top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 271 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I don't recall Ubuntu being a lightweight distro or ever aiming to be. It was always Debian with more stuff.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    yep, user friendly, easy install, gooey install, proprietary drivers; extra stuff.

    i think they were aiming to loss lead, capture user base and ultimately get some b2b sales - oh well :( OP author even ignores stuff like Lubuntu and Xubuntu, which i assume canonical have at least some contribution to. OP gets downvote from me, worthless article.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 10 points 5 days ago

    They have had light official flavors (Lubuntu, Xubuntu, Netbook remix). But primary distro that has always been either Gnome or Unity has been fully-featured. It'd only consider it "light" compared to Windows.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 4 days ago

    I've never heard of ubuntu being described as light weight.

    only thing it was ever described as, is as an easy to use distro for first time linux users.. and even thats not entirely applicable anymore

  • source
  • [–] 123 points 5 days ago (4 children)

    ChatGPT, write me an article about Linux that gets traffic.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    I've never understood the point of these articles.

    What does anyone gain by attacking other linux distro's? It's not like people don't give Linux Mint a chance... I'm not a fan of Snap, but, there are many who are..

    Ubuntu also offers SLA's to companies (15 years support) and Linux Mint doesn't offer paid support, and there are likely many other reasons to use Ubuntu over LinuxMint.

    Use what best suits your requirements.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 4 days ago

    I've never heard Ubuntu claiming to be lightweight.

    Ubuntu's initial claim to fame was a normie (non-techie) could install it and the stuff they wanted to work would Just Work- there'd be a little option during install 'do you want to install closed source or proprietary or patent encumbered shit?' and you'd click yes and then your graphics card would work and your MP3s would play and your sound card worked without having to fuck around with kernel modules and command lines.

    If you want lightweight install Xubuntu (xfce environment).

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    When was Ubuntu “lightweight”? I’m not saying it was always bloated, but it was never supposed to be minimalist either. It was just an easy works-out-of-the-box Linux experience.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 84 points 5 days ago (13 children)

    stopped

    It never was.

    Ubuntu used to be the obvious choice for reviving old systems that couldn't run Windows

    It didn't.

    Whether xfce and cinnamon require less resources compared to other DEs is questionable, but the question itself is dumb. Environmemt by itself has little value without programs that run inside of it, and most of those aren't cinnamon or xfce specific or adapted to them.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 5 days ago (11 children)
    Ubuntu used to be the obvious choice for reviving old systems that couldn’t run Windows
    

    It didn’t.

    It was though. You are living in a bubble. For five years all I ever heard was "You gotta switch to Ubuntu! Windows is awful!" Except this is when I was still using Windows XP, so from my perspective Windows wasn't awful. It was just out of date. From 2006-2011, that's all I ever heard was Ubuntu Ubuntu Ubuntu.

    Finally I looked at Ubuntu, and instantly realized I hated it, but that's because of personal choice. For the masses, Ubuntu=Linux at one point. If you knew enough to dispute that fact, then you're already in the Linux ecosystem enough to have your own opinions.

    But for non-Linux people, I'd say Ubuntu was the default Linux experience for most people for 15ish years. I'd say around 3-4 years ago it started shifting towards Mint.

    And now Mint is the default experience. The problem is Linux users are very opinionated. Their distro is the best distro. Their distro "just works". And these opinions are on a spectrum. I don't mean autism, I mean the opinions are literally a whole spectrum. You could have someone who has almost an identical set-up as you, except they use a different file browser. So, slightly differrent. On the other end of the spectrum you might have someone who uses Arch. Or if you use Arch, maybe they use vanilla Debian.

    Whatever the specifics, that's not the point. The point is Linux is a whole range of visions, which is why your vision will never be THE vision for Linux. Because regardless of your opinions, no matter which stance you take, there's going to be thousands of people who want to tell you how stupid your setup is, and how much better theirs is.

    But the default Linux experience is just the one that the majority gravitate towards. 90% of normal PC users never change any settings, or try different distros. The difference is that most Linux users aren't the typical PC users. Linux users like to customize their PC. Most PC users don't even change the theme. That's why Windows has such a monopoly. The user buys their PC, plop it on their desk, and the factory settings are good enough.

    The other thing I find most Linux users do, is they want to grow the Linux base. So they introduce the "easiest" distro, and that becomes the default. For a very long time that was Ubuntu. I actually like Mint, so I personally see this as a good step for being the default.

    And if you don't believe that there are users who don't change their PC or customize things, I'm running ZorinOS, as my first Linux full time use case. The only thing I customized was putting a custom taskbar at the bottom of my screen. Outside of that, my PC hasn't been updated, or changed in any way since 2023.

    And if all of this sounds like horror to you, then that just means you have opinions that I don't have. But you're also one of the advanced PC users who use linux easily. I still struggle with this. If Windows wasn't one massive privacy invasion, I'd still be on Windows despite all the things you hate about them. For me it was the spying. Linux just does it's thing, and isn't controlled by corporations, so it doesn't spy. That's literally the only difference for me. I don't even update firefox. I'm running 133.0.3. I think firefox is somewhere near version 200.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 days ago (2 children)

    It was though. You are living in a bubble. For five years all I ever heard was "You gotta switch to Ubuntu! Windows is awful!" Except this is when I was still using Windows XP, so from my perspective Windows wasn't awful. It was just out of date. From 2006-2011, that's all I ever heard was Ubuntu Ubuntu Ubuntu.

    ubuntu's early popularity had nothing to do with it being 'lightweight' (because it really wasn't).. but rather simply because it was 'new' and 'easier', and everybody was jumping on that bandwagon. that's it.

    xubuntu came around with dapper (june '06) and quickly became a popular recommendation for older or low-spec hardware. ubuntu itself was never that choice. ever.

    I'd say around 3-4 years ago it started shifting towards Mint.

    linuxmint has been going strong longer than '3-4 years'. a lot longer.

    my PC hasn't been updated, or changed in any way since 2023.

    I don't even update firefox. I'm running 133.0.3. I think firefox is somewhere near version 200.

    it is your choice to ignore updates. you know your software is out-of-date and vulnerable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 5 days ago

    I think you're both interpreting the original quote in different ways. It was the obvious choice only because it was popular, but it wasn't popular because it was the best at reviving old hardware. There were many better options for squeezing performance out of old systems, and they would have been more "obvious choices" than Ubuntu for anyone with any knowledge of the Linux ecosystem.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 58 points 5 days ago (6 children)

    There wasn't a single second between now and 1970 where even the most delusional people could've seen Ubuntu as "lightweight".

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 16 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    As others have stated, Ubuntu was never a minimalist distribution.

    When Ubuntu first came out, most common CD drives could only work with CDs of a about 700Mb capacity, but assuming that the tech would keep improving, it was reasonable to suggest this. It was never because Ubuntu was touted as "lightweight", though. Then writable DVDs became almost ubiquitous, and they eventually migrated to that. In the meantime, USB flash drives were getting cheaper, and Linux installer tech was also improving, so eventually (quite early actually) these were supported too. But this was simply a logical progression of tech development and catering to the predominant baseline capacities of storage media.

    If you want a proper minimalist, try PuppyLinux or DamnSmallLinux. If you want to run on a Raspberry Pi (or one of their other supported SBCs) try DietPi.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 11 points 4 days ago (4 children)

    Neither are lightweight. If you want lightweight then get debian

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 46 points 5 days ago (4 children)

    You are all falling for the rage bait

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    What year is this? 2008?

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 5 days ago (11 children)

    why would it stop when it never was to begin with? lol

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 13 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    Ubuntu stopped being a viable desktop distribution 15 years ago, light or heavyweight.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    Did someone mentioned Ubuntu was never lightweight yet?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 23 points 5 days ago (2 children)

    Maybe Xubuntu or preferably Lubuntu, but never Ubuntu.

    I'd even have a hard time saying Linux Mint is going to be lightweight.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 20 points 5 days ago

    More like Ubuntu was the beginner friendly distro and Mint has taken that place years ago, right?

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 5 days ago

    You can tell the author hasn’t spent much time in the Linux world.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    Mint has always been the better Ubuntu.

    Prove me wrong.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 11 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    Wow. I'm impressed... Loads of comments and no one had to chime in and say "Arch is the best" 😂

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 15 points 5 days ago

    Neither have ever been lightweight.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 5 days ago

    Ubuntu was never a lightweight distro lol

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    Sometimes I feel like Linux Mint has a low-key marketing budget or something lol

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 4 days ago

    I don't think they do, it's just a good plug and play option for people just wanting to get away from Microslop. It's not really meant for power users, but people that want as little tinkering as possible (while still having the option if needed). Though I think they should do marketing, and get more people off of Microsoft products.

    And for the record, I am still waiting for my check from Linux Mint for this ad.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    The current version of Ubuntu recommends 6GB of memory and a dual-core processor

    4 GB.

    Ubuntu doesn't have other lightweight options, but Linux Mint offers XFCE and MATE editions.

    Wrong. XFCE and LxQt versions are offered - Lubuntu and Xubuntu.

    Snap is a packaging system that includes every possible file or runtime that the app needs to work.

    Yes, so it actually works at proper containerisation. That is actually the whole point of containerisation.

    Flatpaks frequently fail to work because of library incompatibilities.

    https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 5 days ago

    I mainly use Mint as my desktop distro, but it’s not lightweight, it’s batteries included. If lightweight is what you want, there are better options.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago

    Hasn't ubuntu always been the "non-tech friendly linux distro"? Their market niche was not being light weight.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago

    I don't think I have ever heard of Ubuntu be described as anything other than the "default Linux" distro that you use or give to someone if all you/they care about is good first and third party support.

    It is the iPhone or Samsung Galaxy of the Linux desktop OS world.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 5 days ago* (3 children)

    clear debian is the solution

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›