What makes a desktop environment bloated?

[vaibhav]

Greetings,
I'm not sure if this is the best forum to post this, but since it's related to desktop OSs, I thought I'd post here.
Whenever there is a new desktop environment that is being developed, it is touted as how lightweight, low on resources, and fast it is. Slowly, due to feature creep, it gets bloated, slow, which is away from the originally advertised USP, now citing how powerful and full-featured it is!
My question is, what exactly are the features that make a desktop environment bloated vs lightweight? Just for example, what are those things, whose presence makes GNOME bloated and whose absence makes XFCE lightweight? Similarly for KDE vs RazorQt?

Thanks in advance for any insights..

[snowpine]

I hate the word "bloat" and I think it is pretty meaningless. It seems to be used in the sense of "something that has 1 or more features that I don't personally use." For example, Ubuntu comes with accessibility features for people with disabilities, but I am not disabled, gee whiz I guess that makes it "bloated." ;)

Ubuntu uses less than 4gb of hard drive and 500mb of RAM. If you do the math that's like a $15 RAM chip and pennies of hard drive space. I don't understand how that can be considered "bloated" by 2012 standards. :)

[KiwiNZ]

The term "bloated" as used about OS's is a buzz word. I ignore it.

[grahammechanical]

"Bloated" is a term used historically for a certain proprietary OS that with every release required more and more disk space, more RAM and faster CPUs.

It also seemed to slow down in its operation over time. I have not used any of the recent (last 14 years) releases of the OS so I cannot say if the term "bloated" still applies.

By the way, I am using the latest Ubuntu on 5 year old hardware that was not at the cutting edge when I brought it. Ubuntu + Gnome + Unity works fine.

Things improved when I fitted another graphic card with more of its own memory than the previous card.

And having more system RAM would make the loading PDF documents made up of a large number of scanned images of pages quicker. But I do not put the issue down to OS bloat.

Regards.

[1clue]

"Bloat" can be defined fairly easily IMO.

If an average user is hampered by the presence of functionality he/she does not use while trying to find features they do use, then the product is bloated.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bloated?s=t

IMO people would stop using that term in reference to KDE/Gnome/<insert your bloated DM/WM here/> if the "stock" virtual package would contain less stuff. Put in the basics that almost everyone would use, then have another virtual package to contain the high-function version.

Or, alternately, just let them look for extras in synaptic.

[snowpine]

"Bloat" can be defined fairly easily IMO.

If an average user is hampered by the presence of functionality he/she does not use while trying to find features they do use, then the product is bloated.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bloated?s=t

IMO people would stop using that term in reference to KDE/Gnome/<insert your bloated DM/WM here/> if the "stock" virtual package would contain less stuff. Put in the basics that almost everyone would use, then have another virtual package to contain the high-function version.

Or, alternately, just let them look for extras in synaptic.

I disagree strongly with this opinion (sorry) since there is no performance benefit to removing unneeded applications, but a hurdle for the user if they have to install additional packages for common tasks. Ubuntu should always have the out-of-the-box ability to edit Office docs, burn CDs, send email, integrate with Facebook/Amazon, organize photos, consume music/videos, play solitaire, etc. in my opinion.

(Note however that I don't consider myself an "average user" and I don't use Ubuntu, so my perspective is a little weird. ;))

[haqking]

I disagree strongly with this opinion (sorry) since there is no performance benefit to removing unneeded applications, but a hurdle for the user if they have to install additional packages for common tasks. Ubuntu should always have the out-of-the-box ability to edit Office docs, burn CDs, send email, integrate with Facebook/Amazon, organize photos, consume music/videos, play solitaire, etc. in my opinion.

(Note however that I don't consider myself an "average user" and I don't use Ubuntu, so my perspective is a little weird. ;))

+1

In addition the words "everybody would use" is not a measurable quantity, what you think is needed will greatly differ to someone else. The addition of function/option and packages has no drain on the system itself. If the "bloat" was removed people would complain about something missing the same way they complain when it is there.

I dont use Ubuntu either so my view is skewed but I have used Linux long enough to appreciate it instead of complain about something I may not like or find useful myself cause I know Linux does not revolve around me, though it should ;-)

[1clue]

I've been using Linux since XFree86 was a curiosity due to its instability, and was rarely actually installed on a Linux box.

You guys seriously think absolutely every feature should be included in the base install?

This is why I no longer use Ubuntu. I use Xubuntu because it's simple and straightforward and clean. My wife started with Ubuntu, didn't like it because she couldn't figure out what to use to get her work done. I installed Xubuntu, she likes that because it's simple, straightforward and clean.

"everybody would use" might be a poor choice of words, but the 80/20 rule certainly applies. Include the 20% of the features that 80% of the people use, and then make an easily accessible option to add features. (What do you know? Software center seems to do just exactly that sort of thing!)

Though I haven't actually used it in years, last time I looked Microsoft Word, my own personal definition of bloat, started with a simplified menu with the features most of their users would be happy with. Then they had the advanced menu, which tripled the number of easily accessible features. Then they had a customization screen that let you get at the hundreds of features that weren't available in the advanced menus.

I write software for a living. Adding features does NOT make your software more useful. Any desktop system is not limited as much by the capability of the hardware as it is by the ability of the user to effectively get their work done. Having hundreds of features all installed at once is not only intimidating but slows down your work. No, not by making the computer slower, but by causing the user to search through miles of irrelevant crap in order to find a feature that does what they want it to do.

[KiwiNZ]

I've been using Linux since XFree86 was a curiosity due to its instability, and was rarely actually installed on a Linux box.

You guys seriously think absolutely every feature should be included in the base install?

This is why I no longer use Ubuntu. I use Xubuntu because it's simple and straightforward and clean. My wife started with Ubuntu, didn't like it because she couldn't figure out what to use to get her work done. I installed Xubuntu, she likes that because it's simple, straightforward and clean.

"everybody would use" might be a poor choice of words, but the 80/20 rule certainly applies. Include the 20% of the features that 80% of the people use, and then make an easily accessible option to add features. (What do you know? Software center seems to do just exactly that sort of thing!)

Though I haven't actually used it in years, last time I looked Microsoft Word, my own personal definition of bloat, started with a simplified menu with the features most of their users would be happy with. Then they had the advanced menu, which tripled the number of easily accessible features. Then they had a customization screen that let you get at the hundreds of features that weren't available in the advanced menus.

I write software for a living. Adding features does NOT make your software more useful. Any desktop system is not limited as much by the capability of the hardware as it is by the ability of the user to effectively get their work done. Having hundreds of features all installed at once is not only intimidating but slows down your work. No, not by making the computer slower, but by causing the user to search through miles of irrelevant crap in order to find a feature that does what they want it to do.

If Canonical were to start dropping featues/Apps from ubuntu in any small to medium numbers I can guarantee that these Forums would light up with dozens and dozens of threads complaining and saying that Mark Shuttleworth is the Antichrist and ubuntu is doomed.

Having lots of features is only limiting if you use them, your stand point makes no sense, the freedom of our software means you can remove what you want when you want.

[snowpine]

I don't know if anyone's ever studied the popularity of various Ubuntu packages, but Debian has been doing this for years. The most popular packages get included on DVD 1, which you can browse the list here:

http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.6/i386/list-dvd/


causing the user to search through miles of irrelevant crap in order to find a feature that does what they want it to do.

The Unity "dash" feature makes this complaint largely obsolete. Just tap the Super key and type a few letters of what you're trying to do, easy-peasy.

[lykwydchykyn]

From a software development point of view, here's a cycle I've observed in my career:

- Get tasked to replace some software. Start looking at the software and interpret the code as being needlessly complex, obfuscated, and byzantine -- in a word, bloated.

- Write a simple, clean, straightforward replacement using kewl modern tools.

- Get a feature request from a user that breaks with your simple, clean, straightforward design. Implement it as a quick hack.

- Repeat last step N times, until you have more hacks than simple, clean, straightforward code.

- Redesign application from scratch, this time building a complex underlying framework to accomodate all possible user requirements.

- Next guy gets your code interprets it as bloated. Process repeats.


The same seems to have happened with desktop environments.

[JKyleOKC]

Yep. My experience also.

And we already have both Xubuntu and Lubuntu as "low-fat" versions. I originally chose Xubuntu for compatibility with an ancient box that had been running Mandrake 8.1, with 80 MB of RAM and 40 GB of disk. I've stayed with it ever since because it's more than adequate for my needs, and can easily be expanded whenever I want to add eye candy or anything else others might call "bloat."

[mamamia88]

Well i would define bloat as when features are added that slow the system down more than they are worth. Of course there are ways to implement new features without slowing stuff down. But usually on the first iteration they just want to get it out there then work out the performance bugs later.

[1clue]

@KiwiNZ, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but might I suggest that you read the title of this thread?

I might also point out that there have already been dozens of threads about Ubuntu being doomed, and some which have been critical of Shuttleworth for various reasons too.

I might also point out that every time a distro changes its look significantly, everyone cries out against it for a month or two, and then after the bigger bugs get worked out they tend to quiet down and go about their business. Ubuntu/Unity/etc. has been getting that sort of thing for much longer than a month though, and the quieting down IMO is because people who didn't like it went to some other variant.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm a professional software developer. Bloat is a serious topic which is often discussed among professionals who write software having lots of features. What I'm saying is common sense. People only want to see features they use, plus some limited number of extra features they MIGHT use. Better yet, people like to know that there are more features should they choose to make them visible, but in general they don't make them visible for very long unless they actually find it useful. I would also like to point out that most people tend to want to SEE features, not type in a little box about a feature they might not remember the name of.

Also keep in mind that I'm not complaining about anything. I'm discussing what makes a desktop environment bloated, and using real-world concrete examples of bloat and what one product does to prevent unnecessary bloat in a user interface, and what could be done by canonical if they wished to prevent bloat.

I would like to ask how many Ubuntu people you think actually remove software from the base install? I have done so, but I doubt many others do. I would far rather start with Ubuntu Server and build my desktop from there, or even better find a distro that is approximately what I wanted in the first place and add to it.

[lykwydchykyn]

Put in the basics that almost everyone would use, then have another virtual package to contain the high-function version.

Or, alternately, just let them look for extras in synaptic.

Seems like this is what they already do. Can you give an example of something that ships on the default DVD which is superfluous for the average user?

[snowpine]

seems like this is what they already do. Can you give an example of something that ships on the default dvd which is superfluous for the average user?

+1

And furthermore there are a few "superfluous" features I am glad are there; for example the "average user" doesn't need accessibility features, but it would be a crying shame if Canonical removed them.

[JKyleOKC]

Perhaps the peer-to-peer capabilities of Transmission? Or the much-debated lenses?

[1clue]

Seems like this is what they already do. Can you give an example of something that ships on the default DVD which is superfluous for the average user?

Actually, no.

First, I don't use Ubuntu because I don't like the interface. I use Xubuntu, because the people who put that together share most of my philosophy.

Second, I'm not being critical of anyone. In general I think most of the Linux desktops are sane, even if some of them are heavier than I like. It seems a lot of people on this thread think I'm being antagonistic, I'm not. I'm just contributing to a thread I feel is a serious and important topic.


In general when I load KDE or Gnome anymore, I think there are a lot of features I don't use. I almost never use a word processor or spreadsheet, but I occasionally do so I like to have something small installed.

I think it's pretty important to have something either available or installed which opens up the basic Microsoft Office documents, so I can read them when they get emailed to me. Libre is a bit heavy for me, but there are other options.

I'm not a typical user. First, in spite of buying a Mac before Microsoft made Windows, I'm not much of a mouse user. It's been about 10 years since I adopted a windowing environment on my Linux box, and about 15 years since I moved to Linux as my primary workstation. I'm mostly happy with a command line environment, I type much faster than I mouse.

That said, my wife is a much more typical user. She uses a word processor and a web browser, and some instant messaging stuff. That's about it. She likes it simple too, but she became much more comfortable when I showed her the software center.

[snowpine]

Perhaps the peer-to-peer capabilities of Transmission? Or the much-debated lenses?

Transmission is essential to the propagation of Ubuntu itself and allows users to contribute to the project by sharing their bandwidth, thus reducing load on the servers. Furthermore if you don't use Transmission there is no load on the system or inconvenience to the user therefore it doesn't fit the definition of "bloat" in my opinion.

I haven't tried the "lens" yet to see what all the fuss is about, but Amazon is one of the top 10 websites in the world and a cornerstone of today's economy. To say "Amazon shopping is a superfluous feature that the majority of users don't want/need" seems naive in the year 2012.

[lykwydchykyn]

Actually, no.

Well,that's a shame. It would have made the conversation more interesting. :)



First, I don't use Ubuntu because I don't like the interface. I use Xubuntu, because the people who put that together share most of my philosophy.

I'm with you, though I use awesome WM. XFCE is too bloated for me :D.



Second, I'm not being critical of anyone. In general I think most of the Linux desktops are sane, even if some of them are heavier than I like. It seems a lot of people on this thread think I'm being antagonistic, I'm not. I'm just contributing to a thread I feel is a serious and important topic.


For the record, I'm not being critical, antagonistic, or defensive about your statement. I'm just curious what you had in mind by it. It sounded like you had some specifics in mind.



In general when I load KDE or Gnome anymore, I think there are a lot of features I don't use. I almost never use a word processor or spreadsheet, but I occasionally do so I like to have something small installed.

I think it's pretty important to have something either available or installed which opens up the basic Microsoft Office documents, so I can read them when they get emailed to me. Libre is a bit heavy for me, but there are other options.

I'm not a typical user. First, in spite of buying a Mac before Microsoft made Windows, I'm not much of a mouse user. It's been about 10 years since I adopted a windowing environment on my Linux box, and about 15 years since I moved to Linux as my primary workstation. I'm mostly happy with a command line environment, I type much faster than I mouse.

That said, my wife is a much more typical user. She uses a word processor and a web browser, and some instant messaging stuff. That's about it. She likes it simple too, but she became much more comfortable when I showed her the software center.

You sound a lot like me; but I don't think Ubuntu is aiming for users like us. To me Ubuntu is a nice set of software repos from which I can build the system I like.

But I think Ubuntu does a decent job of adding features that "average users" want. Actually, most mainstream distros do; it's not rocket science, after all. It just requires listening to users and refining the selection. I think most people who talk about "bloat" in the first place are probably not "average users". I've never heard my wife or kids complain about a desktop environment being bloated.

[JKyleOKC]

I agree that Transmission can be very useful to some, but I disagree that it's essential. Enough mirrors exist, worldwide, that use of peer-to-peer transfer is not necessary to reduce the load on the main servers. And actually, some ISPs consider the use of any peer-to-peer capability to violate their terms of service or even to be criminal, since so many folk use it for less-than-fully-legal purposes. It's the first thing that I remove whenever I install a new distro; however I'm glad that it's available in the repositories for those who want it.

[snowpine]

I agree that Transmission can be very useful to some

These people would be inconvenienced if it is removed from the base install. Whereas there is zero inconvenience to the people who choose not to use it.

As an aside, it is because of Ubuntu that I learned about the non-illegal uses of torrent technology. By including it in the base install Canonical helped to educate and empower me. :)

[haqking]

These people would be inconvenienced if it is removed from the base install. Whereas there is zero inconvenience to the people who choose not to use it.

As an aside, it is because of Ubuntu that I learned about the non-illegal uses of torrent technology. By including it in the base install Canonical helped to educate and empower me. :)

darn non-illegal torrents, its killing piracy ! ;-)

[dodo3773]

What makes software bloated in my opinion is hard dependencies on other software and/or hardware. This is probably why xfce is considered less bloated by some I suppose. To me though all DEs are bloated pretty much. I couldn't imagine myself ever switching away from a stand-alone window manager but that's just me. What some people like others may not. Definitely can take more time to set up and it is less integrated. You need to know more about how your system functions too (not as friendly for beginners). A question I had to eventually ask myself is am I willing to trade a polished pretty looking desktop for something that is faster and more stable. For a long time the answer was no. I wanted my cool effects etc.. But in the end I just wanted my computer to be able to keep up with me so I switched (ricer trying to save half a second haha).

What I mean by "less integrated" is this: Do I want 1 program to be able to do x,y,z or do I want 3 programs that do each thing separately? How will this affect the code? Can a program that only does $x be faster because of less libraries / external functions needed? Will the developers build a more efficient software with regards to $x since that is their only focus? The answers to these questions are of course: It depends on the application / developer(s).

Also, I think it is important not to confuse DEs with meta-packages as they are not the same thing. If you were to look at a dependency tree for whatever desktop environment you use vs the meta-package that provides it you would see what I mean. I believe this is what 1clue meant earlier by "the "stock" virtual package".

[lykwydchykyn]

Just for example, what are those things, whose presence makes GNOME bloated and whose absence makes XFCE lightweight? Similarly for KDE vs RazorQt?

Thanks in advance for any insights..

Getting back to this original question, I know in KDE (of which I was once an avid user) there are a lot of services that run in the background when you log in to KDE, for instace:

- akonadi, which a a framework for managing "personal information" like emails, contacts, messaging, etc.
- nepomuk, which aggregates searchable information on your system (file locations, meta-tags, etc)
- dbus, for inter-process communication

That's just a few. The real thrust of these things (in theory) is usually to provide a more integrated experience, and to let the computer use the information you've stored on it to give you a better computing experience. For example, if I add a contact to my address book with an msn account, why should I also have to add their account to my messenger client?

Lightweight environments usually just contain the basic features to launch applications and manage their windows.

[1clue]

Well,that's a shame. It would have made the conversation more interesting. :)


I'm seriously not trying to pick a fight with anyone. At all.



I'm with you, though I use awesome WM. XFCE is too bloated for me :D.


:)



For the record, I'm not being critical, antagonistic, or defensive about your statement. I'm just curious what you had in mind by it. It sounded like you had some specifics in mind.


If anything I would like to see more diversity in the distributions available, there are a lot of ways to choose pretty much the same thing as everyone else. Or rather than explode the distro count, maybe make a more configurable installation process.

For example, IMO most people with recent hardware have a DVD burner if not a Blu-Ray burner. The distro should come on one of those, with an optional pointer to CD images.

Keep in mind that this is the way I would do it, not suggesting that anything really has to change with canonical. But here it is:


You download the DVD, burn it, and then boot from it.
You choose the basics, like language and keyboard.
You choose 64 or 32 or mixed, but only if the hardware supports 64.
Server or desktop.
Server: bare bones, VM guest, medium or robust. Bare bones means not even authentication, a system logger or cron. Absolute minimum to support a bash shell.
Desktop: Present a list of desktops/window managers, with a few screen shots or feature presentations, with a good "starter kit" as the default option.
Choose a desktop or window manager.
Choose minimal, typical or robust.
Click go.




You sound a lot like me; but I don't think Ubuntu is aiming for users like us. To me Ubuntu is a nice set of software repos from which I can build the system I like.

But I think Ubuntu does a decent job of adding features that "average users" want. Actually, most mainstream distros do; it's not rocket science, after all. It just requires listening to users and refining the selection. I think most people who talk about "bloat" in the first place are probably not "average users". I've never heard my wife or kids complain about a desktop environment being bloated.

Ubuntu made their splash by making the installation process much easier. I actually paid attention when a coworker of mine, a Linux n00b, put Ubuntu on an old laptop in almost exactly 5 minutes, from the first CDROM screen to rebooting into the real OS. Not only that, the wireless card on that box had stopped working long ago, and Ubuntu made it work automatically. This was by far the easiest OS installation I've ever seen, on any operating system. Most people don't realize that because on Windows or Mac they just buy a computer already installed. Anyone who has installed Windows or Mac realizes it's not a cake walk.

At that point, the mainstream Ubuntu install was extremely easy to use for non-Linux users. Now, I'm not so sure. Agreed that Windows 8 is changing the landscape but IMO Unity is not easy to use, and not intuitive. Or at least it wasn't when I gave up and switched to Xubuntu.

[1clue]

What makes software bloated in my opinion is hard dependencies on other software and/or hardware. This is probably why xfce is considered less bloated by some I suppose...


+1. My other favorite distro is Gentoo. I like to be able to completely compile out dependencies that I don't care to use or haven't got the support for anyway.



What I mean by "less integrated" is this: Do I want 1 program to be able to do x,y,z or do I want 3 programs that do each thing separately? How will this affect the code? Can a program that only does $x be faster because of less libraries / external functions needed? Will the developers build a more efficient software with regards to $x since that is their only focus? The answers to these questions are of course: It depends on the application / developer(s).


This is a big design issue, and it depends on tight interaction between apps if you choose the second option. Frankly I don't see a satisfactory support for that sort of interaction in Linux. There's the old X11-style way of doing things and then there's the Windows/Mac style of doing things, and while most apps support both ways not all do, and even worse the X11 clipboard is not the same clipboard as the control-V clipboard.

However, a really light, tight system would have a bunch of tiny apps which are heavily integrated, or a single app which uses a bunch of plugins in the same way. This would require a lot more attention to the interaction than I see right now IMO.



Also, I think it is important not to confuse DEs with meta-packages as they are not the same thing. If you were to look at a dependency tree for whatever desktop environment you use vs the meta-package that provides it you would see what I mean. I believe this is what 1clue meant earlier by "the "stock" virtual package".

Exactly. Until now I hadn't thought that there might be another interpretation of what I said. Is that why everybody pounced on me?

[1clue]

OK I got 2 big posts in a row. You guys gotta type faster than that!


Getting back to this original question, I know in KDE (of which I was once an avid user) there are a lot of services that run in the background when you log in to KDE, for instace:

- akonadi, which a a framework for managing "personal information" like emails, contacts, messaging, etc.
- nepomuk, which aggregates searchable information on your system (file locations, meta-tags, etc)
- dbus, for inter-process communication

That's just a few. The real thrust of these things (in theory) is usually to provide a more integrated experience, and to let the computer use the information you've stored on it to give you a better computing experience. For example, if I add a contact to my address book with an msn account, why should I also have to add their account to my messenger client?

Lightweight environments usually just contain the basic features to launch applications and manage their windows.

The basic premise of these things is pretty important to what I was just talking about in my previous post. There needs to be a standard interface for the clipboard experience for example, and a lot of other things which Windows/Mac users take for granted if we're to adopt the idea of a bunch of apps working together.

To date I think on Linux that has been handled at the desktop level, but I think it needs to be wider focus than that.

I just realized that I'm not exactly on topic, so I'll shut up on this one.

[dodo3773]

Until now I hadn't thought that there might be another interpretation of what I said. Is that why everybody pounced on me?

I just wanted to clarify for the OP. I think you got pounced because they were only thinking about binary run time I guess (not the bloat of the space taken by the extra binaries on the system). But, hypothetically, if a library has to be patched (or the kernel) in order for program x to work right it could potentially have a negative impact on program y as a result (kind of a way out example just saying). So, in that sense what you said was not really wrong in my opinion. I think part of it too though was people suddenly moved from "what makes a desktop environment bloated" to "what if they started dropping all these features". How the thread fell in that direction I have no idea.

[monkeybrain2012]

I agree that Transmission can be very useful to some, but I disagree that it's essential. Enough mirrors exist, worldwide, that use of peer-to-peer transfer is not necessary to reduce the load on the main servers. And actually, some ISPs consider the use of any peer-to-peer capability to violate their terms of service or even to be criminal, since so many folk use it for less-than-fully-legal purposes. It's the first thing that I remove whenever I install a new distro; however I'm glad that it's available in the repositories for those who want it.

Don't know how it is where you live, but instead of removing the torrent client I would just change ISP. It is none of their business to enforce the law (whose morality is debatable and differs from country to country,--not all of us are from the U.S.) and it is even less justifiable to presume guilty. Here even the CBC(Canadian Broadcast Corporation) uses torrent to distribute their contents. I too remove Transmission because I use deluge or qbittorrent.

[1clue]

For some reason, an admin thinks this post violated the code of conduct. Deleted.

[Aaron Christianson]

Once I mentioned how it was weird that `ed ` (the standard text editor) wasn't installed on Arch Linux by default on the Arch message boards (I meant that it wasn't in the 'base' package group, but I didn't specify). I said that one could hardly consider a 47k binary bloat.

Someone responded that a 1k file which you do not use is bloat. It's an interesting idea.

I think that may be the best way to define bloat, i.e. containing features which you personally do not use. This is part of the reason that I don't use any desktop environment on my main computers. I use a window manager, and the rest of the utilities included in most window environments, I either install and configure myself, or write simple replacements in bash (my power-button dialog, for example, is just a bash script with dmenu), cause then I know how it all works... more or less.

In that sense, bloat is a personal matter, I think it is the responsibility of the user, rather than the distro developers, to deal with bloat in the environment. Ubuntu users are free to try other spins or distros, use the Ubuntu minimal iso, or uninstall packages which they do not use.

I use minimalist Arch system as my main environment, but I use normal ubuntu for recovery because I don't neccisarily know which tools I'll need, so it's good to have a lot available. I also set up other people with Ubuntu (rather than Arch), since I don't know what they will need or how well-equipped they will be to find new software, should they need it, so I want to give them an environment that is somewhat "bloated" (according to the definition in this post) to cover the widest variety of use cases. Ubuntu does this well; perhaps better than any other distro (not including some of their downstreams). Once the new user knows enough to set up a more streamlined system, they won't be needing my help to install Linux.

On the other hand, bloat in individual applications is a matter for developers to worry about. This is one of the places where modularity is beneficial in design. I like application that leverage the existing resources on my computer for doing their job. This means I hate LibreOffice and Firefox (from a design perspective). The fact that they are cross platform means that they have to have all of their resources bundled inside the package, making a much larger install filled with many features I don't need or want (and don't even get me started about LibreOffice running in the JRE. barf). However, both of these programs have features I need or want which no other programs provide, and, as yet, I'm unwilling to create alternatives that suit my needs, so I use these large, bloated programs. Vim is another good example. While it is quite small by today's standards, it is filled with features I don't need, and many of the built in features that I do use could easily be replaced by programs in the coreutils; they have simply been re-coded directly into vim so that it can support platforms which do not contain a proper Unix userland (that's actually only one desktop platform, come to think of it...). However, it is also filled with features that I need, which are only available in other text editors which are even more bloated *emacs shifts uncomfortably*

However, in all fairness, some of the features which I need to have in order to do what I do are bloat for most other users, including excellent support of the Hebrew Language and bi-directional documents, which will almost never be included in minimalist software packages.

This is yet another reason to prefer modularity in software design: allows you to pull in the features you need without having lots you don't want (which, in a sense, is the also strength of Firefox/Vim/Emacs; infinite extensibility. There's something to be said for a native programming language, though IMO, the ability to have meaningful interaction with the shell is usually better).

[edit]: holy monkeys was that long.

[Aaron Christianson]

I would guess that most of you have no idea how computer illiterate Americans can be. The very simplest that Linux has to offer is beyond these guys IMO.
This problem has nothing to do with America. It's the same everywhere.

[1clue]

This problem has nothing to do with America. It's the same everywhere.

You sort of expect it in third world countries where people can't afford a computer though. My stereotypical American household (I'm an American) has at least two computers running constantly, and approximately one high function cell phone per adult or teenager, one low-function cell phone per child and half a dozen extra devices doing whatever devices do.

The user I just mentioned probably doesn't fit that stereotype. :)

[KiwiNZ]

I can see that.

My wife is largely computer illiterate. She's from Colombia (South America) and isn't fluent in English yet. She calls everything a 'program' including the operating system, which while technically correct it's not very accurate.

As well, looking at how non-industry people think of computers now, it seems that more and more people think of them as an appliance than the way I tend to think of it.

As a result, I have started talking about 'features' rather than 'applications' because that is the best way my brain can wrap around the end user's experience.

I regularly have two main views of bloat:

The visibilty of the feature on the system, from the end user's perspective.
The size of the image on the disk.


Last weekend I went on a distro search to make an extremely small VM, to encompass a build system that would be burned onto a CD/DVD. I wanted to make a working build system for an old branch of source code for a customer. I found out that a bare-bones Ubuntu Server takes 2g of space when viewed from the host operating system, looking at the size of the folder created. Internally it was about 1.4g. There are a lot of things on there I would have done without, and did wind up removing some of the larger unnecessary packages, but in that sense I would like a minimal install that is set up for a modern 64-bit multicore server, specifically for a VM. BTW Ubuntu Server won the fight, without building my own from Gentoo or similar, I couldn't find any ready-made 64-bit distros that were smaller.

The visibility on screen is my main focus for this discussion. Most end-user computers have much more space than they need, and much more CPU than they need. As such I don't really think bloat has any real effect on them in that respect.

My company is really small, meaning that everyone answers the phone when it rings, and EVERYONE (including the CEO) can wind up handling a support call from a user. There is exactly one non-developer in the company, and it's not the CEO.

I've heard complaints about the screen being too busy. I've heard complaints about the menus being too complicated. I've made the changes to simplify things, and the complaints go away.

Just to give you an idea of what we deal with, one of my coworkers asked for a screen shot of a problem one time. The user took a picture of the screen and faxed it to us. And it was one of those Instamatic prints, on real film where the film comes out when you press the shutter button. I was unaware that they still made film for those.

I would guess that most of you have no idea how computer illiterate Americans can be. The very simplest that Linux has to offer is beyond these guys IMO.

please do not denigrate persons or groups, please refer the Code of conduct.....

"Users agree not to post anything abusive, rude, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, advertising or marketing related, or sexually-oriented.

"Trolling, Attacks and Flaming: These are always forbidden.
Trolling is posting in a way that provokes emotional responses.
Attacks and derogatory terms of any kind are not welcome. This includes references to other operating systems and the companies that produce them.
Flames are messages that personally attack or call any people names or otherwise harass. These, along with any generally condescending posts will be edited or removed at the moderators discretion.
If a thread is flame-bait (appears to be intended to start an argument or is likely to cause an argument rather than enhance discussion, as in trolling), it will be locked or removed without notice. Individual flame-bait comments in a post may be deleted or edited at the moderators' discretion.
If the thread turns into an argument, it can be closed to further comment or removed without notice. Sometimes a moderator may split the thread or delete certain portions in order to keep the discussion going, but that is not always possible since we are a staff of volunteers with limited time and numbers."

[haqking]

Q. What makes a desktop environment bloated ?

A. Opinion

[snowpine]

My philosophy is that by choosing a bells-and-whistles Desktop Environment (Unity, Gnome, KDE) rather than a Windows Manager (openbox, fluxbox, awesome, etc.) the user "opts in" to a feature-rich user interface.

[JKyleOKC]

KiwiNZ,

I'm not complaining in any way, but simply asking for guidance so that I don't violate the rules any time in future. If that message had said "people" instead of "Americans" would it have been inside the pale?

Anyone who has handled any sort of customer support has to be well aware of the alarming amount of computer illiteracy found in a sampling of average computer users, and it's not at all limited to a single region or nation...

[nothingspecial]

What have Americans got to do with it ?

[Aaron Christianson]

The user I just mentioned probably doesn't fit that stereotype. :)
I'm also American, but I've lived in Europe and the Middle East. Most people are simply not interested in new systems that must be learned. They want something that is either intuitive or built on paradigms that they already recognize. They see learning to use new features as a necessary evil to be avoided when possible.

Most people would probably continue using the same computer and OS (which they only partially understand and completely loath, if it is Windows) indefinitely if it didn't become unbearably slow from regular use combined with a total lack of system maintenance. When this happens, they see upgrading as the only viable solution, an unfortunate necessity.

Everyone hears about the greener pastures on OS X, and some few who can justify the price make the switch. OS X is, as promised, a much simpler experience for people who hate computers, partially due to an operating system that is more well designed (read: Unix with an intuitive GUI), but mostly from having a journaled file system which requires less maintenance (antiquated though HFS+ is by standards like ZFS and BTRFS). People like it, and what's more, the upgrades are usually compelling. This is accomplished mostly by bloat. The unfortunate side effect is that it requires users to upgrade hardware, as OS X bloat make it crawl on systems which are 3-4 years old or more, or possibly 5-6 years if you went with a souped-up system (but that is rare in the case of the users were talking about here).

If these people knew about basic windows system maintenance, they would use XP forever, and Apple would still serve only a niche market (those who care about design, and those who think they care about design, but really just like shiny objects. Apple satisfies both types).

Linux adoption would only barely be affected by this, as none of these people would ever do something as rudimentary create and use installation media (they don't defrag, so why would they do that?)

This is true everywhere that I have lived.

[monkeybrain2012]

What have Americans got to do with it ?
Beccause 1clue is American so he can only speak for American experience?

[nothingspecial]

Beccause 1clue is American so he can only speak for American experience?

oh

I can't speak for English people because most of them don't use computers like I do. Or so I am led to believe.

[KiwiNZ]

KiwiNZ,

I'm not complaining in any way, but simply asking for guidance so that I don't violate the rules any time in future. If that message had said "people" instead of "Americans" would it have been inside the pale?

Anyone who has handled any sort of customer support has to be well aware of the alarming amount of computer illiteracy found in a sampling of average computer users, and it's not at all limited to a single region or nation...

posts denigrating anyone are not appropriate, refer the Code of conduct.

[monkeybrain2012]

oh

I can't speak for English people because most of them don't use computers like I do. Or so I am led to believe.
You can disagree with his statement but whether it is a correct generalization is not the issue, but rather whether similar statements like "most people are computer illiterate" or "Many Canadians are computer illiterate" constitute a violation of the coc (i.e whether such statement are meant to denigrate or simply stating perceived facts,--correct or not). That was the point JKyleOKC tried to clarify and others have responded.

As far as I know, the word "illiteracy" is not an insulting word, as in "what should we do to combat illiteracy?", it is only describing a fact, though it can sometimes be used to insult people in non normal usage.

[KiwiNZ]

You can disagree with his statement but whether it is a correct generalization is not the issue, but rather whether similar statements like "most people are computer illiterate" or "Many Canadians are computer illiterate" constitutes a violation of the coc. That was the point JKyleOKC tried to clarify and others have responded.

refer post #43, if it continues I will close this thread.

[nothingspecial]

You can disagree with his statement but whether it is a correct generalization is not the issue, but rather whether similar statements like "most people are computer illiterate" or "Many Canadians are computer illiterate" constitute a violation of the coc (i.e whether such statement are meant to denigrate or simply stating perceived facts,--correct or not). That was the point JKyleOKC tried to clarify and others have responded.

Posts denigrating anyone are not appropriate.

[monkeybrain2012]

So if the UN says there is a huge illiteracy problem in country x and more schools and teachers are needed the UN is denigrating country X?? That seems to be a rather unusual interpretation of the English language.

[nothingspecial]

no one has explained what America has to do with
What makes a desktop environment bloated?

[KiwiNZ]

So if the UN says there is a huge illiteracy problem in country x and more schools and teachers are needed the UN is denigrating country X?? That seems to be a rather unusual interpretation of the English language.

Does this look like the UN?

patience level now zero

Thread closed