Is Ubuntu Too Minimal?

48 thoughts on “Is Ubuntu Too Minimal?”

• I do a weekly exclusive podcast for my supporters! Next episode will be posted tomorrow! https://ko-fi.com/thelinuxcast

• ubuntu should do exactly what your're saying. An OS should be ready to go so you won't have to install needed software.

• You make some great points. Another good approach would be to make programs easier to uninstall through the UI. Why do I have to go to pamac/software to uninstall something when I could just right click it and click uninstall?

• this also exposes people to google search advice. A middle ground would be to have an icon for the app and the install button below.

• Minimal is great. I want the least amount of bloat possible and then to install whatever I like to make the system contextual to my use. I wouldn't be opposed to having a minimal and non-minimal for absolute beginners though to reduce barriers for non-techies into the linux space. The biggest thing I want from ubuntu is flat packs and easier windows compatibility like what is offered with Zorin, simply because it prevents headaches. Leaning toward Ubuntu over Zorin simply because of the updated kernel and security.

• I guess it all depends on your usage, but as I use the living hell out of my OS, Ubuntu isn't nearly bloated enough for me. I need all manner of stuff it doesn't come with. To me Arch is barely an OS at all. It's so lacking that I won't even use it cause it takes entirely too much time to get it set up properly.

• As usual it all boils down to implementation. The argument about good or bad is only relevant to whether or not the implementation is good or bad. A minimal start is an awesome design consideration but if poorly implemented could completely ruin the installer and setup workflow experience.

• Perfect timing. I have a shit machine rn with a soldered emmc so kinda stuck atm…I'm running mint rn and it's good but would like to maybe use something more lightweight if theres actually quite afew I'd like to try

• I prefer minimal, hence KDE Neon🙂 The Peppermint of late is not as new user friendly as the Peppermint of old.

• Distros tailored for new to linux users like Ubuntu should just work out of the box, and even if it means 4000packages out of the box, I dont mind. Number of packages do not slow down the system, it is actually the number of enabled and running services that do.

• Will the LTS still have the usual applications?

• I use the minimal install for my Host OS, so I like the change. The usability of a minimal install depends on, how a default install of Apps are presented at the end of the install or during he first boot of the system.
  LinuxCast fantasies about Ubuntu users: I'm a happy Ubuntu user since 2008 and I worked in IT from 1969 till 2011, first main frame prototype testing and later software development, both OS and App design.

  Note that this new approach allows to present different sets of default apps during that install or boot process, you could have defaults for new users; multimedia users or gamers 🙂 And you could allow the experienced user to select his apps one by one.
  It would nicely fit my current setup with VMs, I have VMs specialized in communication apps; financing apps and multi media apps 🙂

• Storage is so cheap. What benefits are there to not installing virtually anything a user (especially novice users) might conceivably use.

• Great video 🫡

• I have to agree. We had a great solution: Normal or minimal.
  As a 3rd choice, a Live centric option would be nice for people who might want to try or need to use it to do some support/recovery task.

• I have been using Ubuntu for 15 years because I'm lazy . I still like the everything works out of the box experience . Yes I find myself uninstalling apps I know I don't need .

• I also think removing default applications is a bad move. Not only for new users, but even I as a veteran Linux user might want to pick Ubuntu for a quick and easy installation for a friend, recommend it as entry point to small businesses who might want to switch to Linux or something like that. All while expecting it comes with the full software suite. If that isn't the case anymore, that makes recommending Ubuntu even harder than it is already.

• I salute Ubuntu's minimal approach! I salute curious newcomers eager to learn, to dive into the world of Linux, not modern Linux newcomers who want to be spoon-fed, whining all the time! Ubuntu is only getting better and better!

• Down the center would be the berst solution for all users. Newe & advanced.

• SNAP is worst bloat. Ubuntu's SNAP or the highway attitude has turned off a lot of linux users. Debian at least gives you a choice of APT, Flatpak and SNAP you are not forced into SNAP.

• What is penetration testing ?

• and I think PopOS got that right. I got my parents running it.

• kinda like going to a restaurant; 60 things on the menu ? It will probably be mediocre at best. hahahhaha. Keep on crushing. Love your show. Rock —

• Personally, I expect a system that has a desktop and can open common file formats while not having too many apps out of the box. I want my applications to be things I put there. These things are often opposed to each other, so balancing it is hard. That said, any kind of pen test distro or portable distro should have a complete application suite out of the box.

  And here is where we get to Ubuntu. Ubuntu is being used in a wide variety of different use cases, some without internet, some with slow or metered internet, and some in developed countries. Figuring out how to balance the needs of these users against each other is very hard—significantly harder than trying to figure out what apps belong in an ISO based on criteria like what I provided. It seems inevitable that Ubuntu will need multiple ISOs and system “sizes” to accommodate different use cases in places where internet connectivity is poor. Of course, this makes downloading Ubuntu confusing to people who are not thinking about how fully featured an installation image is. I just don’t see a way for Canonical to win here without leaning into having another flavor like Studio.

• I think this move of Ubuntu moving to a minimal install is more about Canonical trying to push Snaps and the Snap Store. If users (especially new Linux users) are gently pushed towards the Snap Store (aka Software Centre) then I think Canonical are hoping people will become more comfortable installing and using Snaps, and thus in turn promote Snaps as a viable and convenient way of getting software. And let’s face it, they have been pushing Snaps recently with the Ubuntu flavours being forced to support Snap packages or else. BTW – I am a long time Ubuntu user and use it as my main distro every day.

• The low internet argument is totally valid. If you downloaded the iso on someone else's computer and had to bring it home to install it. Then you don't have bandwidth after install to gather tons of software. I was in this situation when I was young.

• ubuntu doesn't need to be new-to-linux-user friendly. they clearly strive more to become a server distribution because that's where the money is they earn.
  i'm not an ubuntu user and never have been. still for me it would be toally ok, because there is the idea of derivative distributions, which then can be specialized for new-to-linux-users or for gamers or for educational or kid purposes. that's happening with ubuntu already anyway. so every group can concentrate on their part. also for all these new container solutions and online servers to rent, where you can instantly have a ready to go ubuntu server, you want the install as minimal as possible. for the automation purposes where hundreds of minimal instances are set up and flushed immediately after use. for all these things you need minimal systems. what canonical get's from new users is only the need for beginner support which only costs them money so why would they care.
  if you are a new-to-linux-user and need a beginner friendly distro you go and take linux mint. it's already better as ubuntu in that regard. or you go with zorin, pop, mx linux, even debian nowadays is easy to use.

• I personally prefer minimal install. I do it every time then manually add the very recent versions (via snap) of what I really need without wasting time for uninstalling certain release-locked .deb-apps. And I think that was their exact point.

• I will say that I like the idea of a minimal install but with my slow internet I rather delete apps I don't need rather than wait for a bunch of apps I need to download. If your asking then how I can download in the first place. I use my phone to download iso for my pc. No hotspot just slow satellite internet. I could download debs but still. Rpms are crazy. Snaps,flatpaks are too. I want to eventually download a whole repository, somehow.

• The primary purpose behind a distro is differentiation from others, in some way, shape, form or fashion. Having a "minimal" iso option available is a great idea, but that alone is hardly anything differentiating as there are plenty of those around. Debian is fairly minimal, as is Arch obviously. I guess if Ubuntu's goal is to be primarily an upstream distribution, then they might as well do that but again, that doesn't set it apart from Debian by much in my opinion. Personally I feel like they should at least make some basic choices so that upon installation there's a fully functional system ready to go without additional package installs. It just makes the initial encounter by a new user simpler and makes it usable much faster. They can season to taste as they wish from there.

  I couldn't tell you how many times over the past two decades + a distribution put me off by not including basic things like LibreOffice or a basic firewall that can be turned on easily. Thankfully gone are the days (mostly) of clicking through the KDE app menus and seeing an ocean of random, cryptically named apps that made it difficult to find what you were looking for. The opposite of that is seeing virtually nothing after the installation is complete. I might also add that it's time to start making dark mode the default out-of-the-box setting. Everyone (almost) uses dark mode these days.

• I wonder why no one has made a distro that's JUST for beginners, where being for new users is the entire point and reason for it. I'm guessing the people who could make that are either not interested, don't want to deal with the flood of support questions, or both.

• I am a very long time Linux user. Ubuntu is the reason I standardized on using Fedora 38.
  Right now, I am using the Fedora40 ( Rawhide), without issues. On another day I use Fedora39 beta. The three today, are running flawlessly on my desktop system.
  As an aside, I am using SUSE leap155 for compiling. The Leap155 gcc compiler produces the smallest executables. I copy the compiled code from leap155 to Fedora.

• I prefer a middle of the road approach. I use CachyOS (Arch based) because I like some of the privacy features OOB and it's less tedious than doing an Arch install from scratch (and actually their kernels are pretty good). I still have my hands full with customizing and theming hyprland so having just a little less to muck with is nice. They have Octopi for newer users, while the rest of us just use pacman.

• I've always had a soft spot for Ubuntu, so I am just glad they are doing some soul searching about who and what they want to be. Last few releases (even the non LTS) have been a bit mild. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it is exciting to see them try things and set themselves apart.

• The best approach is the one used in Ubuntu 23.04, let the user choose between "Normal installation" and "Minimal installation" during the installation process.

• hellow there Mat very interesting rant video and with a good reason
  I'm wondering when is that qtile 2 hours configuring video going to be available to watch and where. you talked about it in one of linux cast live streams and i wanna watch it.
  Best wishies from Macedonia and keep up the awesome work you do with the videos as always

• Maybe it should just eat a hole cheese pizza by itself?

• My opinion only, but id prefer to install what i want on a minimal install, i dont use libre office

• I agree with the comments that a "curated" Goldilocks distribution is the best approach for most users.

• That is actually a good opportunity to bring newcomers to Debian and prevent yet another corporation from taking over the Linux world.

• I feel like most "bloated" distros over the years have improved and become less bloated. I remember some just being so bad when I first tried out Linux.

  I do like the minimalism approach too. Then again I use one of those distros. I agree with your points Matt. The average person, that believes their computer runs on magic, is not gonna know where to start when they need something. Like going to the browser for software and try to run .exe's or tar files and give up.

• What this fellow doesn't quite understand, is positioning. Canonical is positioning Ubuntu to be vendor friendly, not user friendly. It's up to the vendor to make it user friendly.

  Canonical does not talk very loudly about this, because Linux nerds hate capitalism, and they hate corporations. But this is the direction that Ubuntu is going. One standard, simple image, that can be installed via an unattended install script, with vendor supplied customisation that will add branding, and a selection of applications that the vendor wants to support for the end user.

  I have two different laptops now, where this is the case. My Tuxedo laptop has something called "Tuxedo OS" on it, which is a clone of Ubuntu, with vendor modifications to accommodate custom hardware, branding, and a specific set of out-of-the-box applications. My Dell laptop has plain vanilla Ubuntu on it, but it is distributed via Dell's repository urls, and includes Dell's vendor tools to manage firmware updates, provide branding, and supply a limited set of applications that DELL supports.

  According to ItsFoss, right now, ALL linux distros constitute about 3.1% of the overall desktop marketshare, with MacOS at 20.4% and Windows at 69.5%. I don't know where the other 7% went. It doesn't say. But that should tell you something. The market share for Linux desktops is LESS than the UNREPORTED desktops.

  Which means, dude-man's grandmother, nephews, and uncles are not installing Linux on their computers. They never really have been. They don't go shopping for distros. They just use whatever comes on the device, like an appliance. So, if you want to increase the desktop market share, you don't make the distro user friendly. You make the distro vendor friendly. The more generic, vanilla, and standard it is, the more vendor friendly it is.

  It costs ALOT of money to maintain a distro, to ship with your hardware. The lower you can get that cost, the more competitive you're going to be against generic Chromebooks, Windows laptops, and Mac laptops. So, the more advanced and one-stop-shop your toolset is for getting a distro onto machines in a bulk automated way, the more likely the vendor is going to adopt you as an option for their consumers.

  Canonical doesn't want to maintain multiple "flavours" of its own OS, just to cater to a handful of hobbyists. That's very expensive. So, it's standardizing around a minimal ISO, that can also be used as the reference image for a vendor-branded Linux distro on the vendor's hardware. THAT is why this is happening.

• I am an outlier. I started with Ubuntu 4.10, and I still use Ubuntu. I have tried many distros, but I always come back to Ubuntu. My biggest time away from Ubuntu was ….PopOs. Lol. There is an ineffable quality that keeps me on it. Kinda funny. Maybe I am just a longtime fanboy.

• I've been into Linux since Ubuntu first came out and later switched to Fedora and Debian. I really like minimal distros, or at least those with a minimal iso option. Ubuntu going more minimal by default is cool, but it might not be newbie-friendly.

  Some of my installs require a full experience. Some only require a web browser and literally nothing else, almost like a Chromebook.

  Back in the day, I used to convince my friends and family to try Ubuntu with the "It's got EVERYTHING you need, no cost, and no viruses" pitch. That really set Ubuntu apart. Even though I have my serious issues with Ubuntu and Canonical these days, it's a huge bummer to keep seeing them drop in the typical recommendations list. This move might just keep Linux Mint ahead of the game. I say keep both the fully stocked Ubuntu for the noobs and the minimal iso option for the nerds.

• I think the argument can be made either way, but my preference is that the OS is able to view everyday file formats out of the box, so it will need a document viewer that can display office-like documents as well as PDFs, and an image viewer and a media player.

  If it wasn't mentioned, Ubuntu's approach should be viewed in the context of its interim and LTS release cycles that not all releases serve the same purpose.
  So if they are going to try any different approach then 23.10 is the right time because they can review and respond to feedback before the upcoming LTS in April.

  I will reserve judgement until I see the contents of the RC and whether any kind of welcome screen (post install or per new user) is incorporated.

  On the subject of Office suites there needs to be a more curated section of the software store presenting the main choices (brochure/magazine style?) rather than relying on search results that may include various libraries and other text/code editors.
  The Help system could also signpost people if they don't intuitively know about installing software on Linux, because currently if you type Software at the Application Grid you get 4 launchers
  (Software Updater, Software & Updates, Ubuntu Software Store and Additional Drivers)
  and for a new user the first 3 don't have an obvious distinction (one of these is a settings/preferences app).

• Kinda like Windows, some apps are redundant if you've noticed recently.

• I like EndeavourOs and yeah, I don't like bloat distro

• Ubuntu devs made a good choice. There are enough distributions made for brand new users. And they do it better than Ubuntu (such as Zorin, Mint and PopOS ).
  So now Ubuntu is in a different tier.. slightly less new user friendly, but less bloated. I never stuck with Ubuntu for very long, but my tastes do change. Having a distro with a stable base is more preferable to me now. I don't need all apps to be bleeding edge, just only a few, and those I add as flatpaks.
  ** All of the arch based distros that I tried have either bugged-up or even flat out crashed on me after an update, at one time or another. I have installed btrfs and snapper tools to mitigate these issues..but they still do annoy me. The only reason Arch appeals to me now is that it has the latest drivers and Desktop Environments. Surprisingly, I only use one AUR app now..GPU Screen Recorder. But that is available as a flatpak if you are not running Arch.

Comments are closed.