• A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 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

  • auzy1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • zoltanshields@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      It is an essential aspect of being Linux users that we claim our preferred distro is the absolute best and others are garbage not worth using. It’s in the terms I’m pretty sure.

  • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    3 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).

  • zeppo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    248
    ·
    4 days ago

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

    • bryndos@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      4 days ago

      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.

      • lemongarlic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Ubuntu is the enterprise distro if you need something Debian based you can get a proper enterprise support contract for.

    • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 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.

    • tumbling4986@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      How debian is lightweight ? Isn’t it have too many bloats pre-installed ?

      A distro i can build myself is actually lightweight. Like Arch or Void.

      • /home/pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Both arch and debian fresh out the box is minimal. Debian minimum requirement is 1160MB for Hard Disk, I’d imagine something similar for arch. From scratch, neither comes with bloat. You’re probably conflating debian with ubuntu or linux mint out the box.

  • communism@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • ki4jgt@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      When they first started, they had a list of promises. One of them was to always fit on a 800meg CD.

      • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        In the early 2000s, that wasnt particularily lightweight. I believe it came with openoffice and the full gnome desktop. That was not really minimal in any way.

  • cybervegan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

  • realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

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

      • muhyb@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        IMO that’s why it became popular at the time. It was a Linux distro anyone can install and use right away after installation.

        • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Easy install with drivers included and a rich guy willing to mail you installer CDs in a nice jacket for free. Every computer club in any school had a stack of them to give out.

    • ki4jgt@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      When they first started, they had a list of promises. One of them was to always fit on a 800meg CD.

      • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Is it kind of weird to respond to every thread with this same claim? A CD iso with full gnome desktop and openoffice wasnt minimal at the time.

          • luciferofastora@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            No, probably just a really passionate human determined to tell people where that alleged “lightweight” claim comes from. Don’t underestimate how persistent nerds can be when they think they’re right.

              • luciferofastora@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                The same as the difference between my rambles and AI slop: One is natural, the other artificial. One is organic, the other mechanic. One is passionate, the other soulless.

    • ki4jgt@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      When they first started, they had a list of promises. One of them was to always fit on a 800meg CD.

      • odelik@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        That wasn’t “light weight Linux” for 2004. Back then I would have probably been looking at Slackware or some other era appropriate minimalist distro if I wanted a minimalist Linux.

        Back in 2004 USB thumb drives were realtively new, and Ubuntu would have failed fitting on any available on the market. Yet a handful of minimalist distros could (depending on if the minimalist distro had a DE or not, and the overall package goals).

  • elbiter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

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