Why do I have so many applications in my system

tomscharbach

WetGeek I checked on Neptune Plasma. this is from a VM with a very new installation, and the only significant addition is Vivaldi.

2718 packages? Neptune must package three kitchen sinks and the family dog to get a number that high.

WetGeek

tomscharbach Doubt it. At least it doesn't show up in the raw numbers.

This matter is certainly far more complex than we're pretending it is. And we're probably not remembering everything that might make a difference. It's probably pretty useless to draw any conclusions based on the number of packages on a system, unless that difference is really huge.

The closest thing I have that I can consider a fair comparison of one DE to another is the Virtual Media Manager that's part of VirtualBox. I create every VM with the same 32GB dynamic virtual hard drive. And I usually install the same software on them. The four Solus VMs are essentially vanilla configurations plus Vivaldi. The non-Solus VMs typically are about the same, as I set them up the same way to try them as daily-drivers for a day or two.

My Solus Budgie VM uses almost exactly 5GB more of its virtual disk drive than does my Solus Plasma VM. And my Manjaro Budgie VM uses almost exactly 5GB more of its virtual disk drive than my Manjaro Plasma VM does. Those are probably more significant numbers than the number of packages on each system, but it's still open to considerable speculation.

tomscharbach

WetGeek This matter is certainly far more complex than we're pretending it is. And we're probably not remembering everything that might make a difference. It's probably pretty useless to draw any conclusions based on the number of packages on a system, unless that difference is really huge. ... My Solus Budgie VM uses almost exactly 5GB more of its virtual disk drive than does my Solus Plasma VM. And my Manjaro Budgie VM uses almost exactly 5GB more of its virtual disk drive than my Manjaro Plasma VM does. Those are probably more significant numbers than the number of packages on each system, but it's still open to considerable speculation.

I think that you are right. "Lightweight" versus "Middleweight" versus "Heavyweight" is a case where size doesn't matter.

When it comes to describing this distro or that distro as "lightweight" relative to other distros, the standard measure of whether or not a distro is "lightweight" is resource use. As commonly used, the term "lightweight" is applied to distros that are specifically designed for use on low-spec computers, typically older computers (e.g. single-core or dual-core low-end processor, such as a Celeron, Pentium or AMD A9-9220, 1-2GB of RAM, and 20-30GB HHD/SSD), and run well on computers with those specifications (see "Top 10 Best Lightweight Linux Distros" for an example).

By the current standard, neither Solus Budgie nor Solus Plasma would be considered "lightweight".

We've discussed this before in another thread, but the size of a distro is not relevant. Neither is the number of packages. What is relevant is what resources a distro uses in order to run, how the distro uses resources, and how the distro handles resource allocation. The only case where "size matters" is a case where the computer has a very small HHD/SSD, and almost every computer built in the last decade has at least 32GB.

kyrios

Counting the packages has no meaning, especially between distros.

WetGeek

tomscharbach the standard measure of whether or not a distro is "lightweight" is resource use

Indeed, that's really what it boils down to. And I can't honestly think of any of the Solus editions as actually being heavyweight.

It's only curiosity that makes me wonder why a distro with one DE is 5GB larger than the same distro with another DE. It would seem that the overall difference can only be attributed to the DEs.

Remember, disk space is a resource, too.

tomscharbach

WetGeek I can't honestly think of any of the Solus editions as actually being heavyweight.

Designation of lightweight/middleweight/heavyweight is a mix of subjective and objective. I like this explanation:

"Lightweight distros" are specially designed for resource-constrained hardware, allowing the user can have a responsive and lag-free computing experience on low-spec hardware in terms of processing power, disk space, and RAM.

“Heavyweight distros” are usually at the other end of the spectrum, with the latest and greatest features, built keeping the best computing experience in mind, and generally requiring a computer with a 4-core or better processor, 8 GB of RAM and 30 GB of disk space to run the distro smoothly.

"Middleweight distros" fall somewhere in the middle.

Solus Budgie/Gnome/Plasma fall in the "Middleweight" class to my mind. I don't think that there is a dime's worth of difference between them in practical terms.

WetGeek Remember, disk space is a resource, too.

Indeed. I think that the absolute minimum HHD/SSD size for any Linux distro (except the most lightweight) is 64 GB, taking in consideration the fact that most users add apps and store data. Solus recommends a minimum of 10GB disk space, but that, to my mind, is nonsensical.

WetGeek

WetGeek Remember, disk space is a resource, too.

Okay, my curiosity got to be too much for me. I created a VM that's so constrained, I couldn't even install Solus on it.

I tried, but I didn't get very far with 8GB of disk, which is VirtualBox's suggested minimum for a generic Linux distro.

I'll start again, and this time enlarge the vDisk to Solus' suggested minimum of 10GB.
...

Just for the record, Solus really can run on a very minimal machine. My next try will probably be with a Fedora derivative, since those also seemed to be pretty light when I tested them. Here's what my constrained-test-vm is like, with Solus Plasma installed and 632 upgrades applied:

To keep the comparisons legitimate, I'm going to use this same VM with different distros, and just change the .ISO that I install on it.

tomscharbach

WetGeek Just for the record, Solus really can run on a very minimal machine.

Run Solus on a single-core Celeron processor, 2GB of RAM, and whatever disk space suits you. See what happens. You are running on a 7th Gen i7 processor that will power through anything.

kyrios

WetGeek I tried, but I didn't get very far with 8GB of disk, which is VirtualBox's suggested minimum for a generic Linux distro.

I would like to react to this although nobody asked me anything 😁

First of all Solus target is home computing, not server, not pentesting, not embedded systems, etc. This means Solus comes with some pre-installed apps to provide a good "out of the box" experience to users which imply to provide the software most people need in the default installation. Libreoffice is a typical example (and even then we don't ship all Libreoffice apps in our default installation).
Then we are in 2022. The price of storage is not what it used to be 30 years ago. Also even if you wanted to buy a computer with a very small disk, it would be challenging to find one, even in second hand. So apart from the fun, what's the point of such exercise?

tomscharbach

kyrios I would like to react to this although nobody asked me anything 😁

A dose of sanity, no matter how subminimal, is a useful addition to this discussion.

WetGeek

kyrios I would like to react to this although nobody asked me anything

You're welcome to jump in anytime. And the answer to your question, "What's the point ..." it's simply curiosity. I hope I didn't offend you by implying it was anything else. Any of my computers is fully capable to run any Linux distribution well, so it's not like I'm planning to buy another one anytime soon. Just curious, that's me.

My last two motorcycles, before I gave it up, were a 1,000cc sportbike, and a 1,300cc touring bike for my wife and me to travel on. Those are what I was used to as daily-driver bikes. But I had more fun that I ever expected while on vacation once, and rented a 90cc bike. My wife and I rode the wheels off that thing 2-up.

My little Travelmate laptop has a Celeron, and I'm not sure how much memory, but it's not much. It will run Solus with Vivaldi and a bunch of tab stacks, and stream an Amazon Prime video without any pauses. I showed that to a friend today, who's looking for a distro to put on a couple of old laptops for his kids. I think I sold two copies of Solus. 😀

tomscharbach

WetGeek My little Travelmate laptop has a Celeron, and I'm not sure how much memory, but it's not much. It will run Solus with Vivaldi and a bunch of tab stacks, and stream an Amazon Prime video without any pauses.

A lot of it is in the processor and the graphics card. Almost every computer built in the last decade has at least 32 GB of HHD/SSD, so that isn't an issue except in rare cases.

My experience: Solus ran sluggishly on a Dell 11-3180 with an AMD E2-9000e/R2 processor, but ran fine on a Dell 11-3180 with an AMD A9-9420/R5. Otherwise, the two computers were more or less identical (11" 1366x768 display, 4GB RAM, 32/64 GB SSD). The E2-9000e is the equivalent of a Celeron N3060, and the A9-9420e is the equivalent of a Celeron N4000, in each case circa 2017-2018. All are lower end processors, but a small difference makes a big difference.

But, as I said in an earlier comment, subjective judgement is as important as objective specifications.

I'm used to running Solus on a 6th Gen i5, so that is my personal, if almost unconscious benchmark -- my brain measures performance based on that subjective/objective standard. Running Solus on a 4th Gen i3 at the railroad was slower, but acceptable, because the differences were not significant enough for me to notice after 5-10 minutes of use. Running Solus on an 8th Gen i5 is objectively faster, but not enough to elicit a "Wow!" response. And so on.

I'm not sure what use this discussion is, to be truthful. As a general rule, I tell people that Linux will run more quickly than Windows 10 on a given computer. On lower-end computers, the difference is more noticable than on higher-end computers, in my experience. But Linux will not turn a sway-back into a racehorse.

kyrios

WetGeek You're welcome to jump in anytime. And the answer to your question, "What's the point ..." it's simply curiosity. I hope I didn't offend you by implying it was anything else. Any of my computers is fully capable to run any Linux distribution well, so it's not like I'm planning to buy another one anytime soon. Just curious, that's me.

I am not offended 🙂
I was just trying to figure out to understand the motivation for doing that. Because if I was bored and I had time to waste, there are billions things more interesting/useful/fun/entertaining/... than trying to install an OS on an undersized VM just to see if if works.
And once you'll know you can install Solus 4.3 on a 12Gb VM and update it then what ?

I share your point of view that we can get great experiences/fun with things that aren't powerful/old but that got nothing to do - in my view at least - by trying to see what's the minimum disk space Solus can be installed on. If I had a very small storage and I wanted to put a linux on it, I would simply pick one of the distro made especially for that.

WetGeek

tomscharbach I'm used to running Solus on a 6th Gen i5, so that is my personal, if almost unconscious benchmark

Until I retired, every computer I built has the fastest AMD CPU I could buy, just because I could (and I was building software). The refurbished laptops I buy today have i7's. But the purchase that surprised me the most is the little Inspiron 3880 that streams to our TV. It has an i5 in it, but I figured that should be enough for this one task. 😄

In fact, it's so fast it's almost frightening. It's a 2020 Comet Lake model, with 6 cores. I've developed a whole new respect for that CPU, and from now on I would not pass up a computer just because it doesn't have the CPU with the highest bling factor.

WetGeek

I've resolved my curiosity now, and don't intend to try every Solus edition on a VM that is as constrained as that one. As one final experiment, though, I thought I'd try a GNOME edition, after which I'd feel confident telling my friend Nathan that he could choose any Solus edition for his kids' laptops. It was not as I expected, though.

GNOME installed on that same "constrained" VM, and my next step, as always, was to update it. It got so far as to download 455 of the available 640 upgrades, but then it locked up solid. I went outside for a while, and when I came back in, that VM was still locked up solid. I could only unstick it with a shutdown.

I only mentioned this now because the Solus web site says that 10GB of disk is enough for any of the editions. That may have been true back in the day, but with 640 upgrades to download and install, it's not enough today.

Incidentally my GNOME VM, which is pretty bare-bones, requires 12.56GB of the 32GB disk it's on. I'm not shocked that 10GB wasn't enough for it, but I thought perhaps that 10GB figure would allow a bit of leeway.

As I said at the beginning, I've now run out of curiosity regarding minimum requirements for Solus. I'm sure I'll soon find something else that strikes me as curious, and I want to try it, but until then ...

tomscharbach

WetGeek That may have been true back in the day, but with 640 upgrades to download and install, it's not enough today.

It hasn't been enough for a long time, because you need room for a swap, user data and additional applications. Just about every other mainstream distro has been recommending 20-25 GB for years, and the more realistic distros recommend 30 GB or more. The 10 GB recommendation is ludicrous, but also irrelevant because it is almost impossible to buy a computer, even used, with less than 32 GB.

WetGeek

tomscharbach it is almost impossible to buy a computer, even used, with less than 32 GB

I totally agree with that. I just thought it might be a good idea for someone who can, to update the web page. If it weren't so misleading, it would make Solus appear far more professional.

Technically, I should point out that even Solus GNOME did install and run on that VM. It drew the line at upgrading 640 packages.

tomscharbach

WetGeek I'm looking to retire my 6th Gen i5 Optiplex 7050 Micro next January, moving Solus to my 9th Gen Optiplex 7070 Micro, just as I purchased an 11th Gen Latitude 5520 for Windows last January and moved (recently, as you know) Solus to my 8th Gen Latitude 7390 to Solus. As you probably know, Optiplex Micros (35W) and Latitudes (15W) use lower-power versions of the iCore chips than do full-sized desktops.

As part of the decision-making process, I looked at the 12th Gen i5 processor for the Optiplex, comparing it to my existing processors. The linked chart shows the performance differences, running, left to right, (1) the 11th Gen Latitude 5520 (i7-118G7), (2) the 9th Gen Optiplex 7070 Micro (i7-9700T), (3) the new 12th Gen Optiplex (i5-12500T), (4) the 8th Gen Latitude 7390 (i5-8350U), and (5) the to-be-retired 6th Gen Optiplex 7050 (i5-6600T).

Bottom line is that the new 12th Gen Optiplex (i5-12500T) significantly outperforms all of the others. It would, no doubt, be slower than an equivalent 12th Gen i7, but I don't need that kind of power/performance any more. At this point in my life, there is no reason for me to part with an extra $200-300 to get an i7 instead of an i5.

« Previous Page