Redhat = Bloatware: Why?

**Nerderello** · 08-30-2003

I keep reading that people see the Redhat distro as a form of bloatware.

Why is this? No, not why do I keep reading it

, but what has given Redhat that rep? I mean, is it just that they've genned almost all devices and services into their 'standard' kernel, or what?

thanks

Nerderello

**jasonlambert** · 08-30-2003

on an average PC, redhat appears to run slower than any other distro (wisely) replacing it...

100% IMO 0.02/USD

Jason

**Mado** · 08-30-2003

I don't think it's that bloated. As with pretty much all distros, you have the option to pick your packages. If you're talking about a "Standard" install, I suppose if could be. But I don't see the point in a standard install, unless you really don't know what you're doing. You can always get rid of the stuff that you don't want. As for it running slower....I really wouldn't know. Perhaps on a slower computer, but my installs of redhat were pretty fast. (But my computer is pretty fast too so...)

**Giro** · 08-30-2003

Originally Posted by Mado

If you're talking about a "Standard" install, I suppose if could be. But I don't see the point in a standard install, unless you really don't know what you're doing.

Which is the whole point of RH its normally a disro for people who are new to linux and dont know what there doing, So they should have a better default install and a decent default program selection.

**Chris H** · 08-30-2003

I have read somewhere that RH recommend 256Mb to run a gui. I had it installed on a celeron 1.3 with 128Mb and it was like treacle. A mandrake install ran like greased lightening.

Have now shoved in 256Mb RAM and RH9 runs a treat.

**Mado** · 08-30-2003

I see your point Ol Man. Though I think to some degree any distro aimed at new usres will be somewhat bloated. Though Mandrake feels less bloated than RedHat does...

**slfc** · 08-31-2003

Originally Posted by Chris H

I have read somewhere that RH recommend 256Mb to run a gui. I had it installed on a celeron 1.3 with 128Mb and it was like treacle. A mandrake install ran like greased lightening.

Have now shoved in 256Mb RAM and RH9 runs a treat.

I have 128 MB RAM and the RedHat gui (Bluecurve or whatever it's called) runs fine. The only slowness I've observed is when starting Mozilla. I haven't used any other distros so maybe it is slow and I just don't know it.

Edit: 128, not 192. Got mp3's on the brain.

**Cisien** · 09-01-2003

I run redhat 9.0 on my server. currently I'm useing a total of about 50meg of ram and about 100 swap, I run web/file/printer/email/ftp on this box with no problems, it's fast and stable.

Then again I dont boot up to the graphical interface and dont even have a monitor attached to it

256mb ram here.

**Giro** · 09-01-2003

Why is your server using swap space when its got loads of RAM left??

**kriss** · 09-01-2003

It must be 50 mb of ram, since its using swap or something is wrong.

I liked Redhat, but I think its has become to commercialized. If you guys know what I mean.

And they include 3 cd's in their distro, and when you're done, you can't play a friggin mp3!! I think thats pretty lame, most windows users only use mp3 because vorbis is something "unknown" to them. Just go around, ask the ordinary windows user if he can tell you what vorbis is.

What really made me stop wanting to try Redhat 8+ was the incredible stupid hack on KDE. If someone don't know what I'm talking about, when Redhat were releasing their v. 8, they molested KDe without informing the KDE hackers so they had to "rush in" and fix a dozen of bugs. But still, Redhat shipped with that buggy bluecurve. I think that's where they got their buggy/bloated rep. from

Well, noone is perfect

Heh, anyone remeber the GCC incident?

Thread Tools

Display

Redhat = Bloatware: Why?

Posting Permissions