Re: [ubuntu-uk] Is Ubuntu getting too bloated?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/29/2010 06:27 PM, John Stevenson wrote: > > I use the social media enhancements and find them very useful, I would be > surprised if they are causing any significant load, I certainly cant see > that when I look at the processes loading the system. I would prefer not to > loose anything detracted from the current desktop/netbook version of Ubuntu > as it seems to be pretty close the mark for the user groups I have been > working with. Hi John - i'd say it's user preference, and if you are a heavy social networking user, then there's nothing wrong with it :) And there is undoubtedly a large market that benefit from these features! > Whilst I grew up (in terms of Linux) with Debian and have fond memories of > installing it instead of Windows 95, I have not felt the need to go back for > several years. I do really appreciate the efforts that the debian community > make and I doubt there would have been an Ubuntu distro with out them. I think it does a little good to experiment with other distributions and the directions they are going in from time to time, particularly upstream distributions, but some derivatives are also doing some very clever things. Take for example the Mandriva Directory Server - which i personally feel would be good for the Ubuntu project to adopt as that would make migrations from mixed windows/linux domains significantly easier :) The Debian team have indeed done great things in building a foundation for the Ubuntu project as well as a plethora of other distro's, and this is the beauty of the linux ecosystem - the freedom of choice and ease of migration is a fantastic thing :) > I do note that you are using Ubuntu for a very different use case and hope > that your issues are addressed in Ubuntu or you are happy with debian. > I was just trying to gauge opinions from the list and get my views out in the open. I think the Ubuntu distro is fantastic and is a good all-round performer, ideal for new users and experienced users alike, but unfortunately has become to some degree unsuitable for some (but not all of my functions). I'll definitely keep a few Ubuntu boxes around the place, as they serve their functions exceptionally well, but for day-to-day use I'll probably use something a little lighter :) Thanks for all the responses, they were most informative :) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkwCjJEACgkQinmfyMJZ4la1ZACfSQivha5/tKoE8eEqj4czHstc wFMAnj/8W3xGP1TGf7C3D9RjZuOu5cLC =NrkO -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Is Ubuntu Getting Too Bloated?
Hi Nigel, On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 11:20:34PM +0100, Nigel Verity wrote: > I feel that the ideal approach for any distro should be to install the OS and > management utilities from the live CD, then leave the rest to the choice of > the user. I would feel hesitant to make a generalisation like "any distro", because some are quite different in their aims and target market. Opinions will differ over what exactly is "bloat" and what is required for a decent user experience. A Linux install that only has enough on it to enable it to boot, configure network and allow the admin to install extra packages would look pretty scary to most people. I think that the overall "Ubuntu experience" for a typical user is defined by how it looks and works out of a default install without having to make any kind of decision at all. As such there are inevitably going to be things installed and enabled that a power user might not want. Power users can make that sort of decision. Compared to the average person, everyone on this list is probably a power user.. Cheers, Andy -- http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting "The electric guitar - like making love - is much improved by a little feedback, completely ruined by too much." -- The League Against Tedium signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Is Ubuntu Getting Too Bloated?
On 29 May 2010 23:20, Nigel Verity wrote: > the user. There is no reason, of course, why the installation procedure > should not present a list of recommended applications, from which the user > can make a selection. There are plenty of reasons, you just can't think of them :) > It would enable the distro developers to concentrate > on things like reliability and boot-time performance, rather than trying to > squeeze the most applications possible into a 700MB ISO. They don't actually spend a significant amount of time 'squeezing' so that's not valid argument. The developers do spend time on reliability and boot-time performance, and having met them and seen them doing that work they're passionate about it too. Your suggestion would make things worse, not better. The developers would have to spread themselves even thinner over all the _possible_ apps that someone might choose during install. Right now most focus is spent on apps which are in the default install. There isn't the manpower to have developers work on every single application to bring them all up to speed just in case someone installs one of them. > This way anybody > wanting a really light system can have one by default, but those users who > want a large portfolio of applications can very easily get it. I put it to you that an Ubuntu install doesn't come with a 'large portfolio of applications' installed. One mail client, one browser, one note taking app and so on. We have software centre to enable users to add more software, or change the defaults. It's not productive to present a brand new user with a big list of apps and as them to make decisions about software they have no clue about. > Surely, > that's precisely the sort of choice that Linux is supposed to be about. > It may be for some Linux distributions, but Ubuntu has always been about the system being supplied with core selected applications. Those applications are carefully chosen after consideration. If you dont like the default its trivial to change most of them. Of course ultimately if Ubuntu doesn't do what you want and if changing default apps isn't sufficient then you can always exercise ultimate choice and select a different distro, or roll your own. Cheers, Al. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Is Ubuntu Getting Too Bloated?
On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 23:20 +0100, Nigel Verity wrote: > Hi > > I am inclinded to sympathise with Roachy's view. Apart from a very > brief flirtation with Fedora I have nothing to compare Ubuntu with. > However, I feel that the ideal approach for any distro should be to > install the OS and management utilities from the live CD, then leave > the rest to the choice of the user. There is no reason, of course, why > the installation procedure should not present a list of recommended > applications, from which the user can make a selection. It would > enable the distro developers to concentrate on things like reliability > and boot-time performance, rather than trying to squeeze the most > applications possible into a 700MB ISO. This way anybody wanting a > really light system can have one by default, but those users who want > a large portfolio of applications can very easily get it. Surely, > that's precisely the sort of choice that Linux is supposed to be > about. > > Regards > > Nige Who said Linux was "supposed to be about" choice? -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Is Ubuntu Getting Too Bloated?
Hi I am inclinded to sympathise with Roachy's view. Apart from a very brief flirtation with Fedora I have nothing to compare Ubuntu with. However, I feel that the ideal approach for any distro should be to install the OS and management utilities from the live CD, then leave the rest to the choice of the user. There is no reason, of course, why the installation procedure should not present a list of recommended applications, from which the user can make a selection. It would enable the distro developers to concentrate on things like reliability and boot-time performance, rather than trying to squeeze the most applications possible into a 700MB ISO. This way anybody wanting a really light system can have one by default, but those users who want a large portfolio of applications can very easily get it. Surely, that's precisely the sort of choice that Linux is supposed to be about. Regards Nige -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Is Ubuntu getting too bloated?
On 29 May 2010 10:51, Paul Roach wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > The other day, I decided to rebuild one of my desktop machines, and > thought i'd see what was happening with Debian now (with a Desktop > environment), and was truly amazed - the boot times and responsiveness > were astounding compared to Lucid on the same hardware...it feels like > a new machine. I've got to wonder whether all the social networking > intergration, etc are the right direction for the project if it > damages performanceshould these things be optional and not > included in a virgin install from the start? > Hello Paul, All the developers I have now encouraged to use Lucid Lynx are very happy with the environment and find it fast and responsive. There was an issue with the Broadcom wireless driver if running live, but we worked around this. Personally I use Lucid on several Aspire revo's and two Eee PC laptops and find it even faster that 9.10, which itself had a slight increase of speed over 9.04. Initially I just had my Eee900 running Lucid as a comparison with 9.10 on the Eee 1000 and there was a noted speed increase with Lucid. Boot times on the revo's with Lucid are obscenely fast... to fast for me to remember to time them :-) I use the social media enhancements and find them very useful, I would be surprised if they are causing any significant load, I certainly cant see that when I look at the processes loading the system. I would prefer not to loose anything detracted from the current desktop/netbook version of Ubuntu as it seems to be pretty close the mark for the user groups I have been working with. l mainly use Ubuntu as a development environment for Java virtual machine languages and again Lucid seems more responsive than previous versions. Even the laptops still fly when running mysql, apache, glassfish, hudson, selenium, etc... I am amazed at what I can get the little EeePC to do. I like the way Ubuntu is going as a desktop and I also like having the xubuntu and severs versions available if I am creating virtual machines to run a specific set of services, eg version control, database server, etc. Whilst I grew up (in terms of Linux) with Debian and have fond memories of installing it instead of Windows 95, I have not felt the need to go back for several years. I do really appreciate the efforts that the debian community make and I doubt there would have been an Ubuntu distro with out them. I do note that you are using Ubuntu for a very different use case and hope that your issues are addressed in Ubuntu or you are happy with debian. Thank you. -- John Stevenson jr0cket.com leanagilemachine.com -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Is Ubuntu getting too bloated?
On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 11:55 +0100, Harry Rickards wrote: > On 29 May 2010 11:52, Paul Roach wrote: > > > Unfortunately it wasn't a scientific test...but on Ubuntu I'd estimate > > about 50 seconds to login screen and a further 20 seconds to get GDM > > up. Debian seems to get to the login screen in about the same time > > (maybe a little less), but then only takes <10 seconds to get into a > > usable desktop. > > Did you install Gnome on Debian, because AFAIK XFCE is the default > desktop environment for Debian. > > http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian seems to think Gnome is the default. Dan -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Is Ubuntu getting too bloated?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29/05/10 11:55, Harry Rickards wrote: > On 29 May 2010 11:52, Paul Roach wrote: > >> Unfortunately it wasn't a scientific test...but on Ubuntu I'd estimate >> about 50 seconds to login screen and a further 20 seconds to get GDM >> up. Debian seems to get to the login screen in about the same time >> (maybe a little less), but then only takes <10 seconds to get into a >> usable desktop. > > Did you install Gnome on Debian, because AFAIK XFCE is the default > desktop environment for Debian. > > Hi Harry, I was quite surprised, as somewhere down the line the Debian team have started offering a graphical installer with a choice of desktop environmentsI opted for Gnome for familiarities sake for my wife and daughter :) I don't recall whether XFCE was in the options on the installer, but it reminded me of the old Red Hat graphical installer asking what type of system it was to be with a load of pre-selected packages that could then be customised. I installed from the minimal CD, by the way, and the installer just downloaded the components selected... -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkwA9hsACgkQinmfyMJZ4lYQEQCbBAm2y1amqjIomOBcnEEN34Jm UnQAn0g1/ErUd9bhY5+tfZDGX1JWSzyn =hLgW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Is Ubuntu getting too bloated?
On 29 May 2010 11:52, Paul Roach wrote: > Unfortunately it wasn't a scientific test...but on Ubuntu I'd estimate > about 50 seconds to login screen and a further 20 seconds to get GDM > up. Debian seems to get to the login screen in about the same time > (maybe a little less), but then only takes <10 seconds to get into a > usable desktop. Did you install Gnome on Debian, because AFAIK XFCE is the default desktop environment for Debian. -- Harry Rickards - ha...@linux.com Vote Lib Dem - Building a fairer Britain - http://libdems.org.uk -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Is Ubuntu getting too bloated?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29/05/10 11:15, Daniel M. Drummond wrote: > Tom's Hardware had an interesting articles comparing Lucid with > Hardy > http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ubuntu-10.04-lucid-lynx,2634.html > > and this showed a general trend of an increase in performance. I'll have a look through the article with interest when I get a chance :) Thanks for pointing that out :) > I would be very surprised if Debian boot times were shorter than > the Ubuntu boot times, given the work that has been put into this > area. In the most recent Ubuntus I have had a 10 second extra wait > due to ACPI DSDT problems, but an older kernel won't have this. In > that respect sometimes an older distro feels quicker. Unfortunately it wasn't a scientific test...but on Ubuntu I'd estimate about 50 seconds to login screen and a further 20 seconds to get GDM up. Debian seems to get to the login screen in about the same time (maybe a little less), but then only takes <10 seconds to get into a usable desktop. > You could always start with a plain server install, and then add > just the desktop features you want (It'll be a bit simpler than an > Arch install). For me though the extra features speed up my > efficiency in using the system, so any slowdown due to bloat is > negated by this. I'm not averse to doing this, and I use a bash script to get the applications I use regularly installed, so this would be a minor task after doing it the first time. I'm going to be trying Fedora 13 again now that they've done some work on the open ATI drivers and the card in my laptop now performs well when booting livethere have been some bold steps forward in the last 3 versions of Fedora anyway (I've been doing some testing with FreeIPA in VMs as a potential replacement for Active Directory in the longer term). > How did the server's compare incidentally? It's difficult to compare the servers, as they're on wildly different hardware and perform different functions. I use CentOS for an old Asterisk box that's on one of our sites and it's extremely stable and performs well, I've got 2 Ubuntu servers running as Ebox domain controllers, mailservers, etc in 2 of our other businesses, and I use Debian for Backuppc and our distributed Nagios installations, one of which is running extremely well on a Sheevaplug, and another is running in a KVM virtual machine on ProxMox. I've got other VM's on the same hardware for our ticketing and asset management systems. I'm happy with all of them in terms of performance, particularly the Debian servers given that they are running in very limited hardware environments... > Dan Thanks for the feedback Dan :) Roachy -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkwA8ewACgkQinmfyMJZ4laykQCffV1uDPqyDisAHp/Wenp+u8vN lXcAoLkdfJ/mFLIfnJx+5G1kkNwsDMgC =Slwf -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Is Ubuntu getting too bloated?
On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 10:51 +0100, Paul Roach wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > First of all, let me say this isn't a troll, but a genuine question > with regard to the direction of the project as someone who's been > on-and off using Ubuntu since Dapper... > > I've used a fair few distros over the years and have enjoyed some more > than others. I'm a big fan of Arch, for example, but just don't have > the time to devote to setting it up on different machines > regularly...I also love the Crunchbang project, which is truly awesome > for an astoundingly fast distro - my wife gets excellent performance > on it on her EEPC701 :) If you've not used it, check it out! > > I also have quite a few servers running and these are split between > CentOS, Debian and Ubuntu. > > The other day, I decided to rebuild one of my desktop machines, and > thought i'd see what was happening with Debian now (with a Desktop > environment), and was truly amazed - the boot times and responsiveness > were astounding compared to Lucid on the same hardware...it feels like > a new machine. I've got to wonder whether all the social networking > intergration, etc are the right direction for the project if it > damages performanceshould these things be optional and not > included in a virgin install from the start? > > I do a lot of network analysis, and on my Lucid laptop I have to apply > a ton of filters in TCPDump or wireshark to avoid obfuscating results > - -it's phenominal how much network overhead is added as a result of > these extra featureseven when they appear to not be running. > Seriously, try booting your machine and firing up wireshark and just > watch the erroneous traffic flying around! > > How do other people feel about the growth of Ubuntu in terms of > network overhead and hardware use? > > My other question is with regard to the forums.as more users start > using Ubuntu, the forums see at lot more traffic, but every time i go > onto Ubuntu Forums, I have a massive facepalm at some of the advice > being offered on there, which to a new user looks like good advice... > and it's undoubtedly offered with good intentions. Looking for > answers in Ubuntu now seems to present a mountain of white noise, and > not a lot of substance... > > As I say, not trolling, but just interested in other peoples > thoughts > > Roachy > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkwA464ACgkQinmfyMJZ4lamfgCgj7o2eh2QaxRRIphpWXod7fNi > 7yIAn3nPDk6F2skUdkR2P2XSu6ct9ECe > =33BB > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > Tom's Hardware had an interesting articles comparing Lucid with Hardy http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ubuntu-10.04-lucid-lynx,2634.html and this showed a general trend of an increase in performance. I would be very surprised if Debian boot times were shorter than the Ubuntu boot times, given the work that has been put into this area. In the most recent Ubuntus I have had a 10 second extra wait due to ACPI DSDT problems, but an older kernel won't have this. In that respect sometimes an older distro feels quicker. You could always start with a plain server install, and then add just the desktop features you want (It'll be a bit simpler than an Arch install). For me though the extra features speed up my efficiency in using the system, so any slowdown due to bloat is negated by this. How did the server's compare incidentally? Dan -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
[ubuntu-uk] Is Ubuntu getting too bloated?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 First of all, let me say this isn't a troll, but a genuine question with regard to the direction of the project as someone who's been on-and off using Ubuntu since Dapper... I've used a fair few distros over the years and have enjoyed some more than others. I'm a big fan of Arch, for example, but just don't have the time to devote to setting it up on different machines regularly...I also love the Crunchbang project, which is truly awesome for an astoundingly fast distro - my wife gets excellent performance on it on her EEPC701 :) If you've not used it, check it out! I also have quite a few servers running and these are split between CentOS, Debian and Ubuntu. The other day, I decided to rebuild one of my desktop machines, and thought i'd see what was happening with Debian now (with a Desktop environment), and was truly amazed - the boot times and responsiveness were astounding compared to Lucid on the same hardware...it feels like a new machine. I've got to wonder whether all the social networking intergration, etc are the right direction for the project if it damages performanceshould these things be optional and not included in a virgin install from the start? I do a lot of network analysis, and on my Lucid laptop I have to apply a ton of filters in TCPDump or wireshark to avoid obfuscating results - -it's phenominal how much network overhead is added as a result of these extra featureseven when they appear to not be running. Seriously, try booting your machine and firing up wireshark and just watch the erroneous traffic flying around! How do other people feel about the growth of Ubuntu in terms of network overhead and hardware use? My other question is with regard to the forums.as more users start using Ubuntu, the forums see at lot more traffic, but every time i go onto Ubuntu Forums, I have a massive facepalm at some of the advice being offered on there, which to a new user looks like good advice... and it's undoubtedly offered with good intentions. Looking for answers in Ubuntu now seems to present a mountain of white noise, and not a lot of substance... As I say, not trolling, but just interested in other peoples thoughts Roachy -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkwA464ACgkQinmfyMJZ4lamfgCgj7o2eh2QaxRRIphpWXod7fNi 7yIAn3nPDk6F2skUdkR2P2XSu6ct9ECe =33BB -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
