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).

Mint has always been the better Ubuntu.

Prove me wrong.

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'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

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.

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.

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.

Did someone mentioned Ubuntu was never lightweight yet?

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are all falling for the rage bait

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.

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