Is Ubuntu too fat?

[angryfirelord]

I tried the server install, but that still doesn't allow you to customize packages. Maybe in the server or alternate cd, there could be a package selection like in Debian's netinst. I would keep the desktop installer the way it is because most people who 1st try Ubuntu are unfamiliar with the environment.

Ubuntu is still an excellent distro and I will keep recommending it to people who want to try linux.

[PatrickMay16]

"angryfirelord", I agree with you. Ubuntu is becoming very bloated. On my laptop, Edgy used almost 200MB of RAM just sitting at the gnome desktop after booting and logging in. Really crazy. After some tweaking I got it down to 135MB RAM, but that's still a lot more than Dapper used.

[ThinkBuntu]

I believe that, from the Linux perspective, it may be bloated. If I'm steering clear of "bloat," the heaviest distribution I'll install is Zenwalk, and to really build my system from the ground-up, I'll use the Arch Base, which is a superb implementation of Linux basics.

But Ubuntu isn't competing for those who like to build their system from the ground-up. That's what Slackware, Gentoo, Arch, and Debian net-install are for. Ubuntu competes with the likes of Fedora, openSUSE, Sabayon, Mandriva, PCLOS, Windows, and Mac OS. By these standards, it's far from bloated. And I don't necessarily mean that as a compliment.

When I install OS X, I immediately have a full-featured music player, photo app, movie app, and a whole bunch of other useful stuff. Now, I'm not much of a video editor, I only use iPhoto to organize pictures (before I used Linux as my main computer), so a lot of this IS bloat to me. But for many users, this is a draw.

Give me OpenOffice and GIMP over 300MB iPhoto and who-knows-how-large iMovie/iDVD any day.

[jrusso2]

Do I look fat in this distro?

I have been hearing about Linux getting bloated since 1996 When I started.

[Rashid584]

I've been trying Sidux for the last couple of days...I never thought ubuntu was bloated before but after using sidux, it definitely feels it!

The problem is...I don't think I'd use sidux as a production machine...its very nice. Mad quick and has some nice touches, but I just didn't find it as stable as (K)ubuntu...and the main gripe I had...the fonts. Sorry, but they are absolutely hideous...I tried different anti alias settings in kcontrol but nothing was as nice as Kubuntu. Sidux fonts are horrible and that alone is enough for me to not use it (I switched from suse to ubuntu because of messed up fonts...back in days of 9.2 )

Its annoying because I'll be sticking with Ubuntu/Kubuntu because of its stability and polish (rather than "easy to use desktop" because I'm comfortable with a console and text files, though things like restricted drivers manager are very cool)..

...hmm, maybe I'll do an alternate kdecore install sometime...gotta find a nice tutorial for that.

-Rashid

[Anthem]

OpenOffice has always been a hog. MS Office 2003 is much leaner and quicker than a standard OO.o install. I know everybody hates Microsoft, but that doesn't change the fact that OO.o is pretty slow in most cases.

[ThinkBuntu]

I've been trying Sidux for the last couple of days...I never thought ubuntu was bloated before but after using sidux, it definitely feels it!

The problem is...I don't think I'd use sidux as a production machine...its very nice. Mad quick and has some nice touches, but I just didn't find it as stable as (K)ubuntu...and the main gripe I had...the fonts. Sorry, but they are absolutely hideous...I tried different anti alias settings in kcontrol but nothing was as nice as Kubuntu. Sidux fonts are horrible and that alone is enough for me to not use it (I switched from suse to ubuntu because of messed up fonts...back in days of 9.2 )

Its annoying because I'll be sticking with Ubuntu/Kubuntu because of its stability and polish (rather than "easy to use desktop" because I'm comfortable with a console and text files, though things like restricted drivers manager are very cool)..

...hmm, maybe I'll do an alternate kdecore install sometime...gotta find a nice tutorial for that.

-Rashid

For a light install with nice-looking fonts, use an Arch base and use KDEmod. Very nice! I used it for a week, but came back to Ubuntu because I'm too lazy (or, mor accurately, I prefer to spend my time actually doing work, not to say that Arch is anywhere near Gentoo. It just takes a little time to get the right fit).

[loathsome]

Ubuntu isn't bloated at all.

Even though it was bloated, it's so easy to uninstall / configure everything to suit exactly your needs.

[Rashid584]

For a light install with nice-looking fonts, use an Arch base and use KDEmod. Very nice! I used it for a week, but came back to Ubuntu because I'm too lazy (or, mor accurately, I prefer to spend my time actually doing work, not to say that Arch is anywhere near Gentoo. It just takes a little time to get the right fit).

I'm considering that...

What I wanna know though is whats responsible for the awful fonts in sidux, and the nice ones in kubuntu...and kdemod for that matter. Is it some sort of package, library, setting, or what? Something to do with the kernel even??

I dunno...but I wanna find out

-Rashid

[ThinkBuntu]

Ubuntu isn't bloated at all.

Even though it was bloated, it's so easy to uninstall / configure everything to suit exactly your needs.

I've found uninstalling to be a bit difficult, myself. Why, for example, does "ubuntu-desktop" depend on something as trivial as "ubuntu-sounds"? I ran into this when trying to swap the Ubuntu Studio sounds for the plain Ubuntu ones yesterday.