What is "Bloat" anyway?

[XubuRoxMySox]

I wrote a li'l blog entry (http://www.linux.com/component/content/article/133-general-linux/355996) on Linux.com about what I think is the over-use and misuse of the word "bloat" with regard to Linux distros (Ubuntu is a frequent target).

Here's an excerpt:



A former Windows user, I thought I knew what bloat was until I started using Linux (Ubuntu was my first Linux distro). Bloat, to me, was software that is not really for the user, but for the operating system. In Windows it was stuff like anti-virus and anti-spyware stuff, disk defragmentation tools, registry cleaners, and the like. In Linux there's no need for any of that "bloatware."

Now I'm a Linux user, yay! So imagine my confusion now when I hear Linux distros described as "bloated!" The only thing I can come up with to justify applying the term to Linux is all the "libraries" used by some applications and desktop environments.

...
fellow Linux users, let's please stop throwing that word around and scaring away newbies who have no idea what we mean (even we Linuxers can't agree on what it means). We don't want them to imagine that there's little difference between Linux and any other OS, except that ours is free and therefore probably not as good as those "professional" OSes. Linux is amazingly customizable! It's only as "bloated" as you need it to be. So if you think a distro is bloated, fix it! But don't tell the whole computing world that "it's bloated" and risk having newbies miss out on some really awesome stuff!


So wha'd'y'think?

-Robin

[Naiki Muliaina]

When referring to the Linux kernel I believe people mean it could be coded a lot tidier than it is. Its a huge collaboration its bound to be a bit messy.

[XubuRoxMySox]

When referring to the Linux kernel I believe people mean it could be coded a lot tidier than it is. Its a huge collaboration its bound to be a bit messy.

That makes sense! That the kernel is "bloated" because it's a stew with lots of "chefs" contributing to the recipe.

My question has more to do with "what makes a distro "bloated."

Thanks for that though, it does explain a few other things I've been curious about.

-Robin

[grahammechanical]

I agree that the word "bloat" should not be misused. My understanding of bloated in regards to MS Windows was an operating system that got bigger and need more and more memory and processing power to just run as standard every time a new version was improved. It seemed that every improvement in hardware was lost because the operating system needed the latest hardware just to install and then it ran sluggishly.

regards.

[Naiki Muliaina]

Well when talking about specific distros that will always be very subjective. You will always get the Debian purists and Arch streamliners that consider any unnecessary package as bloat. The Ubuntu, Fedora, and bless them Sabayon users that are happy with everything they get installed and don't call it bloat.

Changing the opinion of such a varied group of people (Linux users) would be a huge undertaking. I agree that the definition varies too much. But wouldn't want to be the person to try and unite Linux users into a single thought of what is bloat and what isn't bloat :)

[smellyman]

bloat to me is anything actively running on a system needlessly, that I don't want.

I could care less of an untidy kernel or a big program taking up HD space.

Also Word compared to Abiword. I don't need 10 billion features I will never use.

[jmore9]

As I understand Bloat it is from the windows family and refers to all the stuff that Dell, IBM, HP, Compaq, etc. would install onto the machines which were either demos or limited function programs for the user to try and if liked to go and purchase.

That is just my view, everyone has their own of course.

[forrestcupp]

The true meaning of bloat is inefficient code that uses more memory and/or bandwidth than it should need to use.

But a lot of people wrongly seem to think bloat means unwanted software that is installed. Some people think that anything is bloat if it is more than a terminal with network connection so they can browse the web in text. That's not really what bloat is. What some people consider "bloat", others consider features.


As I understand Bloat it is from the windows family and refers to all the stuff that Dell, IBM, HP, Compaq, etc. would install onto the machines which were either demos or limited function programs for the user to try and if liked to go and purchase.

That is just my view, everyone has their own of course.
That's not bloat; that's crapware.

[Fourcultures]

I get the impression some people see a collection of applications they don't use as 'bloat'. This is in marked contrast to the Windows approach, which is to give hardly any useful applications but lots of advertising-type crapware.
When I upgraded from Ubuntu 9.10 to 10.04 I was surprised that the Gimp is no longer included as standard. I consider this one of the most useful applications associated with GNU/Linux. But I can just about understand the argument that it's a bit sophisticated or complex for 'casual' users'.

[blueturtl]

To me 'bloat' implies that a program is fat for its purpose.

Let's say you have program A that does thing X. 'A' has a binary size of 500k. Now there's another program, B, that also does thing X. Program B is faster and has a binary size of just 3k.

I would say program A is terribly bloated.

If a program has more features then the increased size and resource usage is justifiable, under normal circumstances. However I run into a lot of programs that either win or lose on both grounds. Some have more features and are still smaller and/or faster than another program in same category.

[koleoptero]

that's not bloat; that's crapware.

+1

[matthew.ball]

As perhaps a bit of a purist, my only issue (criticism) would be that you refer to the system as a whole by GNU/Linux, and just the kernel as Linux.

[Brunellus]

Windows software tends to be distributed as statically-linked binaries, so the total number of installed files is smaller (theoretically). Of course, each individual binary has to be bigger, since it must also include all the libraries and dependencies it needs to run.

Linux software, by comparison, doesn't come in big statically-linked binaries. So, yes, there are tons of little library files all over the filesystem. But each of them is relatively small, and the main program binary is also small.

Bloat, for me, is something bigger than it absolutely has to be to get the job done. Of course, some bloat is tolerable or even desirable: big, pretty GUIs are in many ways bloat, but try telling that to the cubespinner crowd.

It's a question of needs and wants. On my netbook, I only have 4 gigabytes of space to work with, so bloat is a serious concern. On my desktop, I've got more than enough space and capacity to work with. Thus, on the netbook, I run smaller and fewer applications. At the same time, because I know what the limitations of my hardware are, I don't expect it to run the same applications the same way that my desktop does.

[Madspyman]

Bloat is the antithesis to the bare minimum required to make your computer do exactly what you want it to do.

[Spice Weasel]

This is my definition of bloatware--

What you need to have a functional xorg desktop:

A window manager
A panel
An applications menu
A file manager (For people that don't like using a terminal emulator.)
A clipboard manager (For some people.)
A network manager (If you use wireless or dial up.)

That can easily fit in to ~50mb. How GNOME, KDE and XFCE reach 300+ beats me...

[LowSky]

Bloat = when a job use to only take x but now requires 2x+x

[Naiki Muliaina]

Think the OP has deffo proved the point of everyone has a different idea of what bloat is. ^^

[Sporkman]

Bloat = when a job use to only take x but now requires 2x+x

= 3x

[LowSky]

= 3x

Its a joke about bloat... hopefully you laughed.

[Ric_NYC]

IMO.


"Bloat" = excess.


Excess:
1. the state or act of going beyond normal, sufficient, or permitted limits
2. an immoderate or abnormal amount, number, extent, or degree too much or too many. (The Free Dictionary).

[whiskeylover]

This is my definition of bloatware--

What you need to have a functional xorg desktop:

A window manager
A panel
An applications menu
A file manager (For people that don't like using a terminal emulator.)
A clipboard manager (For some people.)
A network manager (If you use wireless or dial up.)

That can easily fit in to ~50mb. How GNOME, KDE and XFCE reach 300+ beats me...

Most people like to have a desktop that looks attractive, complete with good looking wallpapers, spinning cubes, desktop effects, skinnable themes and a whole lot of icon/sound/font themes, as apposed to having to stare at a boring blank screen.

Its similar to most other things people own, e.g. a car.

[Spice Weasel]

looks attractive - You tellin' me openbox doesn't look good with a nice theme?

complete with good looking wallpapers - Internet to get a wallpaper, tools built in to xorg (xsetroot) to set it. Or use nitrogen, which is a few meg at the most.

spinning cubes - Do you -need- spinning cubes to use your computer and have it look nice while having workspaces?

desktop effects - xcompmgr.

skinnable themes - Feature of 99% of window managers.

and a whole lot of icon/sound/font themes - GTK. Which isn't exactly a lot, especially by itself.

[whiskeylover]

looks attractive - You tellin' me openbox doesn't look good with a nice theme?

As I said, "most people". Besides, what you like might not be the same as what others like.


complete with good looking wallpapers - Internet to get a wallpaper, tools built in to xorg (xsetroot) to set it. Or use nitrogen, which is a few meg at the most.

So, instead of pre-packaging stuff, you download it from the internet. Big deal.



Desktop effects - xcompmgr. Any other effects are pretty much unnecessary.

Says you. Others might want it.


Skinnable themes is a feature of 99% of window managers, icon/sound/fonts built in to GTK which isn't that much either, boring blank screen? I won't even bother to comment on that.

Yet you did comment on that.

[Madspyman]

looks attractive - You tellin' me openbox doesn't look good with a nice theme?

complete with good looking wallpapers - Internet to get a wallpaper, tools built in to xorg (xsetroot) to set it. Or use nitrogen, which is a few meg at the most.

spinning cubes, desktop effects, skinnable themes and a whole lot of icon/sound/font themes, as apposed to having to stare at a boring blank screen. - Don't get this one. Desktop effects - xcompmgr. Any other effects are pretty much unnecessary. Skinnable themes is a feature of 99% of window managers, icon/sound/fonts built in to GTK which isn't that much either, boring blank screen? I won't even bother to comment on that.

I recently reinstalled Ubuntu on my laptop from a minimal install disk, and tailored it it to my liking using Openbox as the wm. It needs way less then gnome/kde, and looks great even w/o compositing. A good wallpaper is the best eye-candy. It really gave me a great idea as to what might be considered bloat. You're right on the money.

[Naiki Muliaina]

looks attractive - You tellin' me openbox doesn't look good with a nice theme?

I have yet to use an OpenBox theme that looks anything near as pretty as a good Gnome, E17, or KDE theme. :)

The rest of your post, fair dos :)

[Spice Weasel]

OpenBox was just an example, meh. Lots of other choices. :)

[snowpine]

"Bloat" to me means "I don't understand what a 'Linux distribution' means."

Anyone can put together his own Linux from scratch that has exactly what he wants and no more. This capability has always existed and if anything is easier today than ever before.

A "distribution" means someone else does the hard work for you. You get someone else's vision of what Linux "should" be, and if you are lucky and/or do some research, you can find a distro maintainer who has a similar vision to your own.

My point is that it's silly to call any Linux distribution "bloated" because one is free to create one's own perfect, lightweight Linux at any time.

[Sporkman]

Its a joke about bloat... hopefully you laughed.

Ah I see. Went over my head. :)

...carry on.

[Madspyman]

http://limitedcell.com/upload/recommend.png

I like to uncheck this on my laptop. I haven't had any trouble so far. For my desktop I leave it checked, but in many cases it would seem the recommends aren't actually necessary.

[forrestcupp]

Its similar to most other things people own, e.g. a car.

Some people would rather drive one of these
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/05/4dec_12_opt.jpg
than one of these
http://www.2011corvette.info/images/chevrolet-corvette.jpg
because they don't think they need all of that bling. :)

[Sporkman]

...or one of these:

http://www.freebsdnews.net/wp-content/uploads/os_cars.jpg

[whiskeylover]

Some people would rather drive one of these
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/05/4dec_12_opt.jpg
than one of these
http://www.2011corvette.info/images/chevrolet-corvette.jpg
because they don't think they need all of that bling. :)

My original post said "Most people like to...". Meaning, given the chance, they'd certainly choose the second car over the first. In 99% of the cases, they'd choose the first car only because of financial constraints.

[Bachstelze]

Bloat, just like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. A person's bloat is another person's must-have feature.

[aysiu]

If bloat is strictly defined as a program using code inefficiently or taking up more space than it needs to, then I don't really care (as an end-user) if a program or operating system is "bloated."

What I care about is performance. If a new version of a program adds in a bunch of new "features" that I don't actually use and the addition of those new "features" slows down the loading of the program or affects the performance of the program, then I will consider that bloat.

I've heard a lot of people refer to iTunes as a "bloated" program, but I don't see where that criticism comes from. New versions of iTunes perform just as quickly as older versions did, so the new features don't bother me, even if I don't use them. And, frankly, most people I know who do use iTunes use either all or most of the features available.

[forrestcupp]

My original post said "Most people like to...". Meaning, given the chance, they'd certainly choose the second car over the first. In 99% of the cases, they'd choose the first car only because of financial constraints.

I know, but it seems like a lot of people around here would choose the first car, not because they can't have the 2nd car, but because it's not popular or 1337 to drive the second one.

[Madspyman]

I know, but it seems like a lot of people around here would choose the first car, not because they can't have the 2nd car, but because it's not popular or 1337 to drive the second one.

It's not about being 1337 it's about being neat. Lets say a cars exterior is more like the hardware, and the interior is like the software. Keeping the inside clean is just as important as making sure the outside doesn't get any scuffs.

[XubuRoxMySox]

Wow! Lots of very thoughtful responses here (but absolutely none so far on the original post at Linux.com)!

It's quite insightful, actually. "Bloat" to me might be "improvements" that add features I don't want and which also slow down performance, whether those "improvements" are part of the kernel or an upgraded version of some software.

The point of the original article though - which was that bloat is in the eye of the beholder - has certainly been demonstrated in the replies! I guess I like a little bloat when it comes to my user interface (I want it fast and simple but it also needs to be pretty and offer a few favorite little bits of eye candy). I prefer an e-mail application that lets me write cutesy, heavily formatted e-mail to penpals with embedded pictures and animated gifs - to most people that would definitely be bloat, but it matters to me.

Yet my web browser is Midori! Ultralight, not so full-featured. But Firefox takes a long time to load up and go on this old hand-me-down 'puter. To me, Firefox is bloated! But for other (most?) people it's not.

Abiword and Gnumeric, so far at least, have been sufficient for all my schoolwork and choreography stuff, so OpenOffice - for me - is bloated. Yet for alot of people for whom Abiword/Gnumeric aren't enough, OpenOffice is not bloated.

So what I'm trying to say in my article is just this: Let's not throw the word "bloated" around so carelessly and use the term so broadly and apply it to whole entire OSes when really... it's all a matter of personal preference and subjective perception.

I learned alot from this thread! Thanks everyone for participating! :D

-Robin

[clanky]

I think bloat can be different things depending on the context:-

At the Kernel level it can either mean inefficient coding which makes the kernel unwieldy and slow, or it can mean unnecessary modules which have much the same effect for functionality that I don't want.

At application level it is pretty much the same thing, O_Oo is often described as bloated because it performs actions in inefficient ways rather than because it is loaded with unwanted features, but either would be bloat.

At a system level it is pretty much loads of unwanted apps or processes taking up disk space or running in the background and slowing the system down.