Even though different Linux distros are often fairly close in terms of real-life performance and all of them have a clear advantage over Windows in many use cases, we can’t reject the fact that Arch Linux has undoubtedly won the competition. And now I’m so glad to have another reason to proudly say “I use Arch btw”

::: It was a joke of course :::

  • @TheGrandNagus
    link
    English
    48
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Jesus

    Installation size:

    Fedora  - 7.7 GB

    Arch (actually EndeavourOS) - 45 GB

    Ubuntu - 49.2 GB

    Windows - 72 GB

    How the hell is Fedora so small? That’s insane.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      527 months ago

      He just look at how much empty space the file explorer showed… I don’t know how good of an indication that it is. The OS may choose to conserve a decent amount of space for things like swap, hibernation file etc.

      Also, preinstalled apps.

      • @TheGrandNagus
        link
        English
        15
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I mean, I think it’s fair to lump that all together as space taken by the system, no?

        It’s not like you can use that space for storing files

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -5
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I don’t think we know how performance and stability behave when the disk gets full. You can’t really use that space if it would cause your system to crash because it can’t create a hibernate file for instance. It also will vary by system configuration a lot (you need way less swap with 8Gb of swap than 64gb of ram) which makes the comparison only valid for the creators specific configuration.

    • lazynooblet
      link
      fedilink
      English
      397 months ago

      What are these sizes from? All my Linux installs start with <20G root disks and end up with some spare.

      And Windows at 72G? Whilst it’s more than Linux it’s not that much.

      • @Spiralvortexisalie
        link
        English
        347 months ago

        I think the videomaker may be failing to account for swap space. The latest Fedora releases use zram (swap that lives in memory instead of hard disk) by default, while the rest do not. Windows in particular does not take 72G and tends to be aggressive in swap allocation. The fact that he presents this data as “free space available” adds confusions while seemingly burying the simplest answer.

        • @MotoAsh
          link
          -7
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          “Swap space that lives in RAM” No… just … no. Swap is for when RAM runs out/low. It literally cannot live in RAM…

          • @Spiralvortexisalie
            link
            English
            18
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Are you familiar with ZRAM ? I do not understand your certainty that I am incorrect.

              • Possibly linux
                link
                fedilink
                English
                87 months ago

                Zram is swap in ram. It uses fast compression to quickly compress memory instead of moving it to disk.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  47 months ago

                  The disagreement here might be a semantic one. When people say “swap” they’re usually referring to the swap partition on disk, not just any memory that can be used to “spill” to.

                  What you are describing with zram serves a fundamentally different function from swap space. If the OS dumps its memory to swap, the PC can lose power and still recover. If it compresses LRU memory to zram, and loses power, it cannot recover.

                  Both are useful in low memory situations, but swap covers more than that. Most familiar with swap space would agree that its location on a nonvolatile disk rather than in volatile memory is critical to what makes it “swap” space.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      35
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      How the hell is arch so large? My laptop is only 27GB and that includes all user data and several years of crap being installed as well as several docker images. A fresh install should rival that fedora install.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      177 months ago

      7GB is a reasonable size for a Linux install with a GUI and some software. The rest are excessively large. I’ve never gone over 30GB of disk usage in my root partition, even with a large number of programs installed.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        77 months ago

        It seems quite likely that, in the Arch ( EOS ) system at least, a tonne of that space is being used up by the package cache. By default, the system keeps copies of the packages for all software you install. This can indeed take gigs of space but it has nothing to do with your running system. A simple command purges them all and reclaims the space. You would obviously want to do this before reporting installation size. I bet he did not.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          37 months ago

          Arch package spliting is not as hard as Debian/Fedora.

          But IMO, it’s because Fedora uses BTRFS with compression enabled.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      157 months ago

      Oh, so his numbers are just garbage then. You can install regular Windows 10 on a 16gb drive with no modifications. (You can’t fit anything else, and there’s not really even enough space for updates, but it’s possible.)

      I regularly install it on 30gb VMs and still have space left over for whatever apps it needs.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        77 months ago

        If Windows 10 immediately destroys itself while trying to do its first update, you didn’t actually fit it in 16gb. It hasn’t fit inside of 32GB for several years now.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      127 months ago

      Ya, I am not going to trust anything coming out of a post that cites that numbers for install size. As others have said, even the Windows one is bonkers.

      As an EOS user myself, I love the conclusion but have no faith at all in the methodology.

      If you want an article to make Linux look good, a test of the new Damn Small Linux would be interesting. It fits a basic version of practically every program you need into a 700 MB system. It also includes the APT package manager and full access to the Debian 12 stable repos so you can easily add anything you want on top of that.

      It would be interesting to know what footprint it would require to run the “tests” he runs here.

    • roadkill
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      My guess will be hibernation file and swap. If any of those had suspend to disk enabled, the hibernation file will be the same size as installed Ram… which can take up a good percentage of that used space. I have a pretty bloated xUbuntu install on my system right now and it’s sitting at 10.6GB. Including swap and /home, but no hibernation file.

      • jelloeater - Ops MgrA
        link
        English
        27 months ago

        Hibernation I’ve found handy on my laptop, but I wish there was like a fastboot option with Ubuntu. I know windows 11 does it to boot faster.