed, and a more user based approach on what the user wants and not letting Ubuntu choose what they want installed by default.

While my computer is bleeding edge new, it's a AMD DuelCore 3.00GHZ, 4GB Ram, 500GB HDD, and Nvidia 9500, which is certainly sufficient for most users and I am not complaining about speed issues, I run Vista fine.

Don't take this to be disrespectful: but I have to say on the surface that sounds like total BS. I can understand how JIT can out perform Python and the explanation is actually simple, but how is it even possible to outperform native code? I mean, the JIT itself has to translate the code into something so somewhere along the line there is native code running to transform byte-code into normal instructions. It just doesn't make any sense. Basically what I am puzzled over is how can more instructions be processed faster than less instructions on the same CPU with the same RAM and specifications. It seems to defy all logic. Although I do agree Mono and C# does have some very good strong points and a lot of good apps are built using it.

Or am I overlooking something here in what i'm trying to picture.

Your not the only one who thought that, while I'm certain with today's hardware advances that the performance issues resolving JIT compilers will soon become something of the past and not noticeable, but it certainly isn't possible to run faster then Native Code unless I'm missing something here.

[Faolan84]

Here is my impression of what should be done to make ubuntu better, replace the following applications:
F-Spot -> gThumb
Rhythmbox -> Banshee (I know Banshee is larger but it is better)
Evolution -> Thunderbird
Transmission -> Deluge

Also:
Remove Ekiga
Remove Tomboy

Add Artha
Add Inkscape
Add Sunbird

Create a better scanner interface for xsane. Face it, xsane is complicated for the average user and it's interface is unintuitive. We need something like Kooka for Gnome.

Also create option at add the Medibuntu sources and codec during the install or easier to access so users don't have to "Google it."

[BGFG]

just type startx you will need to install dbus, and hal to use your mouse, and such

Yup, thanks. Need to check how to startx automatically though. this will be fun :)

@SimianMan and SunnyRabierra:
Grabbed Fedora 11 alpha cd yesterday KDE version 703 megs. Hope you have a CD burner :) Gnome CD is about 698.

http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/

[BGFG]

i didn't buy 4gigs of ram so i could see how little i could use.
i didn't build a nice machine to "cut back". it multi-tasks just fine.

Love it!

[wolfen69]

Love it!the minimalist attitude has its place, but there's nothing like just letting go.....

[wolfen69]

Yup, thanks. Need to check how to startx automatically though. this will be fun :)

@SimianMan and SunnyRabierra:
Grabbed Fedora 11 alpha cd yesterday KDE version 703 megs. Hope you have a CD burner :) Gnome CD is about 698.

http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/

we would have never known. thanks. :-s

[Bart_D]

...Also create option at add the Medibuntu sources and codec during the install or easier to access so users don't have to "Google it."

That I absolutely agree with. A link to the 5 step guide(cutting and pasting into the terminal) in the multimedia forum would be great!

[directhex]

Don't take this to be disrespectful: but I have to say on the surface that sounds like total BS. I can understand how JIT can out perform Python and the explanation is actually simple, but how is it even possible to outperform native code? I mean, the JIT itself has to translate the code into something so somewhere along the line there is native code running to transform byte-code into normal instructions. It just doesn't make any sense. Basically what I am puzzled over is how can more instructions be processed faster than less instructions on the same CPU with the same RAM and specifications. It seems to defy all logic. Although I do agree Mono and C# does have some very good strong points and a lot of good apps are built using it.

Or am I overlooking something here in what i'm trying to picture.

The startup time will ALWAYS be worse. I don't think anyone will claim otherwise.

However, what's being gotten at is that a JITter optimizes for your specific hardware - something a distro which targets many different processors can't do. In addition, recent versions of Mono have many deep performance-optimized libraries which DO outperform straight C++

http://tirania.org/tmp/xpqetp.png

[Primefalcon]

What I'd like to see is just a standard install or a custom install, similar to what windows does...

in the custom install you choose what you want

[directhex]

What I'd like to see is just a standard install or a custom install, similar to what windows does...

in the custom install you choose what you want

Hasn't been such a thing in Windows since ME

XP doesn't allow you to pick components at install time, and Vista just deploys a disk image

[Giant Speck]

You completely missed my point, exactly. I was complaining about the excess amounts of applications that come bundled with Ubuntu, when I certainly won't use 63% of them apps, but other users might. So I purposed they rethink the way things are installed, and a more user based approach on what the user wants and not letting Ubuntu choose what they want installed by default.

I think I understand your point. It's like how Windows 7 decided to remove a bunch of programs that were previously installed by default such as Mail, Calendar, Movie Maker, and Photo Gallery. Instead of including them with the operating system, Microsoft is now offering them (or will be offering them) as downloads from Windows Live.

[directhex]

You need to consider the question of the masses versus individuals here.

Windows might be pretty barren if you buy and install it yourself (something only an insignificant minority of people do), whereas if you buy a new PC, it'll come with a bunch of things in place - an office suite of some kind, for example.

Ubuntu isn't a "bare" distro in its standard form, because it's meant to be "for the masses". It comes with cool things that make you go "whoa, that's better than I would have gotten with a new Dell", such as a "real" office suite instead of Works or a 60-day Office trial.

If I buy a pre-built PC, I expect a software stack on there which makes sense to the vendor's target market, such as CD-writing apps, media players, office, etc. All sorts of stuff. If I'm an OEM and doing it myself, I don't want that stuff - but that's what the Alternative install CD is for.

The Ubuntu default install includes all that stuff, because it's a live CD - and a live cd with no apps is useless garbage. A live CD with everything a "normal" (Windows) computer would ship with showcases EVERYTHING in one go.

[monomanislive]

This is probably just in my personal opinion. About 66% of the stuff that comes with a default install of Ubuntu is unneeded for me but could be useful for others. Therefor, I am purposing a different method that could be still be simple for new users, yet advanced enough for us who want Amarok installed over Rhythmbox.

http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/17358/

Solution number six, just wanted to see what peoples opinion on this matter is? and any further solutions to this or you see this as not a problem.

well this sounds like you want something like the old red hat linux 5 in 5 you chose which apps you wanted tough it did take to look at them all i wish ubuntu did that

[snowpine]

Ubuntu is a "distribution" which means it does (and should, in my opinion) come with all sorts of useful applications pre-installed. Probably no single user will use ALL of these applications on a regular basis, but they are harmless (apart from using a tiny amount of hard drive space and a spot in the menu).

Ubuntu also offers a minimal install, where you can install exactly the packages and applications you want. In addition, they offer Xubuntu, Kubuntu, etc. for those who prefer different desktop environments.

My point is that Ubuntu is fine the way it is. If you don't like the applications it includes, either start with the minimal install, or learn how to add your own applications (there are at least 4 tools included: apt-get, aptitude, synaptic, and add/remove).

The only argument in this thread I agree with is Evolution as a dependency of Gnome, however, that needs to be fixed upstream--nothing Ubuntu can do about it. Personally I don't use Gnome, so I don't really care. :)

[cmat]

Bloat is a sometimes necessary evil given new hardware and the uncertainty of what people do with their PCs out-of-the-box.

[Simian Man]

@SimianMan and SunnyRabierra:
Grabbed Fedora 11 alpha cd yesterday KDE version 703 megs. Hope you have a CD burner :) Gnome CD is about 698.

http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/

They will get it under 700 megs for the preview and final releases. The binaries on the alphas are compiled with debugging support which adds a bit of fluff.

[Simian Man]

Don't take this to be disrespectful
Of course not! :)


but I have to say on the surface that sounds like total BS. I can understand how JIT can out perform Python and the explanation is actually simple, but how is it even possible to outperform native code? I mean, the JIT itself has to translate the code into something so somewhere along the line there is native code running to transform byte-code into normal instructions. It just doesn't make any sense. Basically what I am puzzled over is how can more instructions be processed faster than less instructions on the same CPU with the same RAM and specifications. It seems to defy all logic. Although I do agree Mono and C# does have some very good strong points and a lot of good apps are built using it.


Well the idea is that the JIT compiler has a lot more info than a static compiler so it can generate *better* code. There is a technique called Profile Guided Optimization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile-guided_optimization) wherein you compile your code, run it and generate profile information, such as how often functions are called, how often each branch is taken and so on. Then the compiler then uses this info to generate a better executable. This technique is common when performance is at a premium, but there are a few problems with it. Firstly it's a pain in the ***. Secondly it only captures the correct info for the one profile run - meaning if you use the program differently than the test case, performance can even be worse.

Where JIT compilers shine is they can operate transparently from the user and they can gather specific profile data. As stated they are slower at start up, but once they get going, they can significantly boost performance. In fact there was a project by HP called Dynamo (http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/1999/HPL-1999-77.html) that actually applied this idea to native executables and got very good results. So JIT compilation can and will be faster than native execution.

Moreover the use of pointers really hurts the compilers ability to optimize code. Since pointers can point at literally anything, the compiler often times can't assume that two values aren't the same even though to the programmer they clearly aren't. This is known as the aliasing problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing_(computing)#Conflicts_with_optimization).

There was a day when hand-written assembly was much better than what compilers were capable of. That day has long passed as only the best programmers can beat a compiler and none of them are willing to put themselves through the hassle. The day will come too when C will be beaten by higher level languages and dynamic optimizations.

BTW I'm in Tallahassee too!

[Faolan84]

There was a day when hand-written assembly was much better than what compilers were capable of. That day has long passed as only the best programmers can beat a compiler and none of them are willing to put themselves through the hassle. The day will come too when C will be beaten by higher level languages and dynamic optimizations.

So would that mean that someday it would be more efficient just to create new paradigms (hardware or otherwise) that would allow for the kernel itself to be written in a higher level language? I could imagine that if something like that were to happen the the kernel itself would become a bottleneck since it would be written in a language that is inferior in terms of speed.

BTW I'm in Tallahassee too!
HWY 20! W00T!

[cdwillis]

Let's say the installer does get changed, I think it would be best to offer a choice between a default/standard installation and a custom/advanced installation as soon as the install cd boots. The Default/Standard Install would be the same as the current installation. The Custom/Advanced Install would show a list of components to be installed (from the default install) with the option to uncheck those or check other components.

[directhex]

Let's say the installer does get changed, I think it would be best to offer a choice between a default/standard installation and a custom/advanced installation as soon as the install cd boots. The Default/Standard Install would be the same as the current installation. The Custom/Advanced Install would show a list of components to be installed (from the default install) with the option to uncheck those or check other components.

You mean the Desktop or Alternative CDs we already have, then?

[ridetheteapot]

Every distro I have ever used let you choose packages to install, not just a few variations. Ubuntu does not let you even one little bit.
Now I know something must have changed a few years ago because now it it less common. I guess maybe it's the livecd to blame then?
I guess its around when they started to pop up often that they stopped package selection on installation.

I totally agree with this post, its my least favorite part of ubuntu. An exclusionary way to select packages on install would be awesome.
otherwise just start a blacklistedpackage file and run apt-get autoremove `cat blacklisted` after a cd installation lol. That is a sad thing :)

[Simian Man]

So would that mean that someday it would be more efficient just to create new paradigms (hardware or otherwise) that would allow for the kernel itself to be written in a higher level language? I could imagine that if something like that were to happen the the kernel itself would become a bottleneck since it would be written in a language that is inferior in terms of speed.
I don't really see that in the near future. It's a matter of effort vs. efficiency. With the kernel, unlike most applications, people are willing to put in a *lot* of effort to get every bit of efficiency. This means profiling and rewriting code to a level few would attempt. Besides the kernel really needs to use the low level aspects of C and assembly. And the kernel will always be in C as long as Linus has anything to say about it :).

For general purpose applications, however, given the normal amount of effort people put into a project, I think higher-level languages with run-time systems will definitely be the way to go.


HWY 20! W00T!

Crazy I live right near there!

[Skripka]

Bloat is a sometimes necessary evil given new hardware and the uncertainty of what people do with their PCs out-of-the-box.


Most people do some dicking around on the internet-----okay a great deal.

Most people listen to music and most also rip CDs.

Most people use a word processor or other parts of a normal suite of office apps.

Most folks check their email. Either via HTTP and web browser, or by a dedicated email client connecting to their account.

Many folks have images they like to organize and manage...and ocassionally edit.

Some folks have some Win executables they need/want to run (my "need" is Chips Challenge)


That probably covers 90% of what most users do day-to-day on their machine. That list AIN'T that demanding. I should not NEED 4GB of memory with a 3gHz 4Xcore just to do any of the above. I just shouldn't. Is it nice to have the spare poines? Yes. But I should NOT need a rig that powerful to do 90% of the normal dicking around on my computer that most "normal" folks do.

Hardware moves forward. Yes. But, just because it does-does that mean we should slack off and accept slow and bloated apps? Simply because we can be lazy?

[wolfen69]

[LIST]
I should not NEED 4GB of memory with a 3gHz 4Xcore just to do any of the above.

you don't need specs like that to run ubuntu. i know people with single core cpu's and 512 ram that run it just fine. the bottom line is, that if you don't like it, don't use it. have a nice day.

[Primefalcon]

Hasn't been such a thing in Windows since ME

XP doesn't allow you to pick components at install time, and Vista just deploys a disk image
Lol shows how out of date I am with windows eh....

To me that was a good idea and something like that could be utilized here, I mean why not it'd allow the newbies to use a standard install, but for those of us familiar with the programs and such to have a slimmer more customized install

[cdwillis]

You mean the Desktop or Alternative CDs we already have, then?

Not exactly. Doesn't the minimal installation disk retrieve the packages from the server. What I was describing would be just the regular installation/live cd with the option to view what packages are installed by default and remove them if you wanted. Plus you could checkmark things that weren't on the disk and then those packages would be retrieved from the server.

[Faolan84]

Well my view is that if you want to go totally minimal then maybe Ubuntu isn't for you. There is Arch Linux where you can build up, or if you want to stick with something closer to Ubuntu there is always good ol' Debian. If you want the latest and greatest Testing is fairly stable and even Unstable is more stable than a lot of distributions - just when things go wrong, they can go really wrong. Also their stable release branch is rock-solid, even though it can get quite dated.

Debian also comes with install discs for a default for Gnome, KDE, and Xfce too, so you will not be missing anything. In many ways Debian is Ubuntu without the bloat and polish. However I like to say: Ubuntu is Debian done right :P

[Simian Man]

Not exactly. Doesn't the minimal installation disk retrieve the packages from the server. What I was describing would be just the regular installation/live cd with the option to view what packages are installed by default and remove them if you wanted. Plus you could checkmark things that weren't on the disk and then those packages would be retrieved from the server.

As I said earlier, the Fedora DVD install (and probably the DVDs of Mandriva and OpenSuse though I haven't tried them) allows you to select exactly which packages you want installed. Those distros also offer the standard Live CD/Install option as well. Ubuntu should really add this!

[Antman]

Funny, isn't that what people say to do when they are complaining about Vista?
Indeed... the beauty of linux is that you can use your older hardware for a much longer period. Of course you may need to run something other than Ubuntu on it after a certain point as newer versions start to cater to newer hardware.

[wolfen69]

Every distro I have ever used let you choose packages to install, not just a few variations.
really? ubuntu, mandriva, fedora, mint, opensuse, puppy, dreamlinux, mepis all DO NOT let you choose what packages to install. so when you say every distro you've tried lets you, i'd like to know what distros that is. slackware? debian? the mainstream distros DO NOT LET YOU.
I totally agree with this post, its my least favorite part of ubuntu.
then don't use it, and use a distro that will let you choose. btw, you could do a minimal install of ubuntu and add what you want. or maybe that's over your head?

[Simian Man]

really? ubuntu, mandriva, fedora, mint, opensuse, puppy, dreamlinux, mepis all DO NOT let you choose what packages to install. so when you say every distro you've tried lets you, i'd like to know what distros that is. slackware? debian? the mainstream distros DO NOT LET YOU.

Fedora does with the DVD install. I've been trying to get that point across this whole thread! I imagine Mandriva and OpenSuse do too since they offer DVD options. I would guess that Ubuntu is the only mainstream distro that *doesn't* offer much choice - because it is aimed so squarely at beginners.

[wolfen69]

Fedora does with the DVD install. I've been trying to get that point across this whole thread!
you've made your point, but since most users install with a cd, it is a moot point. I AM TALKING ABOUT CD INSTALL, OK?

[Simian Man]

you've made your point, but since most users install with a cd, it is a moot point. I AM TALKING ABOUT CD INSTALL, OK?

Well of course most Ubuntu users use the CD, it's the only option isn't it? :) I don't really see how including a DVD install option would hurt. Most users have DVD drives nowadays, it allows for the functionality you and others want, and would probably attract more experienced users.

[wolfen69]

would probably attract more experienced users.

more experienced users will have no problem doing a minimal install and build it up.

[scphan]

i think they wanted to make it easy enough that you could mail a ubuntu cd to grandmother and be able to install it on the phone without having to write a list of things she would and wouldn't need to install

[directhex]

i think they wanted to make it easy enough that you could mail a ubuntu cd to grandmother and be able to install it on the phone without having to write a list of things she would and wouldn't need to install

Grannies dig dselect.

[Simian Man]

more experienced users will have no problem doing a minimal install and build it up.

OK how about experienced users who don't want more of a hassle than necessary? Or how about experienced users with some sense of aesthetics?

[Faolan84]

really? ubuntu, mandriva, fedora, mint, opensuse, puppy, dreamlinux, mepis all DO NOT let you choose what packages to install. so when you say every distro you've tried lets you, i'd like to know what distros that is. slackware? debian? the mainstream distros DO NOT LET YOU.

I used a CD to install OpenSuSE 11.1 and it did let me choose my packages. Albeit, it was the net install CD. It has all the install features of the DVD, just that you download the packages during the install instead of installing them from the DVD.

[directhex]

To defend my corner a bit, here are current figures for AMD64 Jaunty:

Minimal chroot (debootstrap): 355 MiB
plus ubuntu-desktop package (no recommends):+ 873 MiB

(at this point I should mention that Firefox, OOo, Evolution, and more are Recommends. All ubuntu-desktop Recommends are installed on a normal install)

plus missing Recommends: +1089 MiB

(so a "full" Ubuntu AMD64 desktop is 2317 MiB, give or take. Vista x64 is closer to 16 GiB, with no apps)

Saving from removing Tomboy package: (- 14 MiB)
Saving from removing F-Spot package: (- 19 MiB)
Saving from removing both & everything Mono:- 57 MiB

Wait a sec..... Tomboy is 14 meg, but if I remove lovely non-bloaty C-based Rhythmbox, what does that save me?

Saving from removing Rhythmbox package: (- 20 MiB)

Someone remind me how C is the best solution, again?

Saving from removing GEdit package: (- 17 MiB)

Lulz.

Saving from removing Gnome-games package: (- 49 MiB)

How many SameGNOMEs is a photo management app worth?

What kind of horrid bloat are we dealing with here?

2.3% of the install is for 2 desktop apps and the framework to run them. 5 meg of those 57 meg are for documentation:
4.4M /usr/share/gnome/help/tomboy
552K /usr/share/gnome/help/f-spot

Mono's a bad copy of Java, right? How about we install Java (with NO apps):
Cost of adding OpenJDK JRE: + 104 MiB

OOo takes 234 MiB. Xulrunner and the apps that need it (e.g. Firefox) makes 108.

How is Mono the baddie, in terms of installation bloat?

Update: refreshed numbers with pristine pbuilder

[ArtF10]

...allows you to select exactly which packages you want installed. Those distros also offer the standard Live CD/Install option as well. Ubuntu should really add this!

Minimal CD?

[scphan]

cost of installing ubuntu... priceless:rolleyes:

[directhex]

Comparative figures for AMD64 Intrepid:

Minimal chroot (debootstrap): 374 MiB (Jaunty: 355 MiB)
plus ubuntu-desktop package (no recommends):+ 889 MiB (Jaunty: 873 MiB)
plus missing Recommends: +1098 MiB (Jaunty: 1089 MiB)
(TOTAL: 2361 MiB) (Jaunty: 2317 MiB)
Saving from removing Tomboy package: (- 17 MiB) (Jaunty: 14 MiB)
Saving from removing F-Spot package: (- 12 MiB) (Jaunty: 19 MiB)
Saving from removing both & everything Mono:- 63 MiB (Jaunty: 57 MiB)
Saving from removing Rhythmbox package: (- 20 MiB) (Jaunty: 20 MiB)
Saving from removing GEdit package: (- 17 MiB) (Jaunty: 17 MiB)
Saving from removing Gnome-games package: (- 51 MiB) (Jaunty: 49 MiB)
Cost of adding OpenJDK JRE: + 100 MiB (Jaunty: 104 MiB)

Note that neither of the above systems had a kernel installed, which is another couple of hundred meg.

However, assuming I can read numbers, Jaunty is 2% SMALLER than Intrepid, not more bloated. Major savings have come in the Mono stack (15% of total reduction)