This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Neither are lightweight. If you want lightweight then get debian
How debian is lightweight ? Isn't it have too many bloats pre-installed ?
A distro i can build myself is actually lightweight. Like Arch or Void.
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.
It is an essential aspect of being Linux users that we claim our preferred distro is the absolute best and others are garbage not worth using. It's in the terms I'm pretty sure.
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).
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
Mint has always been the better Ubuntu.
Prove me wrong.
And Zorin is above both
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
I ran hundreds of flatpaks and they never failed to run even once, what do you mean with "frequently fail to work"?
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.
Even better for a minimal system, try tinycore linux
When was Ubuntu “lightweight”? I’m not saying it was always bloated, but it was never supposed to be minimalist either. It was just an easy works-out-of-the-box Linux experience.
It was only lightweight in comparison to Windows, but every other OS is.
When they first started, they had a list of promises. One of them was to always fit on a 800meg CD.
In the early 2000s, that wasnt particularily lightweight. I believe it came with openoffice and the full gnome desktop. That was not really minimal in any way.
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.
Hasn't ubuntu always been the "non-tech friendly linux distro"? Their market niche was not being light weight.
Did someone mentioned Ubuntu was never lightweight yet?
When they first started, they had a list of promises. One of them was to always fit on a 800meg CD.
Ubuntu stopped being a viable desktop distribution 15 years ago, light or heavyweight.
GNOME 3 and afterwards didn't help. And Snap was the last nail in the coffin.
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
why would it stop when it never was to begin with? lol
My exact thought. Always been at least mid weight, if not flipping heavy as.
IMO that's why it became popular at the time. It was a Linux distro anyone can install and use right away after installation.
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.
I don't recall Ubuntu being a lightweight distro or ever aiming to be. It was always Debian with more stuff.
Sometimes I feel like Linux Mint has a low-key marketing budget or something lol
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.
There wasn't a single second between now and 1970 where even the most delusional people could've seen Ubuntu as "lightweight".
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.
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
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.
