Are we lightweight? Let's ask the Internet.

[Moltke]

why would you need a specific entire OS for professional translators? I mean, I do understand it comes with a suite of helpful tools, but is it not possible to install the same set of tools, say, on Linux Lite?

Choices ... Because I can, is as simple as that, besides it isn't as simple as "install the same set of tools on Linux Lite" since most of the tools are not available in the repos Take for example this one https://omegat.org/ you have to install it manually, then install language pairs, configure it and whatnot ... 2 years ago I installed apertium https://www.linuxliteos.com/forums/sugge.../#msg37136 and it was quite arduous because of dependecies issues plus finding the language pair files but I did it, I use an entire OS for that becasue it's not worth the time and effort invested in installing those tools since they're already available at just one boot away

[MS]

Well okay, just the question is, how many times would you need to install it an on how many machines. I see if you were some major administrator of a whole city of machines, then having an entire OS with all the requirements fulfilled, could be a handy way out, but if this is just for yourself - if you have a laptop, even if you plan to go out somewhere else to work in quiet, you can still have it with yourself without much trouble.

[Artim]

As a general rule in Linux, "newbie friendliness" and system speed are considered almost mutually exclusive,  To get more of one, you sacrifice the other by degrees.  That has been considered an axiom in Linux for many years.

Linux Lite generally disproves that axiom!  Rather than just assume that speed is lost when adding "newbie friendliness,"  Linux Lite thinks differently:  Why not both?  Most developers would say it can't be done, since previous efforts in other distros have demonstrated the truth of that "axiom."  I'm not sure how, but Linux Lite largely defies that rule and offers greater speed than many others along with some of the best "newbie friendly" tools available.

[MS]

[member=6925]Artim[/member], that is likely because of the tools and actually poor choices made by developers. They develop operating systems, not games. They want to look fancy like resource heavy modern Windows, while having the speed of Linux. That is a problem. If they just accepted where they are and took what they have, put more emphasis on it, polished it, nailed it and simply made it a thing to be offered, then.

[TheDead]

Linux Lite generally disproves that axiom!  Rather than just assume that speed is lost when adding "newbie friendliness,"  Linux Lite thinks differently:  Why not both?  Most developers would say it can't be done, since previous efforts in other distros have demonstrated the truth of that "axiom."  I'm not sure how, but Linux Lite largely defies that rule and offers greater speed than many others along with some of the best "newbie friendly" tools available.

Maybe this goes in the same reasonning ElementaryOS was listed in one of the articles. For a MacOS user, ElementaryOS could be considered "LightWeight". But, we know better. LoL

[MS]

Y'know, but I can see a business model here. OS for translators, OS for pregnant women, OS for feeding moms, OS for retired seniors, OS for elementary school children, OS for adolescents, OS for... umm, it could go on for quite a bit, right? Modern operating systems are meant to be universal. That is, they are not the goal, they are just a mean to an end. The end experience, are services or utilities. If to use a metaphor, the OS is a night sky, while what we are there for using computers, are the stars, the planets, the astronomical phenomena. If the OS grabs too much of your attention and ultimately, too much of your machine resources and too much of your energy just to do stuff, it is done wrong. Which is why, lightweight, is an imperative. Every OS should be lightweight and in theory, OS-es should compete in actually vanishing, which means, becoming less and less burdensome to the machine and the user alike, to the point where they feel like gone.

[TheDead]

You don't have to create new OSes indeed.
In fact I'm gratefull Ubuntu stepped in years ago to try and standardise things a little.
I may  not like the original distribution itself but it's undeniable that the community is better for it.
Still, they are quite a few "distros" (image quotes with finger gesture here ; ) which are just skins and/or repacks.
I myselft was a little scared by the Linux community at first just looking at the tons available on distrowatch, etc.
Ubuntu itselft has I don't know how many spinoffs (Lubuntu, Xubuntu, Burgerbuntu, Whatitsnamebuntu, etc.)
It took me a few dozen distro hop to settle down with LiLi and XFCE, NOT something a common user would do.

My personal minimum, XFCE + Whiskers + Lightweight

[Moltke]

Choices my friends ...  choices!! That's one, amongst the many other beauties the Linux/Unix world offers us, you can take it or leave it, but you can't deny it, and that's why having an OS for veryONE isn't a bad thing, in fact, I think it's wondeful.

[Artim]

Still, they are quite a few "distros" (image quotes with finger gesture here ; ) which are just skins and/or repacks.

I call those "distrolets."

[MS]

On the DistroWatch, MX-Linux holds first place. I gave it a look in the V-Box and to be fair, with this Debian mindset of installation, I wonder how did it get so much of audience, since professionals alone cannot make for such difference. In turn, Ubuntu has some real nice installer and fortunately, Linux Lite inherited that one particular. Altogether, Xubuntu looks fine - but a terrible name - even though if I started today, I would still choose Linux Lite. Linux Lite, what it has, is style and style is a form of polish, speaking of the visual side. Being like classic Windows is not bad yet, because Windows is ultimately what people just know. There is no recognizable push for novelty in terms of how the interface on personal computers is to be designed, AFAIR, therefore, why change something if nobody asks for it? Experimentation, sure, but for the sake of advertisement, hardly. In the end, we get to what is strictly functional, what gets the job done.