this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2026
115 points (88.1% liked)

Technology

84019 readers
3268 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 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] passenger@sopuli.xyz 86 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (6 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 24 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Novice here, is there a viewer mode that doesn't load all that bullshit

[–] passenger@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yes, firefox android has a reading mode. Unsure what it loads but it rules. Does not work on all pages but many benefit from it

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Why did you call them LAMP?

[–] airman@infosec.pub 5 points 2 weeks ago

Linux Apache MySQL PHP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAMP_%28software_bundle%29

See also WAMP and MAMP. For windows and macOS

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

How big could a websit… oh. Oh my.

[–] HuudaHarkiten@piefed.social 7 points 3 weeks ago

I would say the very minimum is 8GB nowadays.

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

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 3 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago
[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

The desktop software in question is GNOME, which is an integral part of the OS... So it's definitely true that part of the bloat is because the software running the OS itself is now using more RAM.

[–] PetteriPano@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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 19 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

What is a reasonable number of fish though?

[–] Lawnman23@piefed.social 27 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] wltr@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] PetteriPano@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago
[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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

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

Can we start calling Bloatbuntu like we call it Microslop

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

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

[–] krigo666@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

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

[–] lord_admiral@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What are you so surprised about? Ubuntu is aiming to replace Windows and is moving in a similar direction. The minimal effort required for installation and use is offset by the increased hardware requirements.

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 weeks ago

Minimal effort installation doesn't increase hardware requirements. The problem is bad desktop software and websites, you get the same problem with Gentoo.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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 6 points 3 weeks 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 2 points 3 weeks ago

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

[–] tirateimas@lemmy.pt 1 points 3 weeks 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.