i have ubuntu and krita often crashes, but the computer is old (8 years), i think its not only krita, there are also other issues. but it got much worse, since i switched to ubuntu (from windows, now i have dual boot) and since i am using krita.
i am thinking about installing another distribution instead of ubuntu. do you think its possible to use a lighter distribution than ubuntu? in the hope, my computer can handle it better.
I think I used Krita (previous version) briefly on linux mint xfce on my decade old budget laptop with 2GB RAM, when I just tried linux a few months ago.
It didnāt run well - nothing did - but I managed to paint a picture in it and it didnāt crasch.
..thinking of it, Krita has crashed on my current laptop (linux mint on a newer HP). I havenāt made a bug report because I donāt really know what to write. Itās usually with the text tool, I think.
Maybe the Krita 5.2 would be more stable on your system?
(Or de awesme devs will have a more accurate answer on how to get the best of Krita 5.3 on your old computer)
8 years is really not that old. As a comparison, i still use Thinkpad x240 from 2013 and most distro run just fine. Your device should be better than that.
For crashes, it is either because of memory limit (like you only have <4gb or so) or I assume you use snap and it just being borked again (which i have experienced too).
If you wanted to keep the ubuntu.
Install the krita .deb version or just download the .appimage version. This usually solves the crashes.
If you want to replace Ubuntu for good And sure it was your weak hardware faults.
You just need to avoid distro version with Gnome or KDE or any Ubuntu spinoff (xubuntu, lubuntu etc).
Any distro that use neither would do, but a wiseman once said when in doubt, just go with mint or zorin. Youāll be fine sticking with either of them.
Btw what are you refering to by much worse, you got more crash? or did it run more slowly? if you could share your hardware spec. It may help to sheds some light.
Iāve been using Kubuntu with Krita appimages for a few years now without any major problems (minor problems, yes, occasionally). At some point, Kubuntu became easier on memory than the supposedly lightweight XFCE (xubuntu), which was my first distro of choice over 10 years ago. I switched and never went back. Zero incentive to use GNOME (default Ubuntu desktop environment) because itās heavy on resources.
Ubuntu and its derivatives has often been criticized for how itās managed, updated, outdated, not kosher, etc. But every time I tried to install and use alternates like Fedora, Suse or Manjaro (all with KDE), I soon ran into roadblocks or embarrassing problems. I was very optimistic about testing Manjaro on a non-critical laptop, until the day a kernel regression disabled my WIFI and I was unable to update the system. No, thank you.
The one I never tried was pure Debian. Kubuntu LTS will remain my main production machine, it has given me the least amount of nasty surprises over the years, and the few times I broke it, it was my fault, and recovery from backups was relatively painless.
My advice would be to walk away from dual boot and have a dedicated Linux computer. If you have 8GB RAM, this will let you run Krita with a small image, with 4GBā¦ you will barely be able to run a modern desktop environment, and you will feel miserable.
thanks everyone, i dont have time now to think about it, but i will come back to this topic soon.
Popping in with a simple rec:
both have served me incredibly well over the years, especially on slower machines, without sacrificing too much of a āboot once and be done basically forever until something dramatically breaksā type of setup. Granted, my main laptop currently uses Arch, but I am fairly confident in building my own things. Run XFCE on the above, minimalist but works completely fine.
I have a fifteen year old desktop PC: 8 Xeon cores (no hyperthreading) @ 3GHz, 16GB of DDR 2 memory and a couple of SATA-2 SSDs. (Yes, itās a museum piece but so am I and I like it.)
Iām running Linux Mint 21.3 with the MATE desktop (not very light, not very heavy) and right now Iām running the Brave browser (very greedy for RAM) the Thunderbird email client (quite greedy for RAM) and Krita which is playing a fairly complex animation with four simultaneous animated transform masks in it, using 675MB of RAM.
Total RAM usage is 2.9 GB. With no applications running itās about 1.2 GB of RAM.
Yes, Linux Mint is very easy to install and just use.
I ran Debian from version 9 (Stretch) to 10 (Buster) with no problems. Then they enabled AppArmor by default so I had to disable it for my āspecialistā use of network drives then they messed up my ability to even access my very old network drives, for security reasons.
Debian is a fine operating system but you often need to do some tinkering with it to get it to do what you want it to do. It also has older kernels and its repository has older versions of applications.
Yes! Donāt even think about dual booting with Windows and Linux. Multi-booting various Linux distributions is ok but itās better to find one you like (use them Live from a USB installer stick to try them first) then install one that you like and stay with it.
I usually do a full install from a LIVE stick onto a different USB stick. This allows me to install things and have full persistence over any number of reboots. I started doing that just because I wondered if it could be done.
That would work ok but be slow to boot and to run the OS.
I have a 2.5" SATA adaptor slot on the back panel of my desktop PC that I plug the SSD boot drive into and have an internal SATA SSD for my personal data.
That way I can boot up from Linux or Windows 10 or whatever, depending on which boot SSD I plug into it.