Has Ubuntu become bloatware aka MS

[whistlerspa]

This isn't a rant, rather a personal opinion. I invite constructive comment.

I've used Ubuntu since version 5.04. During this time I've tried other distros and originally migrated from Mandrake 7 and Red Hat 5 before that, so I've a bit of history with Linux.

When Ubuntu first appeared on the scene it was easy to install, simple to use,fast out of the box and stable - everything M$ wasn't at the time. It didn't try to do it all either but instead focussed on the basics in an attempt to provide a pleasant and simple experience in my opinion.

Now it seems too complex to me. There seems to be all the problems of a distro trying to provide too many options and for me. 8.04 and now 8.10 have seen system slowdowns and freezes, program crashes, file corruptions, copy errors and the like - possibly some of this due to Compiz - which I'm not now running. All this quite contrary to earlier Ubuntu experiences. I thought perhaps my computer was at fault, and although not new has oodles of CPU and RAM grunt with a dedicated 256Mb Video card.

In fact I've ditched 8.10 and am now running gOS on this machine - and what a difference. Quick loading, it comes with an intuitive menu and dock and irony upon ironies is Ubuntu 8.04 based. How come they got it right for me when Canonical couldn't?

[aimpau]

Thank you and we do appreciate your viewpoint regarding Ubuntu.


That's what I like about GNU/Linux...no matter what the distro is, it can be fixed.

[Diabolis]

I have the same feeling, probably not as a strong as the OP, but have thought about it too.

Seems like now Ubuntu is trying to do it all. Stuff like the fast-user-switch-applet, the tracker tool and the option to recover your system from a last working configuration, I'm almost sure that I read about that feature in one of the Ubuntu pages, just seem bloated to me. I think that part of the problem, maybe the source, is the Ubuntu brainstorm.

[wolfen69]

How come they got it right for me when Canonical couldn't?

you mean canonical didn't make ubuntu specifically for your pc? :rolleyes:

[frankleeee]

you mean canonical didn't make ubuntu specifically for your pc? :rolleyes:

Gosh I really hate it when the world doesn't revolve around me. ;)

[CholericKoala]

My computer runs it fine. Cant you use minimal options? Or simply uninstall things that arent needed

[fauna]

Love the idea of Linux and ,esp,Ubuntu, but as I have posted ,had to get rid of it on my XP computer.Too complicated,too many choices,too much to go wrong.I had GOS also but switched up to 8.10 on that computer (everex) and it runs well and good.I want a simple OS (old fart system) where basic run is simple and everything else is optional.I feel so stupid when I can't access some part of my system which so many others just seem to take for granted.7 steps (or even 3) to fix some glitch seems silly and is frustrating.Let's keep working. fauna (tom o) workers of the world unite.

[-grubby]

.


I've never heard of "M$"

[KiwiNZ]

Thread title corrected

[frankleeee]

.
Originally Posted by nathangrubb
I've never heard of "M$"

grubbot talking on ##nathangrubb on irc.freenode.net Wrote:[19:30] <nathangrubb> ~M$
[19:30] <grubbot> Please do not explicitly use names like microshaft, M$, etc to deface Microsoft. It will not make you look any smarter. In fact, you'll probably look less intelligent

:---)[-X

[Vadi]

My ubuntu runs just fine too.

*shrug* isn't gOS the os that put a green theme on and installed some google apps? I have google earth, picasa, and gadgets installed. I barely use them.

so, no use here...

[bart1452]

Try loading the minimal installation. It works very well on my old 2002 vintage Presario laptop with only 384 MB of shared memory.

[eternalnewbee]

Has Ubuntu become bloatware aka M$
This isn't a rant, rather a personal opinion. I invite constructive comment.

I've used Ubuntu since version 5.04. During this time I've tried other distros and originally migrated from Mandrake 7 and Red Hat 5 before that, so I've a bit of history with Linux.

When Ubuntu first appeared on the scene it was easy to install, simple to use,fast out of the box and stable - everything M$ wasn't at the time. It didn't try to do it all either but instead focussed on the basics in an attempt to provide a pleasant and simple experience in my opinion.

Now it seems too complex to me. There seems to be all the problems of a distro trying to provide too many options and for me. 8.04 and now 8.10 have seen system slowdowns and freezes, program crashes, file corruptions, copy errors and the like - possibly some of this due to Compiz - which I'm not now running. All this quite contrary to earlier Ubuntu experiences. I thought perhaps my computer was at fault, and although not new has oodles of CPU and RAM grunt with a dedicated 256Mb Video card.

In fact I've ditched 8.10 and am now running gOS on this machine - and what a difference. Quick loading, it comes with an intuitive menu and dock and irony upon ironies is Ubuntu 8.04 based. How come they got it right for me when Canonical couldn't?
Hi there.
I also started with 5.04.
Could't get my internet connection to work. No video playback.
Went back to xp. Then came 7.04. Purely out of principle I decided to ditch xp, and take a plunge into the abyss. (had already been a registered user since 5.04, under another name, but never used the Forums)
Struggled untill 7.10. Then things only got better. Then came 8.04, and I had to adjust to new things again, but by now I was actively visiting these forums, and the frustrating problems became positive challenges.
I have to say that overcoming issues, such as sound, graphic card drivers, codecs, etc. can be a pain in the butt, but the dynamic Community Forums compensate for all that and more.
Keep in mind that more and more people are starting to use Ubuntu, and that not all hardware manufacturers are "Ubuntu friendly".
Also, new software is being developped all the time and people (like me) like to have all these choices, and play with newly offered apps.
Some like you yourself call this bloated, and maybe you're right, but the most important is choice.
Use what you want/need. Want speed? Countless light apps and window managers to choose from.
Want something more? like 3D desktop? Wow! Ubuntu really made my dreams come true with this one.
I could go on and on, but then again, I thinked I've voiced my opinion clear enough.
Last point.
User experiences vary a lot. Nothing is perfect. It all depends on your personal experience, wishes and expectations.
And I do respect your personal opinion, whistlerspa.
It's probably people like you who make this community even stronger, by voicing concern about Ubuntu.
Thanks.

[XPuntu]

I think the level of bloatware is up to you. As someone else pointed out, you could do a minimum install. Or, if you're new like me, go with the default install that takes the headache out of getting your wireless to work, youtube, etc, etc. The biggest difference is that if you don't want it, you have the CHOICE to remove it. That's not always possible with the other OS.

[iponeverything]

Nautilus is out of control. Granted it does have a vital roll in the whole "Gnome" picture.. But it does seem to me to eat more than its fair share of resources.

For the longest time I refused to use gnome. I would do a basic server install (rpm or deb) based, slap on an old version afterstep or fvwm and I was on my way with a very lean install. Gnome has matured, lost a lot of weight and is far less buggy than used to be and at the same time hardware has gotten better and more affordable. There will always be demand for a lean and mean distro and there are quite a few of them out there and it is doable to make your stock Ubuntu desktop fast and lean (just use one of the tons of wm alternatives to gnome).

I think Ubuntu is on the right track.

[Primefalcon]

Agreed this is not a Microsoft bash, and tbh I wouldn't mind a minimalistic install myself for older systems. Though I don't want to lose the current one, I think most people do want the option of installing a complete OS

[I-75]

The only thing I can possibly add to this, it seems Xubuntu 7.04 is faster than Xubuntu 8.04. But to say Ubuntu is bloatware like Microsoft...I disagree.

Vista SP1 on a modern laptop with 1 GB uses about 600 GB ram. Ubuntu 8.04 on the same laptop uses about 175 GB ram. In both cases a web page opened up in Firefox.

[etnlIcarus]

Surviving on a meagre 512mb of RAM, I too am starting to wonder for how much longer Ubuntu or any regularly updated distro can service my computer.

For 8.10, I listened to the advice on these forums; doing a minimal ubuntu command-line install and manually installing xorg and xfce, rather than using Xubuntu.

Sadly, I've witnessed no performance gain, nor any of my memory freed up as a result.

Just yesterday I went from the xorg-video-ati driver to fglrx and I've lost a further 20-60mb of RAM because, for some unknown reason, the xserver now loads a second xserver, which uses exactly the same amount of RAM as the first xserver, effectively doubling it's memory requirements. Even if I kill the second xserver, it's memory is not freed up.

My, "minimal", 32-bit system with no graphical login manager; a light environment; a bunch of services uninstalled and disabled; only two tty sessions and only 900 packages installed (according to Synaptic) requires nearly 150mb of RAM just to display a desktop with no apps running.

[doorknob60]

Surviving on a meagre 512mb of RAM, I too am starting to wonder for how much longer Ubuntu or any regularly updated distro can service my computer.

For 8.10, I listened to the advice on these forums; doing a minimal ubuntu command-line install and manually installing xorg and xfce, rather than using Xubuntu.

Sadly, I've witnessed no performance gain, nor any of my memory freed up as a result.

Just yesterday I went from the xorg-video-ati driver to fglrx and I've lost a further 20-60mb of RAM because, for some unknown reason, the xserver now loads a second xserver, which uses exactly the same amount of RAM as the first xserver, effectively doubling it's memory requirements. Even if I kill the second xserver, it's memory is not freed up.

My, "minimal", 32-bit system with no graphical login manager; a light environment; a bunch of services uninstalled and disabled; only two tty sessions and only 900 packages installed (according to Synaptic) requires nearly 150mb of RAM just to display a desktop with no apps running.

Try Arch.

[RiceMonster]

try arch.

+1

I love how there's so many arch users around here :D

[zmjjmz]

Or you could try Sidux. I've noticed Ubuntu eating up resources it definitely should not be, and I hope they fix that soon.

[mrgnash]

No, it hasn't become "bloatware" a la Microsoft Windows xx. That said, it is certainly not as lean or speedy as some other distributions: Arch or Gentoo, for instance.

[jomiolto]

"Software is getting slower more rapidly than hardware becomes faster." -- Wirth's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law) ;)

[magmon]

Not even close! Ubuntu runs 2-3 times faster than vista did on a good day.

[CholericKoala]

My Vista runs awesome, but that might be a hardware things ;)

Regardless, Ubuntu is much smaller and gives the option to be minimal, which is as good as it gets.

[bigbrovar]

I have been quite disappointed with Intrepid Ibex so far . i started ubuntu with feisty fawn on my former laptop a gateway. and i was surprised when everything just worked out of the box.that was my first impression of linux. and since then i have been hooked. gutsy had quite a bit of bug but nothing too serious. hardy was terrible at first always freezing and all but 8.4.1 later went on to become the most able ubuntu i had ever used since feisty. then came intrepid.. the thing i found disturbing with ibex was the fact that (while i loved the faster startup and the new nautilus and all) some things that just use to work on Ubuntu without problem don't work in ibex

Bluetooth Never had problems with bluetooth with ubuntu ..there was slight glitch in gutsy but that was easily fixed. bluetooth just use to work. just plug it in and you are good to go. on Ibex its not the case. am not sure if there is a fix now but its impossible to send stuff to my blue-tooth device from my laptop (which came pre-installed with Ubuntu hardy heron) for me this is unacceptable for an OS that aims for mainstream adoption. things like blue-tooth connectivity are very essential parts of desktop computing

Webcam
fine webcam support has been shaky on linux and ubuntu. but when its supported . it just works. not with ibex. at least the web-cam that came with the dell laptops just use to work without any problem. it worked with gutsy,hardy but not with ibex. u have to manually download a driver and compiler it from source for it to work. not something that a noob trying ubuntu for the first time would want to do. or infact anybody who is just an average user.

internal mic
this too always worked (once your hardware is supported) . even when i had a sony vaio (not the most freedom loving hardware) it just worked on hardy. up till now i cant make skype calls or screencast tutorials on my dell m1330 because the internal mic doesnt work. and am yet to find a solution to the problem.

its not all gloomy though and i really appreciate the improvement in ibex. like the improved network manager, the tabs in nautilus, hibernation and suspend work better for me. i just feel that more work should be done to ensure that this improvements don't break things that just use to work before. they should be no reason why a hardware that worked fine on one Version of an OS should suddenly become incompatible in its a newer version of the same OS

[stinger30au]

remember that 8.10 is a stepping stone to the next LTS

infact so is 9.04 and 9.10 and 10.04 and 10.10 next LTS will be 11.04

so expect bugs and the likes in every version for the next 2 1/2 years before the next LTS comes out

[Diabolis]

Not even close! Ubuntu runs 2-3 times faster than vista did on a good day.

We already know that any Linux distribution will beat Vista. The matter here is new Ubuntu releases against the old ones.



My, "minimal", 32-bit system with no graphical login manager; a light environment; a bunch of services uninstalled and disabled; only two tty sessions and only 900 packages installed (according to Synaptic) requires nearly 150mb of RAM just to display a desktop with no apps running.

I remember using Ubuntu 7.04 with Fluxbox with less than 100mb of RAM! That makes me wonder too, For how long I will be able to install Ubuntu on a old PC?


Try Arch.

But, I wan't to use Ubuntu because it's repositories and forums are great, and I wan't it to be fast and lean too. What I don't want to do is hop from OS to OS every time it becomes bloated.

[billgoldberg]

This isn't a rant, rather a personal opinion. I invite constructive comment.

I've used Ubuntu since version 5.04. During this time I've tried other distros and originally migrated from Mandrake 7 and Red Hat 5 before that, so I've a bit of history with Linux.

When Ubuntu first appeared on the scene it was easy to install, simple to use,fast out of the box and stable - everything M$ wasn't at the time. It didn't try to do it all either but instead focussed on the basics in an attempt to provide a pleasant and simple experience in my opinion.

Now it seems too complex to me. There seems to be all the problems of a distro trying to provide too many options and for me. 8.04 and now 8.10 have seen system slowdowns and freezes, program crashes, file corruptions, copy errors and the like - possibly some of this due to Compiz - which I'm not now running. All this quite contrary to earlier Ubuntu experiences. I thought perhaps my computer was at fault, and although not new has oodles of CPU and RAM grunt with a dedicated 256Mb Video card.

In fact I've ditched 8.10 and am now running gOS on this machine - and what a difference. Quick loading, it comes with an intuitive menu and dock and irony upon ironies is Ubuntu 8.04 based. How come they got it right for me when Canonical couldn't?

Ubuntu is a full featured distro configured for widespread use.

If you want speed, pick another distro or tweak you Ubuntu install for speed.

[vishzilla]

No doubt about it. Ubuntu is trying to make its presence felt to a larger audience. So its obvious that Ubuntu will be a full-featured distro. If you want a lighter distro, one should really try a minimal install or opt for Arch. I am happy with Ubuntu, there are times when somethings go bad. I have no complaints, its more exciting this way. Ibex is like a roadmap to the next LTS, so this release will have bugs and rigidness.

[mdsmedia]

Ubuntu is the full featured distro configured for widespread use.

If you want speed, pick another distro or tweak you Ubuntu install for speed.Although I agree with this, the question wasn't whether Ubuntu is more bloated than other distros, but whether Ubuntu is becoming bloated.

I used Dapper until Hardy was mature. When I upgraded to Hardy it was like my computer had a new lease on life. I don't believe it's become bloated, but having recently installed a fresh Sabayon, I don't think Ubuntu is the quickest of distros....but I don't expect it to be, either.

[billgoldberg]

But, I wan't to use Ubuntu because it's repositories and forums are great, and I wan't it to be fast and lean too. What I don't want to do is hop from OS to OS every time it becomes bloated.

Perform a command line install (see alternate iso) and only install the things you need (don't install Ubuntu-desktop).

[Dr Small]

+1

i love how there's so many arch users around here :d
+2 ;)

[chucky chuckaluck]

even though i've become an arch user, i still see a lot of very good reasons for distros, like ubuntu and opensuse, that come with a whole bunch of stuff that people might need. it was only after a couple of years of using ubuntu that i was able to switch to arch. what i see as a problem is that ubuntu comes with a lot of stuff that many people simply do not use. fine, uninstall them, but when one does so, it removes "ubuntu desktop". if you happened to come across sudo apt-get autoremove, anything installed under "ubuntu desktop" would be removed (that's pretty much everything). i think it would be better to have subdivisions of the ubuntu desktop that would make removal of things like brllty(sp?) or ekiga and bluetooth (and really, evolution and epiphany too) possible without removing "ubuntu desktop".

[mdsmedia]

even though i've become an arch user, i still see a lot of very good reasons for distros, like ubuntu and opensuse, that come with a whole bunch of stuff that people might need. it was only after a couple of years of using ubuntu that i was able to switch to arch. what i see as a problem is that ubuntu comes with a lot of stuff that many people simply do not use. fine, uninstall them, but when one does so, it removes "ubuntu desktop". if you happened to come across [i]sudo apt-get autoremove[i], anything installed under "ubuntu desktop" would be removed (that's pretty much everything). i think it would be better to have subdivisions of the ubuntu desktop that would make removal of things like brllty(sp?) or ekiga and bluetooth (and really, evolution and epiphany too) possible without removing "ubuntu desktop".Agree on Evolution and Epiphany. I use Thunderbird and Firefox as email and browser clients as many do. I recently reinstalled Ubuntu and tried to uninstall Evolution, only to find I couldn't without uninstalling Gnome desktop.

I've never tried uninstalling Epiphany, but doesn't Firefox come as the default browser in Ubuntu? Having said that, is Epiphany (and Evolution) part of Gnome, and therefore difficult to remove in Ubuntu? In that case, Ubuntu is bloated to the extent that it uses browser and email clients that aren't used, and can't be uninstalled easily.

[danillo]

But, I wan't to use Ubuntu because it's repositories and forums are great, and I wan't it to be fast and lean too. What I don't want to do is hop from OS to OS every time it becomes bloated.
Why not Debian (preferably Testing)? You could start with a netinstall and add gnome-core. That way you start with something you already know and the repositories are great. The Ubuntu forums would still be helpfull.

[sujoy]

+2 ;)

+3 :D

As for ubuntu, well everything cannot suit everyone out there. I guess people would need to stick with old stables or move to other distros by the time ubuntu gets to 11.04, that is if they still want to keep running their present systems.

Not every distro is made for the minimalist and ubuntu is not too IMO. However, that doesn't make it bloated. Like Chucky said, it would be great if we could just uninstall evolution/epiphany/etc without getting rid of everything.

[eternalnewbee]

it would be great if we could just uninstall evolution
It's no problem according to this thread:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=784388

[whistlerspa]

I've really enjoyed reading all the feedback in this thread. It's great to see how forum contributions have matured. If I'd posted a thread like this a few years ago I would have probably have been flamed to a crisp.

Sorry about the M$ thing - you're right it was childish really and belongs to another time. I took on board the comments regarding choice and minimal installs and agree about that as well. Perhaps future Ubuntus could give more installation choices from basic to full in the install menu (although I wouldn't want to see the level of Vista confusion).

I haven't abandoned Ubuntu altogether and am using 8.04 64bit on my office machine which is a new 2008 box and it runs flawlessly. It was the older box with which I had problems and this has been echoed by other posts here too I think.

Like others I've tried a range of distros and do keep returning to Ubuntu, but do feel that as I think some people hinted that maybe there is a little too much intent on being cutting edge now, and it's getting more difficult to run current versions on older chipsets and hardware.

But once again thanks for the feedback and comments.:)

[sunoccard]

personal opinion: it does seem to have a lot of stuff at start up that you don't particularly need and it has a perfectly good app manager so why not put a more barebone system out and allow users to choose from app manager what they want themselves. This goes both way though since you can just as easily remove a app.
personal opinions aside, i believe there is a fine level of stuff on the basic install, it all serves a common purpose. As for the boot time, i'll say it's a bit slow but what's an extra 10 or 20 secounds really?

[whistlerspa]

I agree with the poster who says "I wish that I could uninstall Evolution".
Personally I never liked the look or feel of it and often had mail recovery problems using it.

These days I access all my mail as webmail anyway as I use so many computers so don't want to be tied to any single one when looking for older emails or composing replies.

[tjwoosta]

if having less features by defualt is what you are looking for, i have heard alot of good things about debian with gnome

[Z_Cee]

Speaking of bloat! My Acer laptop came with Vista installed and it ran terribly. After the warranty expired I loaded Kiwi/Ubuntu 8.04 LTS and now the same computer works smoothly.

I doubt I'll update to 8.10 on this particular laptop because I have 8.04 working so good. I also figured that 8.10 would be less stable than 8.04 because the "LTS versions" seem to be less radical.

Fortunately, as time allows - I have a couple of Franken-computers to test drive different distributions.

In my opinion - within the past couple of years Vista is the reason a lot of people are moving to Linux.

[smartboyathome]

remember that 8.10 is a stepping stone to the next LTS

infact so is 9.04 and 9.10 and 10.04 and 10.10 next LTS will be 11.04

so expect bugs and the likes in every version for the next 2 1/2 years before the next LTS comes out

Incorrect. 10.04 is actually the next LTS release.

Reference:
First LTS: 6.06
Second LTS: 8.04
Third LTS: 10.04

See the pattern? ;)

[ZarathustraDK]

I think it's just fine. The stuff is very modular, so anything I do not want I can uninstall, something which is far from always the case on Windows.

Then again I've only done Ubuntu, I wouldn't be able to tell about Arch or Gentoo, but I get the impression they kinda like a do-it-yourself Ferrari for Linux, where Ubuntu is a ready-to-go...Toyota...or something...:p

[meg23]

I kind of wish had a minimal option installation. I would just rather install the things I need.

[init1]

Yes, I would definitely say that it has. Dapper and Feisty ran fine, but Intrepid is extremely slow. I takes up all of my 512MB RAM and 200MB swap just for Firefox, Pidgin, System Monitor, and Rhythmbox.

[init1]

I kind of wish had a minimal option installation. I would just rather install the things I need.
It does, actually. You can use this to only install the core system, and then build up from there.
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD

[chucky chuckaluck]

I think it's just fine. The stuff is very modular, so anything I do not want I can uninstall, something which is far from always the case on Windows.

Then again I've only done Ubuntu, I wouldn't be able to tell about Arch or Gentoo, but I get the impression they kinda like a do-it-yourself Ferrari for Linux, where Ubuntu is a ready-to-go...Toyota...or something...:p

arch has a lot of auto configurations. you don't have to go the 'no toilet paper' route if you don't want to.

[collinp]

Ubuntu is aimed more for general functionality, not for being small and fast. Never expect that in things like Ubuntu, Fedora, etc. If you want light and fast, use Arch or Gentoo.

[jayson.rowe]

I started with Ubuntu 5.10, and for me, it's gotten *better* with each release - not worse. I have upgraded PC's three times since then however:
PC Used w/ 5.10: AMD64 3500+ Single core w/ 1GB RAM
PC Used around time of 7.04 release: AMD64 x2 3800+ Dual-Core w/ 3GB RAM
Current PC built around time of 8.04 release: Core2Duo e6550 w/ 8GB RAM

I've been running the 64-bit build since the beginning - in fact the search of a 64-bit distro that "just worked" is what brought me to Ubuntu in the first place - I was a long time Slackware user and they didn't (still don't) have an official x86-64 build.

[iponeverything]

arch has a lot of auto configurations. you don't have to go the 'no toilet paper' route if you don't want to.

The default on Solaris ;)

[CholericKoala]

Yes, I would definitely say that it has. Dapper and Feisty ran fine, but Intrepid is extremely slow. I takes up all of my 512MB RAM and 200MB swap just for Firefox, Pidgin, System Monitor, and Rhythmbox.

Interesting, I have yet to use any swap. Though I do have 3 gigs of ram, I never use more than 400mb with epiphany, pidgin, banshee, and sysmon open. Running anything else?

[inobe]

ubuntu tries to keep up with trend and give what users ask for.

it is how things become popular !

[etnlIcarus]

I'm tempted to test Arch in a virtual machine, after what people have said but I'm afraid that wouldn't give me a realistic impression (I tried Ubuntu minimal + xfce in virtualbox a while back and was getting 60-70mb RAM usage at login. When I did it for real, my hardware, screen resolution, etc meant more than 100mb of RAM was being used).

[dannytatom]

I wouldn't go as far to say Ubuntu has become "bloatware," but the 8.10 is more than my laptop can handle as far as smoothe operatin' goes. I'm downloading the Xubuntu iso now, hoping that'll run a bit better.

[fatality_uk]

To OP, NO!

[public_void]

Got tried of Ubuntu and short release cycles so tried Debian. It feels lighter, quicker and very stable. I never had any major problems with Ubuntu, but Debian suits my needs better. As for lightness 205MB of RAM used (I'm running F@H which is using 50MB) and only 1093 packages installed. Standard Gnome desktop installed, no fancy desktop effects and works a treat on my 1.6GHz, 512MB RAM laptop.

[tjwoosta]

Got tried of Ubuntu and short release cycles so tried Debian. It feels lighter, quicker and very stable. I never had any major problems with Ubuntu, but Debian suits my needs better. As for lightness 205MB of RAM used (I'm running F@H which is using 50MB) and only 1093 packages installed. Standard Gnome desktop installed, no fancy desktop effects and works a treat on my 1.6GHz, 512MB RAM laptop.

+1

debian with gnome is exactly like running a minimal version of ubuntu

it has all of the standard gnome desktop stuff, but it doesn't have most of the stuff that some would consider a waste of speed

because it comes with less features by default, it may be slightly more difficult to setup and install then ubuntu, but nothing too serious

debian is still one of the easiest to use distros that i have ever tried (probably because of the really easy package management system)

[pirate_tux]

+1

debian with gnome is exactly like running a minimal version of ubuntu

it has all of the standard gnome desktop stuff, but it doesn't have most of the stuff that some would consider a waste of speed

because it comes with less features by default, it may be slightly more difficult to setup and install then ubuntu, but nothing too serious

debian is still one of the easiest to use distros that i have ever tried (probably because of the really easy package management system)

+ 2

Debian is much better than Ubuntu.

[dannytatom]

So should I have gone the debian route rather than xubuntu? 512MB Ram is exactly what I've got. :/

[init1]

Interesting, I have yet to use any swap. Though I do have 3 gigs of ram, I never use more than 400mb with epiphany, pidgin, banshee, and sysmon open. Running anything else?
That's because you use Epiphany. Firefox usually takes up about 150MB RAM on my system, sometimes more. I'd use another browser, but I can live without my addons.

[Hallvor]

ubuntu tries to keep up with trend and give what users ask for.

it is how things become popular !

Users will ask for just about everything if you search long enough, but if you add all they ask for the OS will be a mess. When more features are added, so is bloat and bugs. If that happens, the OS will be less useful for many users than before. Sometimes I wish the majority of distromakers would be a little more conservative, and only add the features that are useful for almost every user - when they are necessary.

[etnlIcarus]

Quick question; is debian as much of a pain to setup as Arch?

Anyway, decided to try Arch on a VM. Once I got past all of Arch's quirks and the utterly mind-numbing installation process, I did with Arch what I did with my VM ubuntu command-line install: installed xorg, xfce4 and gnome-system-monitor.

As I recall, starting an xsession w/ xfce4 on ubuntu-minimal in the VM resulted in somewhere between 60-70mb of RAM usage.

Here's my Arch results:

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/5297/archms9.th.png (http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/5297/archms9.png)

Also installed htop and tried it without X:

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8529/arch2ag3.th.png (http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8529/arch2ag3.png)

While I'm sure Arch wouldn't be as generous running on real hardware, I must say I'm impressed.

[cardinals_fan]

Actually running on real hardware, my SliTaz uses 32 MB for a blank dwm desktop with a graphical login manager and conky. A CLI-only system uses 18 MB.

My point? Linux desktops do not need to be bloated. While most people would prefer a somewhat less minimal system, a LXDE or Xfce desktop shouldn't need more than 100 MB.

[Hallvor]

Those are really impressive numbers. TinyMe uses about 50 MB on a clean desktop with Conky. It is a little higher than Arch and Slitaz, but it also has the Mandriva/PCLinuxOS control center, which means it is *very* easy to use.

[mikjp]

When Ubuntu first appeared on the scene it was easy to install, simple to use,fast out of the box and stable -

It seems to me you are describing Debian stable, not Ubuntu :-)

[cardinals_fan]

Those are really impressive numbers. TinyMe uses about 50 MB on a clean desktop with Conky. It is a little higher than Arch and Slitaz, but it also has the Mandriva/PCLinuxOS control center, which means it is *very* easy to use.
Precisely my point. AntiX is also reasonably minimal and works with little RAM.

SLAX (or tweaked Slackware) will run KDE 3.5 with 60 MB used.

[cmay]

no. not bloatware as such. mandriva and open suse takes a lot more ram than debian xfce install cd does. its moderen linux systems for moderen computers and its looking great and good if one has a new computer. which sadly i do not. so i am starting to think about jumpin the train or at least try out some lighter windows mangagers for ubuntu. which i used since dapper. i think its important that there are linux that runs off an floppy disk on a sytem with 16 mb ram and in the other end a linux that has all the eye candy and goodies that consumes a 750 mb ram to just to start up so we as linux users can truely say we got it all and we do not fit linux in a tiny box as far as the desciption of it goes. ohter systems are not so varius as linux so they are more likely to in generel put in a box once people made up their mind about it.

[etnlIcarus]

So I pulled out the old Pentium 200mhz, 68mb of RAM box today, whacked a 5gig drive in it and decided to do a debian install.

Logged into a terminal and after I got diverted by setting up sudoers, finally got around to installing htop. Ran htop: 8mb of RAM usage.

Just got X installed (no DE yet), started X which just opens an xterm. Ran htop: 16mb of RAM usage.

Will be interesting to see how it handles Xfce4.4.

[cardinals_fan]

So I pulled out the old Pentium 200mhz, 68mb of RAM box today, whacked a 5gig drive in it and decided to do a debian install.

Logged into a terminal and after I got diverted by setting up sudoers, finally got around to installing htop. Ran htop: 8mb of RAM usage.

Just got X installed (no DE yet), started X which just opens an xterm. Ran htop: 16mb of RAM usage.

Will be interesting to see how it handles Xfce4.4.
That's impressive. Admittedly Linux will usually demand less resources on very old hardware, but it's still impressive.

[etnlIcarus]

...I could really use a spare mouse right about now. That'll teach me to lend stuff to my sister.

[cardinals_fan]

...I could really use a spare mouse right about now. That'll teach me to lend stuff to my sister.
Bah, just use your keyboard :D

[ddnev45]

Quick question; is debian as much of a pain to setup as Arch?

Debian is easy to set up. I use it on my older laptop (64MB video RAM on an ATI card) to get around having to deal with/install any compviz. Quick install, runs great.

Even though it's an older laptop, I do have 1GB of RAM, however, because I have to load large databases every now and then.

Post #4046
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5980473&highlight=Debian#post5980473

[etnlIcarus]

Posting from dinosaur ATM. Don't know how to really rate memory usage as xfdesktop won't load until you open another application and while xfce is loading, it's using a lot more memory and swap.

Loading desktop: all RAM (68mb) and about 20-30mb of swap.
Loaded desktop: 20-30mb of RAM and 20-30mb of swap.