Why are bluefin minimum specs so high?

General
1

Screenshot_20251124-203947
Screenshot_20251124-2039471080×1565 102 KB

Those requirements are higher than a solid portion of games, most if not all other desktop Linux distros and most importantly Aurora, which is basically the same thing. Can someone correct that? I can send a PR, but I don’t know which version is correct

2

It will run on much less than those specs. I would guess those documented “minimums” are due to:

  • Those minimums are likely to give you a good experience, not just “it technically runs”.
  • Nobody has spent time accurately testing what the actual minimum is.
  • Even if someone did, the team don’t want to commit to those minimums going forward.
  • The actual minimum isn’t very interesting to know, as it doesn’t leave you any room to put your own applications ontop.
3

ZFS uses a lot of memory for cache (though it will give it up if you need it).

I’d say ignore those and just look at Fedora’s specs. Much lower.

4

I agree with @Universalblue (great username btw) that the “minimum” requirements for running Bluefin are probably the same as Aurora’s:

As I understand it, the reason for the higher requirements in the Bluefin documentation is because Bluefin’s target audience is developers (not general home users?) with container based development as the focus.

I guess “correct” and “minimum” are subjective depending on what you will be doing with it.

Personally, I think it would be better to have lower requirements in the docs so newbies and people who can’t upgrade to win11 are not scared off from trying Bluefin on older devices.

1 Like
5

I’m not so sure about your target audience argument. That might be true for Aurora-dx and Bluefin-dx, but I’ve read the developers say that the standard Aurora and Bluefin versions are perfectly fine and intended for non-developers.

6

It runs surprisingly fine on my old laptops with 4gb RAM, Gnome became much lighter than it used to be.

7

Minimum in that table clearly doesn’t mean minimum..

Actually when you study that table, the second column is also bad. Because no actual recommended specs are given. So that second column gives no valuable information to an end user.

A suggestion: just list the actual recommended minimum specs and remove the table.

2 Likes