this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2026
89 points (94.1% liked)

Technology

83295 readers
3622 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

You’ll need at least 6GB of RAM to run Ubuntu 26.04 LTS comfortably, as the upcoming version of the distro raises its minimum memory requirement for the first time since 2019.

all 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] slacktoid@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 hours ago

So at this rate I'm about 10 years I'll need 9gigs of RAM? Thats not bad for what Ubuntu is.

[–] passenger@sopuli.xyz 52 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (5 children)

No-one commenting seems to have read the article. They are raising the recommended specs due to desktop software and web sites being more resource intensive.

Edit: to add, I would not recommend 6GB RAM for desktop use to anyone. I would say the very minimum is 8GB nowadays.

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 17 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Agreed. It's an uphill optimization battle. We're now in a world where you need 6GB RAM to chat on Discord while scrolling Facebook.

Ubuntu and its apps (particularly Firefox) are incredibly efficient and respects your hardware resources. I can write a web page with a 5MB RAM footprint. It's when you open the New York Times that your swapfile gets face-slapped.

Funnily enough, an Ubuntu server will run on a half-eaten potato. I've got 16GB in mine, and I'm running servers for LAMP (Nextcloud and Wordpress), NTP, Samba, Mail, Jellyfin, tor, XMPP, CUPS and a few other things. It typically uses around 2GB at idle.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours ago

How big could a websit… oh. Oh my.

[–] HuudaHarkiten@piefed.social 6 points 9 hours ago

I would say the very minimum is 8GB nowadays.

I had to check. I do have 8GB, wohoo!

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 2 points 9 hours ago

Depends on what you're doing. If you're okay with very limited Web use, even 2GB is viable (or was about a year ago when I retired that machine). More normal levels of Web use, you're going to need more RAM. Not sure about GPU-constrained loads like 3D modeling, as I never tried them on that machine. But other than those and some games, nothing on Linux should require even 8GB. Server systems can make do with even less.

[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 1 points 8 hours ago
[–] vermaterc@lemmy.ml 58 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

AFAIK perfomance and low resource usage has never been a main objective of this distro

[–] thisbenzingring@lemmy.today 12 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Ubuntu is bloated

Debian requires at least 512MB of memory and 4GB of hard disk space for installation.

[–] vermaterc@lemmy.ml 19 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Memory requirements does not mean that something is bloated.

Windows XP required 64 MB of RAM. Does it mean Debian is bloated then?

[–] towerful@programming.dev 6 points 7 hours ago

2026 Debian Vs 2001 windows?
Or 2001 Debian Vs 2001 windows?

Cause 2001 Debian 2.2 was like 4MB ram, maybe 16 if you are really going for it!
https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/projects/omnibook/boot-floppies/current/doc/ch-hardware-req.en.html

So yeh, let's continue comparing apples and oranges.
FreeRTOS is bloatware cause we were able to orbit a sphere that could reflect radio waves with a bunch of tubes and a handful of germanium.

What the fuck is this "windows xp Vs modern Debian" shit?

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

There's a "minimal" install that gives you a bare desktop. The only thing I would consider bloatware is snapd.

[–] PetteriPano@lemmy.world 21 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (2 children)

I have an idea of how they could reduce the fish requirements.

How about using shared libraries instead of bundling everything in every snap all the times?

Amazingly it reduces RAM usage as well.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 16 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

What is a reasonable number of fish though?

[–] Lawnman23@piefed.social 23 points 11 hours ago
[–] PetteriPano@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago
[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

You mean you don't like having three screens worth of saquashfs entries flash past when you try to run mount?

[–] TDCN@feddit.dk 3 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

Can we start calling Bloatbuntu like we call it Microslop

[–] not_IO@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 hours ago
[–] bnalways733@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago
[–] krigo666@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)
[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Thats when the person to your right hands you a slobbery spliff during puff-puff-pass.

[–] krigo666@lemmy.world -1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)
[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

No, sorry, I got the spelling wrong. It slobluntu. My mistake. A portmanteau of slobbery blunt to you.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

I’m not up on the flavours of Ubuntu, but I assume the LTS version is more server oriented and what in the name of whatever you hold holy is there that needs 6 GB to boot an OS? Have they ported bash to electron?

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The server version requires 1.5 GB of RAM. That's still rather bloated considering Debian only requires 512 MB.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 hours ago

Well, that’s a lot more sensible but still rather fat. Good reminder not to install Ubuntu then.

[–] tirateimas@lemmy.pt 1 points 10 hours ago

I guess it was inevitable (for multiple reasons). Fortunately, there are lighter flavors of Ubuntu. For the more experienced unwilling to spend their resources this way, there are always other distros.