Mono required by ubuntu-desktop

[Scott James Remnant]

On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 15:36 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:

> On 8/2/06, Scott James Remnant <scott at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > Setting out a goal of minimum memory requirements isn't, in my view
> > anyway, the right way to do this;  it's not going to be attainable, and
> > even if it were on some architectures, there's no roadmap for getting
> > there.
> 
> So let's pick an attainable goal: no net increase in memory requirements
> from the status quo (unless the user starts some new huge app on purpose).
> 
I'm sorry, but that's crap.  It's a stupid goal.  There are perfectly
legitimate reasons to increase memory requirements.

Standing still while everything else improves around you is equivalent
to going backwards.  We want to be at the cutting edge of computing, not
the dark ages.

> > The right way to do this is instead to set out to audit the memory usage
> > of a certain percentage of libraries and applications, and understand
> > how and why they use memory and whether that can be improved.
> >...
> > So my recommendation would be to ditch the "Ubuntu will boot (to what,
> > btw?) in 32MB of RAM" targets and instead go with something like:
> >
> >  - for edgy+1 50% of libraries installed by ubuntu-desktop will be
> >    audited for memory usage
> >  - for edgy+2 100% of libraries will have been audited
> >  - for edgy+3 50% of applications will have been audited
> >  - for edgy+4 100% of applications will have been audited.
> 
> That's a lot of auditing.  How about we reduce the amount of auditing needed
> by only auditing packages which are implicated in a performance / RAM regression
> revealed by periodic performance tests?  e.g. we could define a small
> test of tasks:
>   boot to login screen
>   log in
>   open a document on OOo
>   open a document in Abiword
>   open a document in KOffice
> measure them under a variety of conditions
>   mem=96M, mem=192M
>   ubuntu / kubuntu / xubuntu
> and make sure these don't get worse.
> 
That's pretty much everything installed by ubuntu-desktop right there,
and, in fact, more.

> > Also bear in mind that if an ubuntu-desktop installed application does
> > require lots of memory, or is just simply too crappy to fix (yes,
> > OpenOffice.org, I'm looking at you) -- we can always have a derivative
> > (Xubuntu!) targeted at less capable hardware which ships something else.
> >
> > I don't see a problem with Ubuntu itself being targeted at computers
> > purchased within the last year, provided that the usage of the resources
> > is for a reason[1] and not simply wasteful.
> 
> Do you see a problem with avoiding performance / RAM requirement regressions?
> 
Yes.  As time progresses, the things people want to do with computers
gets more complex.  These things require higher performance computers
and more RAM.

That's just the way of the world.


I would say that Ubuntu's minimum requirements should not be higher than
a PC purchasable at start of development time from an reputable online
dealer for a certain price (let's say $500).

In other words, Ubuntu should neither not require a PC newer than 6
months old, nor a "top of the line" one.  And more specifically, the
increase in Ubuntu's minimum requirements should not EXCEED the increase
in performance of mass-market computers.

Using that metric, and Dell's website, we get the following performance
spec:

	3Ghz HT Single Core processor
	256MB RAM
	160GB HD
	64MB RAM 3D GPU

That gives a good benchmark for edgy[0]; if you want to run the latest
release your computer should be relatively up to date.  What happens if
you don't have that hardware?


Well, your first obvious choice is just not to run edgy but run one of
our older releases.  We support our stable releases for 18 months after
release (longer in the case of dapper), and the hardware requirements of
those releases would have been fixed 6 months previously.

In effect, in order to run a supported Ubuntu release, your computer
needs to only have been "entry level" 2 years ago!  (For the record;
using web.archive.org and Dell, that would have been a 2.4Ghz processor,
256MB RAM, 40GB HD and a 2D graphics card -- this means edgy is
permitted to need more processor power, disk space and may take
advantage of 3D acceleration; when compared to breezy[1])


Your next choice is obviously to upgrade your hardware; no non-geeks
really believe that the operating system is separate from the hardware
(as, indeed, they shouldn't) so this would not be surprising to them if
they wanted to upgrade the operating system.

Depending which cost metric you use, the typical cost of keeping up to
date is no more than $20 a month (a new computer every 2 years).  This
is not a huge amount of money for the western world, who are the kinds
of people who are addicted to upgrades.

Obviously the non-western world can't afford this, but then they don't
care about having the latest, shiniest, blingfulness, release.  They can
run the older releases or other derivatives.


And lastly your choice is to use an Ubuntu derivative that is not
targeted at "current" hardware, but has had extra effort spent to reduce
memory requirements at the cost of features -- for example it may have
the following changes:

 - simple photo browser (gthumb) instead of complex manipulation and
   management (f-spot)

 - simple e-mail package instead of an enterprise-grade one (no
   evolution)

 - non-active desktop

 - fixed panels instead of gnome-panel and customisable applets

 - no movie/dvd playing

 - reduced support for removable devices

 - simpler web browser (epiphany instead of firefox? or maybe something
   khtml based)

 - vastly simpler office suite (OpenWorks? <g>)

Those are just the low-hanging fruit I found quite quickly -- this cut
down distribution would be intended for all computers made in, say, the
last 8 years and would have a minimum requirement to match.  It would
still be a fully supported part of the Ubuntu family, just a different
target audience.

Scott

[0] a good one too, the RAM usage of edgy is about right but everything
    else we're massively under.

[1] but not increase in RAM usage... but that's ok too, edgy actually
    uses a little less RAM than breezy to reach the desktop
-- 
Scott James Remnant
scott at ubuntu.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20060803/e67cc11d/attachment-0001.pgp