Bloated Gutsy not for me!

[hazel]

The other day someone gave me a cdrom with Ubuntu 7.10 (which I believe is Gutsy Gibbon). I thought I might use it to update my ageing Dapper Drake partition. I'm all the more ready to experiment with this partition because I use it very little nowadays, really only when I want to use one of the big "warhorse" programs like OOo. For everything else I prefer my nifty little Debian set-up.

Well, I booted from it and it was S-L-O-O-O-W! It must have taken all of 5 minutes to bring up the desktop. Even for a live disc, this isn't good.

I decided to try the install. The first screen suggested that I read the on-line release notes before going further so I did. And according to these, the minimum memory requirement for any kind of installation is 256MB and, for a graphical installation, 350MB. Well, I have just 256MB and I know from previous experience that having only just enough memory for the system to run in is a recipe for very poor performance. I cancelled and rebooted into Debian.

Ubuntu seems to have gone down the Windows road; not just frequent upgrades ( which is tiresome in itself) but each upgrade is bigger and more complex than the last so that you need to keep upgrading your hardware to keep up. I didn't come over to Linux to be treated like this!

[GNU-Fan]

Go, Debian, go!

[techieMoe]

Well, I have just 256MB and I know from previous experience that having only just enough memory for the system to run in is a recipe for very poor performance. I cancelled and rebooted into Debian.

Ubuntu seems to have gone down the Windows road; not just frequent upgrades ( which is tiresome in itself) but each upgrade is bigger and more complex than the last so that you need to keep upgrading your hardware to keep up. I didn't come over to Linux to be treated like this!

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for you. RAM is incredibly cheap these days and there's no reason to have only 256MB in 2008. I don't blame Ubuntu for not trying to still support computers that were top of the line a decade ago. That's one of the reasons Debian (and *gasp* Microsoft) have such trouble getting a release out on time.

If you're just a die-hard and either can't (due to hardware constraints) or won't (due to personality constraints) upgrade your RAM to something like 512MB, then Ubuntu is most certainly not for you.

However I don't think it's fair to say Ubuntu is "bloated" because it won't run graphically on 256MB of RAM. Use what works for you.

[SkittleLinux18]

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for you. RAM is incredibly cheap these days and there's no reason to have only 256MB in 2008. I don't blame Ubuntu for not trying to still support computers that were top of the line a decade ago. That's one of the reasons Debian (and *gasp* Microsoft) have such trouble getting a release out on time.

If you're just a die-hard and either can't (due to hardware constraints) or won't (due to personality constraints) upgrade your RAM to something like 512MB, then Ubuntu is most certainly not for you.

However I don't think it's fair to say Ubuntu is "bloated" because it won't run graphically on 256MB of RAM. Use what works for you.

All hail TechieMoe!! I agree, some people are so unwilling to upgrade their systems and yet they want to yell at technology for moving forward. If you ask me, it is a personality complex.

I remember when I worked at CompUSA, a guy came in asking questions about hardware. I was baffled by them all because the questions seemed almost archaic. Finally, it came out that he openly refused to move beyond Windows 95. He had all these reasons for why Vista, XP, Win2000, and WinME were the worse operating systems in existence. So I suggested Linux, he said, "ugh! Yeah right! That is too heavy for my hardware!"

At this point, another customer had joined in to argue with him! I just laughed and walked away. I knew there was no use trying to get through to him. I was convinced that he just had some opposition-defiance disorder... or whatever.

*DISCLAIMER! This was not a post in regards to Hazel, and the wonder person that Hazel is. TechieMoe just triggered a nerve in me about people like that. They upset me, I hate sitting through their rants, and I wish they'd just give it up. So it was nice to hear someone as prestige as TechieMoe be on the same side as a peon like me.

[Manchunian]

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for you. RAM is incredibly cheap these days and there's no reason to have only 256MB in 2008.

I'm sorry, I don't usually get into brawls, but this sort of comment really makes my blood boil! What's wrong with you guys! What's with this "must upgrade no matter what" attitude? If a computer works, why change it? Some people just don't have the money to change their computer every two years, and I'm amongst them. And, apart from that, do you know the damage that is done to the environment by cast away computers, televsions, fridges and so forth? And don't talk to me about recycling computers. What you might not know is that computer recyling is done in very poor countries in outrageous conditions and puts the workers that do it at a very grave health-risk due to the chemicals involved. When you need to change something and you have the money to do so, fine change it; but don't go telling everyone that they must consume, consume, consume when they're quite happy with what they've got.

[techieMoe]

I'm sorry, I don't usually get into brawls, but this sort of comment really makes my blood boil! What's wrong with you guys! What's with this "must upgrade no matter what" attitude? If a computer works, why change it? Some people just don't have the money to change their computer every two years, and I'm amongst them.

Your argument would hold water if we were talking about Ubuntu requiring a new $300 video card to run. Instead we're talking about (at most) a $25 upgrade here, that will keep an old computer running longer. I'd think you would be in support of that.

And, apart from that, do you know the damage that is done to the environment by cast away computers, televsions, fridges and so forth? And don't talk to me about recycling computers.

Again, I'm actually encouraging hazel NOT to throw out her computer, but rather make a very cheap, very simple upgrade that will extend its functional life for another few years. You're using my argument as a soapbox for something completely irrelevant.

When you need to change something and you have the money to do so, fine change it; but don't go telling everyone that they must consume, consume, consume when they're quite happy with what they've got.

If hazel was "quite happy" she wouldn't have posted a plainly negative thread about Ubuntu on the forum. She's complaining, and I'm offering a suggestion: upgrade or use something else. What's controversial about that?

[bigtomrodney]

I have a split opinion on this.

I'm a frequent upgrade kind of guy, but that's because I have the means to do that. I don't think it should be a burden on someone to upgrade constantly if they don't want to or can't. Perhaps all of the years of Microsoft-mandated upgrades have bled through onto this side of the fence.

Now on the flipside to keep to the best we should be using the hardware that is available to its best. Perhaps not at the exclusion of others though.

What's with this "must upgrade no matter what" attitude? If a computer works, why change it? Some people just don't have the money to change their computer every two years, and I'm amongst them. And, apart from that, do you know the damage that is done to the environment by cast away computers, televsions, fridges and so forth?

We are far too much of a society of consumption. We should be running our systems until they are genuinely of no use anymore - and that shouldn't mean running your last ten systems side-by-side nor should it mean running unusably old software.

Your argument would hold water if we were talking about Ubuntu requiring a new $300 video card to run. Instead we're talking about (at most) a $25 upgrade here, that will keep an old computer running longer. I'd think you would be in support of that.

There are a lot of assumptions made here.

• The computer is capable of taking more RAM
• The RAM is still available
• The age of the RAM does not prevent it from being reliably sourced
• That the person has $25 - and that is especially relevant given the various tax and exchange rates.

What might be a $25 dollar upgrade to you might be £100 by the time it gets through the mill. Not everyone can make online purchases so that can quite affect the decision.

I think we should all look to MenuetOS. It has everything from networking to emulators to USB 2.0 to printer drivers to web browsers and network tools.....and it's only 1.4MB. That's right - it's fits on a floppy disk. The default Ubuntu install is at least 1000 times the size of that.

As much fun as it is to have the latest and greatest I think there's something being done wrong if having the latest and greatest means kicking a large portion of the userbase in the teeth. And nowhere is that more important than with Linux, where so much of that userbase is in developing countries where we see older hardware.

[SkittleLinux18]

I think there a very valid arguments on both sides. However, and this is a big however, if Hazel does not want to do any of the things TechieMoe suggested, because of reasons similar to those made by Manchunian and BigTomRodney, then why is she complaining? I think that was the underlying point of TechieMoe's initial response.

If she wants to upgrade, then she doesn't need to complain. If she doesn't want to upgrade, she shouldn't need to complain- because that is not Ubuntu's problem.

Like I said, the underlying point TechieMoe was making really cannot be argued with. Just my honest opinion.

[Manchunian]

What I was saying, or trying to say, was bigtom's point. As a matter of fact, I don't really agree with Hazel about Ubuntu - the increase in hardware needs reflects the extra features Ubuntu now comes shipped with to work on new hardware and continue to attract new adepts to Linux. But the point I was reacting to was the"just upgrade and stop your whining" argument. Yes, it's cheap to stick some memory in your computer these days, but all computers have a limit. So, now you're telling Hazel she needs to expand to 512 MB; then it'll be 1 GB, then it'll be two...but at some point she won't be able to continue adding more RAM - it'll be "get a new computer and stop your whinging." This is the attitude I don't like. It's right that Linux caters to the high spec end of the computer market, but it's also right that the choices of people who don't want or can't afford new hardware be respected and that Linux still provides for them.

[schwim]

But the point I was reacting to was the"just upgrade and stop your whining" argument. Yes, it's cheap to stick some memory in your computer these days, but all computers have a limit. So, now you're telling Hazel she needs to expand to 512 MB; then it'll be 1 GB, then it'll be two...but at some point she won't be able to continue adding more RAM - it'll be "get a new computer and stop your whinging." This is the attitude I don't like. It's right that Linux caters to the high spec end of the computer market, but it's also right that the choices of people who don't want or can't afford new hardware be respected and that Linux still provides for them.

He stated that was the case if she wanted to run Ubuntu and he was right. Some distros cater to pc powerhouses, while others install just fine in anvils.

The original poster considers an OS bloated if it boots slow on 256mb of ram. Fact is a quick booting OS on that amount is the odd man out.

If you want all distros to run on archaic systems, then we're going to end up with 204 flavors of Damn Small Linux.