Well it was 2012 so a lot has changed, but GNOME3 would still fail by their other metrics (accessibility and GPU requirements). After xubuntu they went with Mint, which was kind of a shitshow but for other reasons. At least with Mint there were straightforward workarounds for unsupported systems.
For Keith it's worth pointing out that the minimum hardware requirements currently listed by Canonical include 4GB RAM. I know that most companies will overspec on their marketing material but based on past experiences I would not treat this as a suggestion. https://ubuntu.com/download/desktop Canonical also has a history of dropping architectures they deem as obsolete, such as non-PAE kernels for their 32-bit distribution. This one also bit Free Geek, but it's impact on reusability was minor. Web of Trust dictates that I urge caution when attempting to put Ubuntu on an old PC.... -Ben ------- Original Message ------- On Thursday, December 15th, 2022 at 5:55 PM, Paul Goins <vultair...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for replying Ben! And I basically agree, if memory is at a premium, > using something like Xubuntu is a good option. > > Also, vanilla Ubuntu uses Gnome 3 rather than Unity nowadays, which is a > decent DE but perhaps not my first choice for older hardware. > > - Paul > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 8:51 AM Ben Koenig techkoe...@protonmail.com > > 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
