I daily-drive Gnome 3 for work under vanilla Ubuntu, but my laptop is relatively high on memory. If I were more strapped for memory, would likely be using Xfce or LXDE and the appropriate Ubuntu variant.
I have used i3 as well, which appeals to my geeky side (mouse optional), but I didn't want to burn a bunch of time customizing it to get the type of functionality I have out of the box with Gnome, so I just stuck with Gnome out of pragmatism - I'm getting paid to work, not fiddle with my desktop, and while Gnome may be bloated and not the most customizable, it does basically Just Work. :-) - Paul On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 11:24 AM Kevin Williams <ke...@k9w.org> wrote: > Paul and Ben, > > Great info! > > Keith, > > What is your preferred desktop environment or window manager? > > I agree Debian could be a great choice, or one of its desktop focused > derivatives MX Linux or Spiral Linux. If you liked Scientific Linux, > consider Alma or Rocky Linux. > > Kevin > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022, at 8:50 AM, Ben Koenig wrote: > > I never managed to root cause it, but I did isolate the problem to a > combination Ubuntu 12.04 (unity desktop), the GTK CUPS configuration tool, > and 1GB of RAM. > > > > What we ran into was that the standard GUI tool used by all distros was > crashing during the printer setup process. On a given system, if we had 2GB > of RAM it would work. Take a single RAM stick out and it would fail. > Howeever, on the same hardware running Xubuntu the problem did not > reproduce. > > > > So it wasn't an issue with the Ubuntu core or even the application > itself since Xubuntu was installing the same packages. And the CUPS > configurator originates from Red Hat as well, it's a generic tool used in > all distros. Something about that tool, running inside the Unity desktop, > was causing it to crash when the PC only had 1 GB of RAM. > > > > This was the last straw for Ubuntu at Free Geek. The Unity desktop had > already caused a number of concerns and this issue was the last nail in the > coffin for the organization. When I suggested moving to Xubuntu with some > custom packages to make the desktop look like gnome2 there wasn't a lot of > pushback. > > -Ben > > > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > On Wednesday, December 14th, 2022 at 8:54 PM, Paul Goins < > vultair...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I'm curious: do you have any idea what the root cause might have been? > Was > > > it the choice of desktop environment for example? (Certainly Gnome > isn't > > > the most lightweight environment.) > > > > > > I'm curious what Free Geek moved to instead? (Legitimately curious, not > > > getting defensive at all here.) > > > > > > - Paul > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 6:18 PM Ben Koenig techkoe...@protonmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > > > On Wednesday, December 14th, 2022 at 5:01 PM, Keith Lofstrom < > > > > kei...@kl-ic.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm moving from a Redhat-family distro (Scientific Linux, > > > > > a physics-heavy CENTOS clone) to Debian-family distros. > > > > > I've played with Ubuntu 20.10 and and 22.10 on two > > > > > desktops; "snap" seems to use nontrivial amounts of RAM. > > > > > My preferred laptops are only 3GB; RAM bloat is an issue. > > > > > > > > > > I also maintain an offsite virtual server; my favorite > > > > > hosting company supports CentOS, Ubuntu, and Debian. > > > > > > > > > > Is snap actually a memory hog, or is that my misperception? > > > > > Will snap remain mostly Canonical's walled garden? > > > > > > > > > > Moving to uncluttered Debian LTS (with its vast collection > > > > > of packages) seems to be a better option in the long term - > > > > > unless Debian "snap"s as well. > > > > > > > > > > Keith > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Keith Lofstrom kei...@keithl.com > > > > > > > > Ubuntu has always had memory problems, even before snaps. In 2012 > Free > > > > Geek moved away from vanilla ubuntu as a direct result of apps > crashing in > > > > low memory configurations. On a system with 2GB of memory things > worked > > > > fine, but removing a single stick (simulating RAM failure, > used/refurbished > > > > hardware) would cause some basic GUI apps to crash. That was 2012, we > > > > reliably demonstrated Ubuntu's inability to handle low-spec > machines. I > > > > performed the testing myself and AFAIK they never went back to > Ubuntu. > > > > > > > > As for snaps, someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think there may > be a > > > > small RAM penalty. The whole idea is that a given app (and all of > it's > > > > associated assets and dependencies) can be bundled together in a > single > > > > squashfs package. Compared with a traditional linux systems using > shared > > > > libraries, you are going to use more RAM. > > > > > > > > - the squashfs modules have to be decompressed in real time. This is > > > > similar to what the CD/USB installer does but on a per-app scale. > > > > - apps may not necessarily rely on the global libraries for things > like > > > > GTK/QT or openssl. This means that if multiple apps are shipping > with their > > > > own copy of a library that already exists globally, then memory will > need > > > > to be allocated for each instance of said library. > > > > > > > > Exactly how much RAM is wasted here is determined by the 1337 skillz > of > > > > both the snapd devs and snap package builders. As with anything, the > more > > > > stuff you have loaded, the more memory it's going to use... > > > > > > > > -Ben > > >
