3 ms·
I would argue that it isn't Linux that is bloated. Linux is the kernel. It is the desktop environments and the things added to them to make each distro distinct
by ksaj 6y ago
I would argue that it isn't Linux that is bloated. Linux is the kernel. It is the desktop environments and the things added to them to make each distro distinct (and fat).
There are significantly less bloated desktop environments, but people like their bling, and bling by default includes an accompanying increase in resource consumption.
Look at Raspbian. It looks pretty good, but uses a lot less resources than gnome and kde. You can add to it if you want it to be as bloated as the typical desktop environments. But it's a choice.
Personally I'm in love with tiling desktops which use even less resources yet. And they're blazingly fast.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago...I wonder how difficult it would be for whatever desktop environments GP was using in 1993 to be used today, on a super-resource-constrained system like an N64. The Linux adage is "don't break userspace", right?
- ksaj 6y agoYou can already do that by choosing desktop environments that aren't trying to be all things for all people. More bling is literally more resources. A lot of it is merely feature creep. Remember when OSX used to have animations (like applications minimizing like a genie getting sucked back into its kettle) as a feature you could turn on if you wanted it? Now it's pretty much default, and most people don't know you can shut that stuff off. And that's how things get sluggish. Sexy new "advanced" features become default, and you always need faster computers and more memory to keep up. If you insist on using Gnome or KDE, obviously bloated because everything has extra features enabled by default, then then shut those resource hogs off. You'll start to get back to fast desktop days again. Some people will miss the bling, but you can't have one without the other. You can't expect all that sweet sweet bling without the resources being tied up to make it happen.
- ksaj 6y agoI got voted down by someone who obviously never compiled their own kernel (which used to be the norm). After lots of questions about how you need to config, you get your kernel... THAT is Linux -- the kernel. The rest, the part you are complaining about bloating is the GNU part. I'm not complaining about that GNU part, btw. I've lived in it since the early 90's. But the Linux kernel can be as slim and responsive as you want it to be if you are willing to compile yourself. You can even compile it as an RTOS, and you can never convince me that would be too sluggish. What I got voted down for was pointing out that Linux-proper wasn't the slow part of that blend. It was the desktop. And that part is GNU, not Linux. Period.
- icedchai 6y agoIt was very barebones. FVWM was the window manager I used, running on SLS Linux with a 0.99.xx kernel.
- ksaj 6y agoI used fvwm as my main environment back then. It was really good. You can still see its influence in Raspbian and other desktops like that. I actually had a gig with SLS Soft Landing back in the day. It wasn't unrelated to the stuff I was doing with uucp at the time. That was important then, but totally not at all today, lol. I am assuming you are making a bit of a jest, because things have moved along in the past many decades.
- icedchai 6y agoI used to do a ton of stuff with UUCP back in the day. Fun times. I had about a 5 other systems calling into mine for UUCP mail. You are right. Linux has evolved tremendously over the past ~30 years. Those early times were fun though...
- anthk 6y agoFVWM is floating and "bling bling" and it's lighter than tiling VM's.