[mdlug] Are Linux Distros Too Bloated?

[Steve Litt]

LAP said on Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:14:47 -0400

>On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 12:28:23 -0400 (EDT)
>Michael Corral <micorral at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> 
>> Why exclude kernel threads? Those somehow don't count? While you're
>> at it, why not exclude some other threads or processes?
>>   
>
>User space is the only relevant measure here.  The (only) purpose of
>an OS is to allow a user to execute programs -- programs of his and
>only his choosing.
>
>You may wish to include kernel threads but be forewarned.  The
>mainstream distro kernel, being built with every conceivable purpose
>in mind, will surprise you with just how many do exist (more extreme
>bloat).

I agree with Michael here. A bloaty kernel takes resources away from
user programs.

>
>> 
>> I noticed you don't have pipewire or pulseaudio running.
>>  
>
>There is absolutely no need for pipewire or pulseaudio.
>
>I use Alsa for any and all of my audio requirements.  Alsa alone
>is sufficient for any purpose.  (Let's not introduce real-time and or
>mixing scenarios, where Jack has always been the standard.)

I strongly agree with you here. I have an ALSA-only sound system, and
it works just fine for me.

>
>In fact, I would prefer to return to the Open Sound System kernel
>modules but these have problems in building:
>
>http://developer.opensound.com/sources/

OSS is nice. In the past I've built systems that were OSS only.

>
>But these are kernel modules and do not show up in the process
>list.
>
>The same can be said for the video capture modules (v4l2). 
>
>>
>> For example, rpcbind is running, because that's 
>> needed to run MATLAB, which I find useful to do.
>>  
>
>I also run Matlab, but I certainly do not ever require
>rcpbind.
>
>(Being a Linux/FOSS fanatic however, I always look for open-source
>alternatives.)
>
>> 
>> I'd argue that your system isn't "totally functional" for every
>> user's requirements. It might instead be described as downright
>> crippled.
>>   

The preceding is my fundamental disagreement with Michael. Why weigh
down resources for things *some* people *might* need, when those people
can easily add exactly what they need a-la-carte. In my opinion, some
mythical "dumb user" is no reason to dumb down or bloat an OS.

>
>Nope.  It is supremely versatile and agile.
>
>I certainly do not intend to meet "every user's" requirements.
>I think only of my own (and I thank Linux/FOSS for granting me
>the freedom to do just that).

Exactly!

>
>The only difference from a standard distro is that I do not need
>to keep all possible things running at all possible times.  I can
>select what I need when I need it.  This may seem overly burdensome
>to most people but for me it has become simple and routine.
> 
>> 
>> This isn't some competition to see who can get the lowest number of 
>> processes---it's about having a system that meets a user's needs.
>>  
>
>Who determines the needs of a particular user?
>
>The obvious answer is that the USER, and only the USER, determines
>his needs.

Exactly.

>
>My argument is that Linux distros strive to speak for all possible
>users and all possible scenarios and thereby bloat the system to
>unnecessary extremes. 

Exactly.

By the way, I use Void Linux with the runit init system, my user
interface is Openbox, and I use Suckless Tools' dmenu for executing
programs. My computer is touch-typist friendly and fast enough that the
user seldom sees an observable delay between keystroke and result.

My system is a desktop with 6 cores, 12 threads, 3.6Ghz, and 48GB RAM.
But I've run similar OS config on laptops with 3GB RAM, and it was
still extremely performant as long as I didn't load up on browser tabs.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
Autumn 2022 featured book: Thriving in Tough Times
http://www.troubleshooters.com/bookstore/thrive.htm