Does #Linux actually need to be lightweight these days?
I really hate that term, so I wrote a thing...
@codesections point 1 - I'm not sure I agree with the use of "lightweight" in that context. But hey, it's a free world, so I'll let that slide...I won't ban you from the instance just yet. ๐
Point 2 - completely agree. This was definitely aimed at the desktop space. That new "minimal" image that Ubuntu have pushed out is like 40% quicker to boot or something, that will be huge when it comes to working with Kubernetes etc. Totally agree - "lightweight" DEFINITELY matters here.
@kev Well, I'm glad not to be banned! But I don't think the usage is *that* uncommon. I run #arch and started with a minimal install (no desktop environment). People frequently call that "lightweight" (in my experience) and might even talk about how much less RAM it uses than Gnome or something.
But if you scratch the surface, then (9 times out of 10) it seems like what they're *really* talking about is how many fewer moving parts/less hidden complexity it has
@kev @codesections that's the minimal cloud one isn't it for VPS though, not the desktop minimal install?
@ignitionigel @codesections correct
@kev @codesections dammit. I must have missed last part of your post. Thatโll teach me for speed reading at work ๐ณ
@codesections
I don't understand the hatred for the term. I am able to still use an old WinXp machine as a daily driver for most things. I doubt it even has the specs to run Windows 10.
@kev
@kev
Not everyone can afford new laptops though. I use a midrange mid-2000s laptop and even windows XP was sluggish on it. A lightweight operating system is very important to me.
@kev The people I see online going on about their lightweght distro (i.e. arch fanboys) annoy me to no end, especially when they start pushing these "lightweight" options to new users. That'll just frustrate them and push them away!
All I look for in a distro is a minimal install because if not I'd end up removing a bunch of stuff I don't use. I just like using CLI programs when I can not because of system resources and being "lightweight", but just beause I prefer it.
@pinguino I agree with everything you just said. Lightweight and minimal are 2 very different things, and a lot of people in the community forget to make that distinction.
@kev @pinguino Yeah, agreed. I think I might be one of "those" people (as revealed in my earlier reply to @kev). I definitely tend to conflate minimal and lightweight, and may have a bias toward lightweight when what I really want is minimal.
And I agree that it's an important distinction, and one I and others should pay more attention to.
(I hope I don't come across as an #arch fanboy though. I've been pretty happy with it as a distro so far, but would agree it has its share of flaws)
@codesections @kev It's just one of those things that so many people have started to mix up that at this point they're seen as one in the same.
And nah you don't, nowhere near as extreme as the fanboys. Every distro has it's place and it's strengths/weaknesses. I just happen to think you can't go wrong with Debian :P
@kev The "main" distros and DEs are also getting lighter rather than heavier nowadays. I run Debian with KDE and it's noticeably lighter and faster than older versions. Apparently the latest KDE is getting even less memory-hungry.
Software used to get more bloated as time went by, these days it's becoming more efficient.
I run a 2011 laptop and no problems at all, no plans to replace it. I couldn't have done that with a 7-year-old laptop in 2011.
@kev Basically, there's only very limited need for "lightweight" stuff like LXDE and Puppy Linux when the mainstream, widely used and supported software works so well on computers 7-10 years old.
@iona exactamundo! Debian with KDE isn't a "lightweight" distro (optimised for low-end hardware) and you're running it just fine on older hardware. Linux does not need to be "lightweight". :)
@kev I mean I get it but there are people running old systems who do not/can not/want not to upgrade their hardware. Those people could focus on building specified versions for daily operation. There is also the enjoyability of "package golfing" which I personally do not get but don't fault others for doing so.
I will agree the cult following is a bit annoying but it exists because Linux is Linux is Linux. Despite how little or much you do yourself it still attracts people who find charm in building "their" system for "them".
@oct2pus I completely agree - getting to the nuts and bolts of the system is one of the many charms of Linux.
However, the first question many people ask when a new distro is released is "how light is it?" Unless it's one of the edge case examples you described, it's a moot point.
@kev I see two main reasons:
1. Linux has a reputation of being "the OS you install on a machine which has become too slow for Windows over time", and people might think that the more "lightweight" it is, the better it can fulfill that purpose.
2. For many Linux users, distro choice is more of a matter of identity than of practical concerns, and for them, memory and CPU usage is what horsepower is for car owners.
@kev nice post!
The only place where it still matters is in container / vm sizes and battery life. Xfce vs GNOME3 is a few hours of battery life, which makes a huge difference
@kev I used an Acer Aspire One for 5 years, using it aboutl 50% of the time. It had 1GB and a poor Intel Atom CPU. It could run _either_ firefox _or_ thunderbird. Not both at the same time.
@Michcioperz is using a RasPi as his daily driver. With this hardware, lightweightness does matter.
Also your thing is about Desktop linux, but linux is also used in embedded where being efficient on toasters matters. (powerful ARMs are something quite uncommon there)
@lanodan he explicitely said he's talking about desktop specifically, and he does understand the need for lightweightness in embedded and server environments.
@kev @Michcioperz
also, even on thinkpad X220 with 4GB RAM which I'm currently using, I had to close firefox to be able to compile znc with `-j 4`, because 4 threads of gcc + firefox with slack, mastodon and travis-ci wouldn't fit RAM and would cause excessive swapping.
My daily driver is actually another Aspire One, RasPi is more of an experiment to see if maybe the RasPi is actually more performant than the Aspire.
I know people who still run configurations worse than the Aspire One, partially because they don't have spare money for new hardware. And the Aspire One already has a terrible CPU.
Either way, I think striving to do more with less is a core virtue in programming. It matters a lot that we don't get lazy and put everything in Electron and whatnot, because then we would be excluding lots of people from our applications.
I hope you see my point.
You mention that according to Ubuntu metrics showing that most users have 4-8 GB of RAM. I can think of a thousand identical computers at my corporate job reporting a configuration supporting this claim. But it still doesn't account for many people on Windows who we most probably want to switch to Linux.
Sorry for being so verbose, sadly this is what happens when I wake up to being mentioned.
@Michcioperz @Wolf480pl be as verbose as you like. Go -vvv if you like. ๐
I love the discussion - as long as no one turns rude (which no one has), and we all have a discussion like adults, it's good with me.
Can I ask, what distros/os are you both running, guys?
i really haven't read this thread and it probably shows... ah well that's my unwanted input.
@lottie I don't think anyone is saying an OS shouldn't be optimised, of course it should be, but make an OS "lightweight" so it runs on 200MB of RAM isn't the right for of optimisation IMO.
The workflow and stability need to be optimised, not so much the system resource usage.
@kev @lottie @Michcioperz
if you can justify the OS/DE on its own consuming whopping 200MB RAM, eg. because some feature that incredibly increases productivity requires this much, and users still have a less resource-heavy alternative, then I'm fine with that. But if that 200MB is consumed because the programmer is lazy and wrote the whole thing in JS, then IMO that's unacceptable.
@Wolf480pl I completely agree. There's no excuse for lazy programming. ๐
Nice post, a few observations however,
I think a lot of folks get confused between "lightweight" and "responsive".
If Electron was not so prevalent all distros would be lighter/more responsive
Its not actually the system that needs to be "lightweight" but the web browser, but this generally means broken experience, so folks focus on the "lightweight" thing.
If you have older machines with limited resources you need lighter more responsive options, even webbrowsing for a couple of hours on modern with 2gigs of RAM will grind to a slow swappy mess
Lastly, do you know of a lightweight distro with a great responsive full web experience without electron that works with 1.5 gigs of RAM (asking for a friend..)...
@jason completely agree with every point you make. Many people ask about "lightweight" when really they mean optimisation/responsiveness. One does not necessarily imply the other.
As you alluded to; ultimately, making something really "lightweight" means cutting something out, which in turn means a reduction in features usually.
Great comment, thanks for the feedback. ๐
as long as people continue to skimp on ram? yes
@b I don't know why people do that though. It's so damn cheap.
I realise that relative, and I may be classed as fortunate to be able to afford such things, but I wouldn't say I'm particularly out of the norm.
on the other hand how much cpu glut need i tolerate for display manager ?
be frugal elsewhere not ram
@b yeah, good point.
@kev on the other hand you could argue that you don't want to give up the extra 10-20% performance boost when you need everything your machine can give, if the eye candy isn't necessary. But I think most people who don't leverage their machines to their max just do it for minimalism.
Personally, I want Gentoo so I don't need to install potentially buggy and/or vulnerable extra software, if I don't need it for what I actually want to install.
@lx damn right. You can argue it either way. But let's be honest, hardware is relatively cheap these days, who actually uses their machine to their full potential? I know I don't. ๐
@kev I do, every time I have to compile software ๐
@lx yeah, but I'm not a cool developer like you. I just play with VMs and Kali mostly. ๐
@kev lightweight means to have dual stack networking, so all modern distros are lightweight, easy. ๐
@lx of course, it's oh so clear now! ๐
@kev Two replies:
1) I tend to use "lightweight" as a stand in for "simple in implementation". That is, fewer moving parts/layers of abstractionโthe sense that runnit is "simpler" than Systemd, even if Systemd is "simpler" to use (sometimes). I prefer to use a setup that is "lightweight" in that sense for reasons that have nothing to do with RAM usage.
2) What you're saying only applies to desktop linux. On modern servers where someone might want to spin up 1000 VMs, "lightweight" matters