this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2026
311 points (82.5% liked)

Technology

88272 readers
2749 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] auzy1@lemmy.world 2 points 22 minutes ago

I've never understood the point of these articles.

What does anyone gain by attacking other linux distro's? It's not like people don't give Linux Mint a chance... I'm not a fan of Snap, but, there are many who are..

Ubuntu also offers SLA's to companies (15 years support) and Linux Mint doesn't offer paid support, and there are likely many other reasons to use Ubuntu over LinuxMint.

Use what best suits your requirements.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 7 points 1 hour ago

I've never heard Ubuntu claiming to be lightweight.

Ubuntu's initial claim to fame was a normie (non-techie) could install it and the stuff they wanted to work would Just Work- there'd be a little option during install 'do you want to install closed source or proprietary or patent encumbered shit?' and you'd click yes and then your graphics card would work and your MP3s would play and your sound card worked without having to fuck around with kernel modules and command lines.

If you want lightweight install Xubuntu (xfce environment).

[–] Solrac@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Mint has always been the better Ubuntu.

Prove me wrong.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 23 points 4 hours ago

I've never heard of ubuntu being described as light weight.

only thing it was ever described as, is as an easy to use distro for first time linux users.. and even thats not entirely applicable anymore

[–] ThomasWilliams@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

The current version of Ubuntu recommends 6GB of memory and a dual-core processor

4 GB.

Ubuntu doesn't have other lightweight options, but Linux Mint offers XFCE and MATE editions.

Wrong. XFCE and LxQt versions are offered - Lubuntu and Xubuntu.

Snap is a packaging system that includes every possible file or runtime that the app needs to work.

Yes, so it actually works at proper containerisation. That is actually the whole point of containerisation.

Flatpaks frequently fail to work because of library incompatibilities.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements

[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

I don't think I have ever heard of Ubuntu be described as anything other than the "default Linux" distro that you use or give to someone if all you/they care about is good first and third party support.

It is the iPhone or Samsung Galaxy of the Linux desktop OS world.

[–] cybervegan@lemmy.world 12 points 5 hours ago

As others have stated, Ubuntu was never a minimalist distribution.

When Ubuntu first came out, most common CD drives could only work with CDs of a about 700Mb capacity, but assuming that the tech would keep improving, it was reasonable to suggest this. It was never because Ubuntu was touted as "lightweight", though. Then writable DVDs became almost ubiquitous, and they eventually migrated to that. In the meantime, USB flash drives were getting cheaper, and Linux installer tech was also improving, so eventually (quite early actually) these were supported too. But this was simply a logical progression of tech development and catering to the predominant baseline capacities of storage media.

If you want a proper minimalist, try PuppyLinux or DamnSmallLinux. If you want to run on a Raspberry Pi (or one of their other supported SBCs) try DietPi.

[–] NotAnOtter@lemmus.org 1 points 2 hours ago

Hasn't ubuntu always been the "non-tech friendly linux distro"? Their market niche was not being light weight.

[–] Yerbouti@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Did someone mentioned Ubuntu was never lightweight yet?

[–] ki4jgt@feddit.org 2 points 8 hours ago

When they first started, they had a list of promises. One of them was to always fit on a 800meg CD.

[–] Sequence5666@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

Alright ubuntu was the most preferred in companies and startups. At least for south asia.

Every college, and companies had ISO setups, cause it was the easiest software to install from boot. So i agree with this. The article is dumbly written tho

[–] elbiter@lemmy.world 11 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Ubuntu stopped being a viable desktop distribution 15 years ago, light or heavyweight.

[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 5 points 10 hours ago

GNOME 3 and afterwards didn't help. And Snap was the last nail in the coffin.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

I recently abandoned windows for Linux on one of my machines (not my first, won't be the last), and I chose Debian specifically because it's the leanest by reputation.

[–] locahosr443@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

I've just deployed a full debain active directory business network. We've had suppliers in the last 2 weeks installing equipment and I'm now bored of explaining to people why our infrastructure is so fast and just works.

Even the 2 windows 11 machines we require to run some lab equipment have drawn some comments because they work so much better in our local environment without being bogged down connecting to MS cloud garbage.

I'm doing this for my partner as I've been out of IT for 15 years. I've never had this level of interest and enthusiasm about a business network I'd installed back then

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Sometimes I feel like Linux Mint has a low-key marketing budget or something lol

[–] Bazoogle@lemmy.world 7 points 10 hours ago

I don't think they do, it's just a good plug and play option for people just wanting to get away from Microslop. It's not really meant for power users, but people that want as little tinkering as possible (while still having the option if needed). Though I think they should do marketing, and get more people off of Microsoft products.

And for the record, I am still waiting for my check from Linux Mint for this ad.

[–] keithan@lemmy.zip 19 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

why would it stop when it never was to begin with? lol

[–] hereiamagain@sh.itjust.works 8 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

My exact thought. Always been at least mid weight, if not flipping heavy as.

[–] muhyb@programming.dev 6 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

IMO that's why it became popular at the time. It was a Linux distro anyone can install and use right away after installation.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Easy install with drivers included and a rich guy willing to mail you installer CDs in a nice jacket for free. Every computer club in any school had a stack of them to give out.

[–] hereiamagain@sh.itjust.works 2 points 12 hours ago

Right, it had everything built in and ready to go

[–] ki4jgt@feddit.org 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

When they first started, they had a list of promises. One of them was to always fit on a 800meg CD.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Is it kind of weird to respond to every thread with this same claim? A CD iso with full gnome desktop and openoffice wasnt minimal at the time.

[–] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 52 points 1 day ago (4 children)

There wasn't a single second between now and 1970 where even the most delusional people could've seen Ubuntu as "lightweight".

[–] ki4jgt@feddit.org -3 points 8 hours ago

When they first started, they had a list of promises. One of them was to always fit on a 800meg CD.

[–] muhyb@programming.dev 5 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Not saying lightweight but Ubuntu 10.10 booting was fast at least even on HDD.

[–] markstos@lemmy.world 8 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Compared to what "heavyweight" distro at the time?

[–] muhyb@programming.dev 2 points 13 hours ago

Compared to Ubu...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 237 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I don't recall Ubuntu being a lightweight distro or ever aiming to be. It was always Debian with more stuff.

[–] bryndos@fedia.io 58 points 1 day ago (1 children)

yep, user friendly, easy install, gooey install, proprietary drivers; extra stuff.

i think they were aiming to loss lead, capture user base and ultimately get some b2b sales - oh well :( OP author even ignores stuff like Lubuntu and Xubuntu, which i assume canonical have at least some contribution to. OP gets downvote from me, worthless article.

[–] lemongarlic@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Ubuntu is the enterprise distro if you need something Debian based you can get a proper enterprise support contract for.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 107 points 1 day ago (1 children)

ChatGPT, write me an article about Linux that gets traffic.

[–] Crumpled6273@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 day ago (3 children)

So XDA developers page too is affected by AI Slop.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] aproposnix@piefed.social 7 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Wow. I'm impressed... Loads of comments and no one had to chime in and say "Arch is the best" 😂

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Arch is as lightweight or heavy as you want it to be. Except for the Systemd stack, that locks you a bit in. That's where Artix comes into play.

[–] whaleross@lemmy.world 43 points 1 day ago (4 children)

You are all falling for the rage bait

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] esc@piefed.social 77 points 1 day ago (2 children)

stopped

It never was.

Ubuntu used to be the obvious choice for reviving old systems that couldn't run Windows

It didn't.

Whether xfce and cinnamon require less resources compared to other DEs is questionable, but the question itself is dumb. Environmemt by itself has little value without programs that run inside of it, and most of those aren't cinnamon or xfce specific or adapted to them.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 32 points 1 day ago (9 children)
Ubuntu used to be the obvious choice for reviving old systems that couldn’t run Windows

It didn’t.

It was though. You are living in a bubble. For five years all I ever heard was "You gotta switch to Ubuntu! Windows is awful!" Except this is when I was still using Windows XP, so from my perspective Windows wasn't awful. It was just out of date. From 2006-2011, that's all I ever heard was Ubuntu Ubuntu Ubuntu.

Finally I looked at Ubuntu, and instantly realized I hated it, but that's because of personal choice. For the masses, Ubuntu=Linux at one point. If you knew enough to dispute that fact, then you're already in the Linux ecosystem enough to have your own opinions.

But for non-Linux people, I'd say Ubuntu was the default Linux experience for most people for 15ish years. I'd say around 3-4 years ago it started shifting towards Mint.

And now Mint is the default experience. The problem is Linux users are very opinionated. Their distro is the best distro. Their distro "just works". And these opinions are on a spectrum. I don't mean autism, I mean the opinions are literally a whole spectrum. You could have someone who has almost an identical set-up as you, except they use a different file browser. So, slightly differrent. On the other end of the spectrum you might have someone who uses Arch. Or if you use Arch, maybe they use vanilla Debian.

Whatever the specifics, that's not the point. The point is Linux is a whole range of visions, which is why your vision will never be THE vision for Linux. Because regardless of your opinions, no matter which stance you take, there's going to be thousands of people who want to tell you how stupid your setup is, and how much better theirs is.

But the default Linux experience is just the one that the majority gravitate towards. 90% of normal PC users never change any settings, or try different distros. The difference is that most Linux users aren't the typical PC users. Linux users like to customize their PC. Most PC users don't even change the theme. That's why Windows has such a monopoly. The user buys their PC, plop it on their desk, and the factory settings are good enough.

The other thing I find most Linux users do, is they want to grow the Linux base. So they introduce the "easiest" distro, and that becomes the default. For a very long time that was Ubuntu. I actually like Mint, so I personally see this as a good step for being the default.

And if you don't believe that there are users who don't change their PC or customize things, I'm running ZorinOS, as my first Linux full time use case. The only thing I customized was putting a custom taskbar at the bottom of my screen. Outside of that, my PC hasn't been updated, or changed in any way since 2023.

And if all of this sounds like horror to you, then that just means you have opinions that I don't have. But you're also one of the advanced PC users who use linux easily. I still struggle with this. If Windows wasn't one massive privacy invasion, I'd still be on Windows despite all the things you hate about them. For me it was the spying. Linux just does it's thing, and isn't controlled by corporations, so it doesn't spy. That's literally the only difference for me. I don't even update firefox. I'm running 133.0.3. I think firefox is somewhere near version 200.

[–] muhyb@programming.dev 2 points 12 hours ago

Just wanted to say this, it's usually not a good idea to not update the browser you daily use. Instead you can switch to something like Firefox-ESR (extended support release) which is updated slowly.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] muhyb@programming.dev 4 points 20 hours ago

Unless they're comparing to LMDE, they're mostly similar about being lightweight.

load more comments
view more: next ›