My Linux journey started with Ubuntu as a test operating system. I played around with hypervisors to get any Linux or alternative OS working. Back then, it wasn't about learning it but simply discovering what a Windows alternative looks like. Slowly, it became a part of my college curriculum, and I used it on both college and personal computers. But today's Ubuntu is wildly different from what I tried 11 years ago. Its design, feature set, and overall package try to appeal to a bigger audience.
But despite all these enhancements, it became a pain for me to use. Shifting strategies, forced bloatware, missing features, and customization make it a difficult choice by today's standards. Let's discuss why I finally gave up on it after spending more than ten years.
Hardware demands ignore basic systems
Ubuntu isn't a low-spec distro anymore
Ubuntu could run with 500MB of memory when I started using it. As Ubuntu matured, it ditched Unity desktop and reintroduced GNOME, which is popular now. System requirements gradually increase as operating systems add more tools, UI improvements, and I support this stance.
But Linux is an alternative to Windows, and Ubuntu is likely the next best thing for users ditching Windows 11. I started questioning the approach when Ubuntu 24.04 LTS Desktop’s baseline requirements shot up to 4GB minimum memory. Being on par with the system requirements of a mainstream OS isn't a good thing when Ubuntu's pitch is to be a better alternative. Ubuntu's next release, version 26, plans to set 6GB of memory as the baseline requirement, and that's baffling. The company later tried to clarify that it was merely a suggestion and not a hard rule, as browsers and apps need more memory now.
How well do you know Ubuntu commands?
Trivia challenge
From navigating directories to managing packages — prove you know your way around the Ubuntu terminal.
Which command prints the full path of your current working directory in Ubuntu?
What does the command 'ls -la' do in Ubuntu?
Which command would you use to install a new package called 'curl' using Ubuntu's default package manager?
What does 'chmod 755 script.sh' do to the file 'script.sh'?
Which command displays a real-time, dynamic view of running processes and system resource usage in Ubuntu?
What is the correct command to create a new directory called 'projects' inside your home directory?
Which Ubuntu command would you use to display your machine's current IP address and network interface information?
What does the 'sudo !! ' command do in Ubuntu's terminal?
Your Score
Thanks for playing!
The current trend of surging hardware requirements indicates that it's no longer an OS for weak or entry-level computers. Ubuntu becomes a difficult option even if I want to use it in a virtual machine. I have a machine dedicated to Ubuntu 24.04 LTS, and that doesn't work as smoothly as you expect with 4GB memory allocation. There's a slight delay in every action, and when I tried it on my thirteen-year-old laptop, the HDD and dual-core processor combo turned out very weak for it.
So, it’s moving to a modern OS format that doesn’t align with the needs of most of my system. I might give it a try on a capable system, or have to switch to a non-desktop environment option like the Ubuntu server.
6 ways modern Linux distros are less infuriating
Thinking about trying Linux? Here's why it's less complicated and annoying than before.
Bloatware ruins the experience
Snap and other default packages are to blame
Ubuntu tries to be a complete package, and that’s becoming a problem. It now bundles tools, apps, background services, and extra utilities that serve very little use for me. I don’t need a ton of extra apps, and even if I go the minimal option route, there are too many things included in the OS packaging that consume extra storage space.
Snap is also one of the major reasons why the OS needs more storage than usual. Even if you use the apt package manager to install software, Ubuntu forces the Snap version in most cases, instead of apt. It’s becoming a norm for most popular applications listed on the Snap store or the default app store on Ubuntu.
But how is it bad? Well, Snap packages an app into a complete unit, which means every file that it needs to run on a Linux system is present inside the package. It's broadly similar to how Docker containers work, where every file that a container needs is isolated from other containers.
Using Snap packages ensures that the app can run on most systems without hiccups. But because of this distinct approach, the storage, CPU, and memory requirements increase by a noticeable margin. App launches feel significantly slower than the Debian packages, and the storage demands increase. Even if dependencies are similar, one Snap package cannot reference another one or the Linux system.
Debian packages share dependencies, which promotes lower storage use, but can often fail to install or work if those packages are missing. Lambasting Snap isn’t my intention, but I crave the freedom of picking the package type. I don’t want Snap to become the default for every app that I need.
The GNOME desktop has problems
Skips many useful features
Reintroducing GNOME in Ubuntu brought some necessary changes, a design overhaul that made it look like a polished system. But if I want to use Ubuntu as a daily driver, and it has the same hardware demands as Windows 11, I expect rich customization elements and features out of the box.
Sadly, GNOME is more of a vanilla experience than other desktop environments like KDE. I can’t stand it when I need to hunt for extensions for simple changes like better tiling support or adding a categorization feature to the app launcher. Extensions forcibly modify shell behavior and have a hard time when GNOME updates. Conflicts arise, and that breaks the workflows until the developers patch their extensions to work with the latest GNOME edition.
The minimalist design philosophy makes little sense when I need to hunt for extensions for very basic elements. It’s possible to switch to another DE, but that’s more of a workaround rather than a native experience.
Better options exist
Ubuntu’s main draw is that it’s popular, receives updates, and is more stable, all of which are the key aspects of a modern Linux distro. But it’s difficult for me to avoid its glaring shortcomings. I’ve moved to MX Linux as it offers multiple desktop editions, including an edition for low-spec computers. It runs a small-scale server with ease while offering a bare-bones window manager to interact with the system. For one of my main machines, I use the KDE edition due to its rich customization support and sensible design.
A mainstream Linux distro based on Debian with a minimalist interface and long-term stability.
