Linux bloat?

[rmcellig]

I was watching a video on Youtube and it mentioned that Ubuntu is very fast if you don't have any bloat on your system. What can be defined as bloat?

[GeneralZod]

Bloat-y is in the eye of the beholder.

[rmcellig]

OK. I started getting paranoid that I may be doing something wrong being a newbie to Ubuntu and long time Mac user. I like to keep things as simple as possible when it comes to computers and computing.

[I'mGeorge]

I was watching a video on Youtube and it mentioned that Ubuntu is very fast if you don't have any bloat on your system. What can be defined as bloat?

Post a link to that you tube video so we could say more about it. Bloat sounds kinda funny to me, more like a practical you tube-ish joke

[rmcellig]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnqwJRgCsmo

You will see it mentioned as text scrolls up on the right hand side. I just wasn't sure what was meant by bloat.

[radar920]

I was watching a video on Youtube and it mentioned that Ubuntu is very fast if you don't have any bloat on your system. What can be defined as bloat?

ubuntu one.

[xircon]

Bloat can be defined as supplying an excess of features/programs no one uses. Linux is in many ways more prone to bloat, for example, I have installed far too much :)

[rmcellig]

Does this include if I install Kubuntu and Xubuntu to use as startup sessions?

[xircon]

Is that all :) I have:

Gnome
XFCE
E17
KDE
Openbox
IceWM
PekWM
LXDE

But of course you can only run one Desktop environment at a time.

And don't get me started on media players.

If you have a computer with adequate storage and processing power, its not bloat. I wouldn't worry about it, install and test software, you can always uninstall it later.

[rmcellig]

You got that right and that's what I love about Linux! The freedom to do things like this. That's why I spend about 90% of my time in Linux Ubuntu and less time using my iMac.

[xircon]

Macs are very pretty, well built, but absolutely no challenge. Linux is for people who want to learn about computers and how they work. I have an iPhone, but it only became fun after I jailbroke it. (Is Jailbroke a real word :))

[rmcellig]

I have been using Macs since 1988, but ever since I discovered Ubuntu about a couple of years ago, I find that I developed a love/hate relationship with Ubuntu. Eventually like osmosis I discovered that I kept going back to it and discovered that it gave me way more freedom than using a Mac. I am on my Mac now runnig Ubuntu in VMware Fusion because I just find OS X boring. I know it may sound strange coming from a Mac user but there is way more that Linux offers the user than the Mac or for that matter Windows.

There! I just had to get it all out :)

[wilee-nilee]

Lets use some common reasoning here, Ubuntu with a fresh install all updated is about 2.5 gigs. Windows 7 professional installed and updated at least 9 gigs. XP is just around 3 gigs.

[xircon]

Strangely I have have spent most of the day making my Ubuntu look like a Mac, I really like the coloured buttons. Been messing around with Emerald.

[rmcellig]

Nice.

[holiday]

There are some interesting minimalist Linux distributions. When I was searching for a distro with minimum requirements I liked CrunchBang. There were others, but I liked CrunchBang the most.

It's an Ubuntu derivative so you can use apt-get to install only what you need.

[rmcellig]

Sounds interesting. Is it pretty staight forward for newbies?

[xircon]

I normally run openbox, but I am having weird overheating problems. Strangely Gnome with compiz runs cooler! Will go back to openbox when I bottom the problem.

Install Openbox:


sudo apt-get install openbox

Logout, in the sessions menu, change to openbox. You will get a blank screen. Right click to get a menu, configure to your hearts content!!!

I run openbox with avant-window-navigator and xcompmgr to handle the screen compositing (I like visual effect and bit of bling).

Crunchbang without a reinstall!

http://openbox.org/

http://urukrama.wordpress.com/openbox-guide/

[holiday]

Sounds interesting. Is it pretty staight forward for newbies?

Installs just like Ubuntu. It's not an intuitive transition for people accustomed to the contemporary standard GUIs, but it's not difficult once you catch on. And once you catch on it is more easily customizable than the Ubuntu standard. Depends how much effort you want to put into set up.

Xubuntu is more standard, and also sort-of minimalistic. I ran it for a while but it had some annoying defaults I couldn't easily override.

There are many interesting Linux distributions and most have responsible installers. Give them a try.

[TheNessus]

I normally run openbox, but I am having weird overheating problems. Strangely Gnome with compiz runs cooler! Will go back to openbox when I bottom the problem.

Install Openbox:


sudo apt-get install openbox

Logout, in the sessions menu, change to openbox. You will get a blank screen. Right click to get a menu, configure to your hearts content!!!

I run openbox with avant-window-navigator and xcompmgr to handle the screen compositing (I like visual effect and bit of bling).

Crunchbang without a reinstall!

http://openbox.org/

http://urukrama.wordpress.com/openbox-guide/

I'd want Compiz or Kwin with an Openbox session, but they conflict.

[handy]

I don't necessarily agree with the statement about Linux & bloat. Though apparently the Linux kernel just has to keep on growing.

I think a more appropriate way of putting the statement is that some distros carry a LOT more stuff than others.

Some even let you build in, on top of the core system only what you want & nothing more.

The big distros like Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Fedora & such come with lots of stuff. Some would call them bloated due to this.

[NightwishFan]

I dislike the term bloat, I find it sounds insulting. Few operating systems would fit that bill, except the fact most of them need 10x more RAM than their previous releases. Having more powerful specs be the norm is not an excuse to fluff everything up.

As far as Ubuntu being heavy, it does have a lot of functionality. However like a swiss army knife it still fits in your pocket.

[TheNessus]

I dislike the term bloat, I find it sounds insulting. Few operating systems would fit that bill, except the fact most of them need 10x more RAM than their previous releases. Having more powerful specs be the norm is not an excuse to fluff everything up.

As far as Ubuntu being heavy, it does have a lot of functionality. However like a swiss army knife it still fits in your pocket.

I would define "bloat" as a lot of deamons in the background, many useless processes that slow the system down, and memory drains. In other words, KDE.

[NightwishFan]

Not really recently. KDE seems like it is running pretty smooth. Though I agree a desktop/os for me is something very very simple in operation. You would think I like microkernels for that reason. (However I do not).

[TheNessus]

Not really recently. KDE seems like it is running pretty smooth. Though I agree a desktop/os for me is something very very simple in operation. You would think I like microkernels for that reason. (However I do not).

I tried Kubuntu 10.10, Fedora 14 with KDE, openSUSE 11.3... meh, not change. Akonadi and the rest clog it down to a halt, Kwin (which I prefer over Compiz) still has glitches and is not smooth on some effects, and KDE feels generally anything but snappy. When it overcomes all of those I'll leave gnome behind for good.

[chessnerd]

"Bloat" is highly subjective. On my older desktop, the system is "bloated" if it starts up using more than 150 MB of RAM. On my laptop, "bloated" is whenever things start to run slower than I expect them to.

If you want to avoid software bloat, install only what you know you are going to use. One of the greatest things about Ubuntu is that there are thousands of free applications and packages that can do all sorts of amazing things, but unless you use them, they simply clog up your system. They take up hard drive space, increase the amount of updates you need to install, and, depending on the application, can slow your startup time and bog down your system even when not in full use.

If you have a wicked fast computer, however, you probably won't notice any difference in performance between having 20 applications and 200 applications, or any difference between 1 desktop environment and 5 environments, but if you are using an old beater like my old desktop (with a Pentium 4 1.8 GHz and 512 MB of 133 MHz SDRAM) then you may want to lighten the load a bit.

[rmcellig]

I have a Dell dimension 3000 from around 2002. I currently have ubuntu 10.10 on it with 1gb of ram. How can I make it in faster more efficiently with the current Os? I know that I could use xubuntu instead, but would like to stay with Ubuntu because of what it offers unless someone can point me in another direction that is user friendly.

I am a Mac user and would like to keep Linux as simple and easy to use as possible.

Great comments from the above posts!

[NightwishFan]

Any of the official Ubuntu variants actually share a core with it. So you can go between them at will. From my experience the Ubuntu core system is quite trim, so perhaps just remove the programs and services you do not need.

[rmcellig]

I would like to disable some of the startup apps but am not quite sure which ones I can safely disable.

Is there also a way to disable or somehow hide all the gobbly gook that shows up during the startup process?

[smellyman]

though this article (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/adding-new-features-to-linux-has-not-affected-core-performance/10245) might fit here.

Interestingly enough, the Kernel with all new features still doesn't take a performance hit after 5 years of dev.

Big reason why we can install Linux on pretty much anything.

[Yownanymous]

I was watching a video on Youtube and it mentioned that Ubuntu is very fast if you don't have any bloat on your system. What can be defined as bloat?

Most of the Ubuntu configuration?

[Shining Arcanine]

I would define "bloat" as a lot of deamons in the background, many useless processes that slow the system down, and memory drains. In other words, KDE.

My laptop running KDE 4.5.3 on Gentoo Linux probably uses less RAM immediately after login than any Ubuntu Linux system. Gentoo Linux lets people strip out a large amount of bloat that Canonical compiles into software to accommodate everyone.

For the record, my laptop used 180MB of RAM at boot the last I measured it.

[3Miro]

I define annoying bloat as an installed program that I am never using or going to use. It is a waste of HDD space and a menu entire.

I define heavy bloat as a process (like a daemon) that is running on my machine that I never use or that it requires an unreasonable amount of resources (compared to the stuff that it does).

Ubuntu has some "annoying bloat" and very little "heavy" bloat. KDE 4.x has a lot more heavy bloat, like netpomuk. I don't want something indexing my files, I know what my files are and I know how to get to them. However, other people would probably find this a very useful feature,

There is only one way to make a system bloat free and that is the Gentoo way. I got a 32-bit Gnome system working with 97MB of RAM right after boot. Naturally, most people don't want to deal with all the required maintenance.

Ubuntu is trying to make the largest outreach, so naturally they are including features in their system that many people will not need. Yet, most of Ubuntu's bloat is only "annoying" bloat. Bottom line is, I don't think Ubuntu is badly bloated.

[Shining Arcanine]

I define annoying bloat as an installed program that I am never using or going to use. It is a waste of HDD space and a menu entire.

I define heavy bloat as a process (like a daemon) that is running on my machine that I never use or that it requires an unreasonable amount of resources (compared to the stuff that it does).

Ubuntu has some "annoying bloat" and very little "heavy" bloat. KDE 4.x has a lot more heavy bloat, like netpomuk. I don't want something indexing my files, I know what my files are and I know how to get to them. However, other people would probably find this a very useful feature,

There is only one way to make a system bloat free and that is the Gentoo way. I got a 32-bit Gnome system working with 97MB of RAM right after boot. Naturally, most people don't want to deal with all the required maintenance.

Ubuntu is trying to make the largest outreach, so naturally they are including features in their system that many people will not need. Yet, most of Ubuntu's bloat is only "annoying" bloat. Bottom line is, I don't think Ubuntu is badly bloated.

Gentoo users can set -semantic-desktop as a USE flag and install kdebase-meta, which makes KDE fairly lean. I use KDE 4.5.3 on Gentoo Linux and I do not have Nepomuk installed. Gentoo is the only way to go if you want a system that has no bloat.

Maintenance wise, portage does a great deal for users. It would be far worse to go the Linux from Scratch route.

Anyway, I doubt anyone running a general-purpose binary distribution like Ubuntu would be able to get 97MB memory usage with gnome. It would probably be more in the 250MB to 350MB range.

[Zlatan]

Gentoo users can set -semantic-desktop as a USE flag and install kdebase-meta, which makes KDE fairly lean. I use KDE 4.5.3 on Gentoo Linux and I do not have Nepomuk installed. Gentoo is the only way to go if you want a system that has no bloat.

Maintenance wise, portage does a great deal for users. It would be far worse to go the Linux from Scratch route.

Anyway, I doubt anyone running a general-purpose binary distribution like Ubuntu would be able to get 97MB memory usage with gnome. It would probably be more in the 250MB to 350MB range.

standard install of latest ubuntu on my 512RAM notebook is using ~160MB RAM. so i'mnot so sre about yours 250-350MB range

[3Miro]

Gentoo users can set -semantic-desktop as a USE flag and install kdebase-meta, which makes KDE fairly lean. I use KDE 4.5.3 on Gentoo Linux and I do not have Nepomuk installed. Gentoo is the only way to go if you want a system that has no bloat.

Maintenance wise, portage does a great deal for users. It would be far worse to go the Linux from Scratch route.

Anyway, I doubt anyone running a general-purpose binary distribution like Ubuntu would be able to get 97MB memory usage with gnome. It would probably be more in the 250MB to 350MB range.

The -semantic-desktop flag is something that I have to try next. Portage is great, but it is too much for most people. 250MB - 350MB is about right for Ubuntu, which is about what you would get with any other binary distro. Bottom line for me is that Ubuntu is not "bloated".

[lightningfox]

Things that you don't need.

One example is Compiz/desktop effects.

[Shining Arcanine]

standard install of latest ubuntu on my 512RAM notebook is using ~160MB RAM. so i'mnot so sre about yours 250-350MB range

That is surprising. Phoronix's benchmarks put memory usage for Ubuntu at over 400MB:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_desktop_vitals&num=2

[Shining Arcanine]

Things that you don't need.

One example is Compiz/desktop effects.

I can make KDE use about 120MB of RAM at a fresh boot on Gentoo if I disable compositing.

[3Miro]

That is surprising. Phoronix's benchmarks put memory usage for Ubuntu at over 400MB:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_desktop_vitals&num=2

I thought Ubuntu 10.04 came with Gnome 2.30. At any rate, at the beginning of the test it starts around 380MB. I don't remember ever looking at thins on Ubuntu 10.04 (I used Xubuntu), however, 10.10 does less than that for me.

[jrusso2]

Look at all the processes running after bootup and before use and anything that is running but not needed is bloat and there is lots of it.

[Lancro]

Things that you don't need.

One example is Compiz/desktop effects.

Well, nobody needs them, but I love them xD, and I have 4GB of RAM, If vista was running nice, ubuntu with compiz/desktop effects goes fast as hell, so why not use it/them?.

[mkendall]

What can be defined as bloat?

X == bloat












Not mine. Read that a couple years ago.

[NightwishFan]

32-bit Ubuntu or Debian with a standard Gnome (not Ubuntu desktop or tasksel gnome) will use around 90-130mb on boot.

[XubuRoxMySox]

The question has been asked many times in many forums:

What is Bloat? (http://www.linux.com/community/blogs/what-is-bloat.html)

An overused, misapplied, and subjective term IMO.

Moving to Recurring in 3...2...1...

-Robin

[NightwishFan]

Thanks Dixiedancer, I agree. I hate the term bloat.

[wilee-nilee]

32-bit Ubuntu or Debian with a standard Gnome (not Ubuntu desktop or tasksel gnome) will use around 90-130mb on boot.

I disagree I have at least 200-250 mb on a trimmed Maverick. That is a pretty small amount though. Granted it isn't pure gnome I have the Ubuntu desktop. I have never seen a gnome setup only run that low on a major distro.

My XP install though runs about 90-110mb at standstill, never use it but have it to mess around.

My W7 runs about 560mb once settled down.

[NightwishFan]

If you have more memory it will use more memory. With 512mb of ram, it idles at 140mb and no swap on a default Maverick install. Memory usage is not that important, the only rule is you need enough. Though I think trim downs could be found in some places. (Perhaps a few process cleanups like killing couchdb when you close evolution, or gtk-window-decorator when you disable compiz). Considering that stuff is idle it would just be swapped though.

[wilee-nilee]

If you have more memory it will use more memory. With 512mb of ram, it idles at 140mb and no swap on a default Maverick install. Memory usage is not that important, the only rule is you need enough. Though I think trim downs could be found in some places. (Perhaps a few process cleanups like killing couchdb when you close evolution, or gtk-window-decorator when you disable compiz). Considering that stuff is idle it would just be swapped though.

Yeah I figured since I have 2 gigs ram that all OS seem to adjust accordingly generally. Except for XP it just doesn't care.;)

[czr114]

There's different kinds of bloat.

There's an argument that having ten or more mail clients to choose from is bloat, but it's not actively bloating the system if the user can easily remove one and switch to another through a simple package manager. Perhaps the software itself would be better if there were more collaboration in a fewer number of projects, but that's a different discussion.

The real enemy is the incessant need to keep adding in new bells and whistles, keep adding in widgets, keep adding in new themes/skins, persistently upping memory footprints, and constantly finding new ways to chew through more hardware resources.

Prime example? Windows Vista. That's the sort of OS bloat we don't want, because it's in there by default and very hard to remove. It shouldn't surprise anyone, because Windows is unfree software, whose vendors have to keep finding new ways to justify charging you for the same actual functionality.

As far as OSS goes, even apps like Firefox and Thunderbird can get a bit heavy, when they try to be everything to everybody.

There is certainly a lot of bloat in free OSes, too, but it's much less of an issue when you're free to tinker. Removing unused stuff from Ubuntu takes a matter of minutes, after which it takes only a few more minutes to clean up boot processes and knock down graphics utilization.

In closing, don't be bothered with the perceived bloat in the OS. You can remove that easily enough. The real shame is when a good software project is lost because the devs needed to get a fix of "buzz" rather than just mark it as stable and create utility in something else we need.

The constant release of new hardware seems to promote this. We get heavier apps, so we buy newer hardware, at which point some devs see it as a license to add in the junk, and repeat cycle. A nasty side effect of all this is the massive creation of ewaste and elevated power consumption from CPU-hungry apps. If it gets something done, then great, but a lot of this is just consumerism and resource waste. It's certainly not appealing to think of how many perfectly good desktops were hauled off to a dump (instead of reused or recycled) from something like Aero alone.