Linux

48287 readers

632 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

101

When do you consider a system to be bloated? (lemdro.id)

submitted 7 months ago by governorkeagan@lemdro.id to c/linux@lemmy.ml

105 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I often hear folks in the Linux community discussing their preference for Arch (and Linux in general) because they can install only the packages they want or need - no bloat.

I've come across users with a couple of hundred packages installed (likely fresh installs), but I've also seen others with thousands.

Personally, I'm currently at 1.7k packages on my desktop and 1.3k on my laptop (both running EndeavourOS). There might be a few packages I could remove, but I don't feel like my system is bloated.

I guess it's subjective, but when do you consider a system to be bloated?

I'm asking as a relatively new Linux user - been daily driving for about 7/8 months

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If it affects system performance and gives me no noticeable benefit. Otherwise, flash bytes are cheap. I've got 30TB+ in my laptop. Why do I care if I have a 3GB OS or a 2.95GB OS?

[–] SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

30TB? You're in the 0.0001% for laptop storage. I have more than 98% of people and I have 3TB.

Not everyone is this fortunate. Some people have cheapo laptops with 32GB eMMC. Now, 3GB vs 2.95GB is still negligible, but 4GB vs 5GB is definitely not negligible.

[–] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Even the shit laptops come with 256GB nowadays. Saving less than 0.5% of storage on OS optimizations that reduce usability is a poor tradeoff.

Heck even my phone has 1TB... Flash bytes are cheap. If you have a 32GB soldered down chip, buy a flash drive for the price of a BjgMac and voila you've 4x'd your storage.

[–] SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

People don't have brand new laptops all the time. Often, they have crappy 10 year old laptops because they can't afford anything better, especially in poorer parts of the world.

In MicroSD cards flash is cheap. But unfortunately, most phones don't come with MicroSD slots anymore, and instead they come with huge storage markups. According to Apple, which controls a big section of the market, a Big Mac gets you a whopping 5GB of storage, that's if you buy today. But with a 5 year old phone, a Big Mac back then would get you 1GB of storage that you use today. And in many countries, most people make less than a Big Mac per day.