Maybe the real bloat was the apps we needed all along
this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
633 points (92.9% liked)
linuxmemes
21393 readers
1200 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's not bloat if you use it.
Then again, am I really using these Haskell libraries? I just want to use pandoc. I love Arch, but the organization of the official repos is sometimes suboptimal.
you're right, installing pandoc on arch really comes with a lot of bloat. Iirc it's >200 haskell libraries.
Last I checked (which was some time ago), pandoc-bin doesn't require the haskell dependencies. I saved quite some installation time (and screen space during installation) by switching.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I never understand this obsession with "bloat" when you can buy a 1 TB SSD for € 50.
or you can't buy if you're not successful enough or you're in the wrong country. For example, in my country, the minimum cost of a 1TB SSD is about $85 and a salary of $2,000 is considered a very successful salary at the upper limit
It's not about storage. It's about complexity getting back at you, for example not knowing what caused a problem because multiple programs are stepping on each others feet
For me it's not about the size, it's about the understanding. I'd really like to understand what everything on my system does and why it's there. It seems impossible with modern systems. Back in the '90s I needed a secure email relay - it had lilo, kernel, init, getty, bash, vi, a few shell utils (before busybox..), syslogd and sendmail. I'm not sure any more as it was a long time ago, but I think I even statically linked everything so there was no libc. I liked that system.
load more comments
(1 replies)
For me it was a problem with update frequency and how long they would take. Once i got rid of my flatpaks and moved to stable firefox i update once a week instead of daily now and it takes seconds instead of minutes. Probably also solvable with auto updates.
load more comments
(9 replies)
mfs with a 16 core cpu, 64gb ram and 10tb storage be like
Hey! I have 128gb of ram
…and still restart my browser if it’s using over 1 gb
load more comments
(4 replies)
Every person who comments about “bloat” in their install should be required to preface their post or comment with a full definition of “bloat.”
This shit is obnoxious.
I actually wonder if we could ever agree on a definition?
Maybe:
Bloat: any unnecessary, superfluous software, software package, or feature that is unused or unnecessarily inefficient, and/or uses system resources to an unessasary or unreasonable degree.
What do you guys think? Because then we can still argue about bloat and what reasonable is! And that's what it's all about. Arguing for the sake of it!
Bloat is relative to every person / usage case but I agree with this definition.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Bloat = making your system usable
- annoying people who whine about bloat
load more comments
(1 replies)
You can use window managers instead of DEs. While I prefer DEs because how much features they have you may not need these features
load more comments
(6 replies)
Still way less bloated than win11 I'd wager
Step 1. Install the most secure, pure, minimalist Linux distro
Step 2. Get frustrated at the complications
Step 3. Give up and go back to Windows
- a story I've seen happen more than once
I've had the exact opposite experience on arch, mostly because of the arch wiki.
- Install arch using the arch wiki for reference
- If an issue arises, consult the arch wiki
- Document, contribute, and help others
For me unfortunately it has been Step 1 install literally the most universally compatible distro possible
Step 2 audio drivers craps out. No fix is available. Trying to apply workarounds completely Bork the system
Step 3 install again. graphics driver is problematic, refresh it giving it MOS permissions. I miss the MOS permission screen at the reboot. Look for how to do obtain that option again. No easy way to do it at all. Bork the system again
Step 4 install again. Notice touch screen support is completely useless, and pen is not supported.
Step 5 Ask myself if keeping a 1200$ computer with tinny audio, no graphic hardware acceleration and a half functional display can be justified in any way. It can't.
Step 5. Back to windows. Bloated, but it works.
Unfortunately system support is still very iffy on some models. I'd really like to embrace the distro life but can't.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
Don't install neofetch, so many dependencies.
But how would he show that he uses Arch, without Neofetch?
Cat /etc/os-release ?
uname -a ?
load more comments
(3 replies)
Most people in this thread don't get it.
You know how some people compete to see who can get Doom to run on the craziest platforms, like a calculator?
Installing Arch with the fewest packages is like that. There's something oddly satisfying about stripping everything back to the most basic level - to make things work for you within the most constrictive environment you enforce for yourself.
It's like eating a spicy shellfish dinner and super gluing your asshole closed.
Arch Linux: It's like eating a spicy shellfish dinner and super gluing your asshole closed.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Started playing with arch this week for the first time. Got a pretty good laugh when I realized that I forgot to install a dhcp client and had to boot the install media again to add networking.
I appreciate what they’re doing and I’m going to keep poking at it, but my first impression is that philosophy is driving and the utility is in the back seat.
So just run archinstall Personally as a relative newbie I found arch a lot easier to deal with than fedora and ubuntu, both of which have had me in dependency hell on previous attempts to switch to linux. Not only that but I have a much better idea of what makes up my system.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
As someone who primarily uses Windows, Ubuntu didn't feel like it had any bloat when I tried it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Install minimal linux.
Your ~/.config folder is 3GB
> Install NixOS
> Learn about Nix
> Organise your dotfiles
> Learn about flakes
> Organise your dotfiles
> Learn about modularisation
> Organise your dotfiles
> ...
I have installed probably 100 packages on my arch install, it's still sitting at like 8gb used. Arch isn't the problem in this scenario
I mean - you control what gets installed on Arch. One finger pointing at arch is three pointing back in this scenario...
load more comments
(3 replies)
Twelve window manager are not bloat, it's variety!
view more: next ›