Debian/Ubuntu are all about stability. Arch is all about bleeding edge. Arch will have more features and possibly more hardware support. Debian/Ubuntu are only a few versions behind in the kernel though.
Resource consumption has more to do with the desktop you select. You can install lxde on many distros which will be lower consumption than Gnome or KDE.
Servers usually run a very stable release because they have limited services. Depends on what you do with a desktop to determine whether rolling or stable distro works for you. I run Xubuntu 22.04 on the desktop and Debian 11/Ubuntu 22.04 on servers.
If you are using Ubuntu for the desktop and it works, I don't see any reason to switch.
I noticed that Debian server there uses only slightly more than 100 megs ram on it's own, but Alpine Linux should be even slimmer from what I hear. Apparently, Alpine will be the docker system of choice. Have you any experience of that one?
Alpine (and photon) are very small. It is a popular image to base docker images on. Ubuntu is used a lot as well. Disk space is so cheap that I would not use an OS just because it was very small. Alpine's hardware support is probably not as good since it usually used in containers (not kernel) or very specialized tiny devices. I have used most distros at some point.
Not OS size in particular, but resource use. I'm simply after the most from the least, and I see frugality and efficiency as a high priority.
That's all well and fine, but if you don't know how to use it, it's kinda pointless.
That's all well and fine, but if you don't know how to use it, it's kinda pointless.
Who said I don't know how to use it?
Who said I don't know how to use it?
Wasn't suggesting you didn't (but honestly, the question to me came off sort of newbish). Just basically saying there's a reason those other distros (Debian, Ubuntu, even Arch) are far more mainstream than say Alpine.
Not OS size in particular, but resource use. I'm simply after the most from the least, and I see frugality and efficiency as a high priority.
You seem to be equating minor disk space usage with efficiency and resource use. Things are not going to always work like that.
disk space is cheap if one can afford it.
You can can't barely buy something smaller than 8GB nowadays. So, if you can afford any storage at all, 100mb vs 400mb will not make a difference unless you are dealing with an embedded device.
No, I'm not actually.
That is the only thing you have pointed out then. How else are you saying alpine is more efficient and uses less resources? I fail to use see how alpine is any better in term of things other than space. Space usage is a primary reason why it is used in containers though. If you already know the answers, why ask? I will go spend my time on OMV things...
Sie haben noch kein Benutzerkonto auf unserer Seite? Registrieren Sie sich kostenlos und nehmen Sie an unserer Community teil!
