Does Core work fine on Xubuntu and Lubuntu?

[cellard]

I would like to start a new node in some old computer I got, but the problem is, Ubuntu uses GNOME which is too much of a bloatware for my taste and specially for my older computer.

The documentation in the bitcoin.org site only talks about Ubuntu but no other distros.

Can I assume that since Lubuntu and Xunbutu are Ubuntu based distros it will compile and run nicely? I would like confirmation from someone that has actually run it successfully in either distros before I bother installing either.

[HeRetiK]

In general applications that run on Ubuntu should not cause any problems on Xubuntu either. At least I personally never had any problems on Xubuntu that I couldn't resolve by following the Ubuntu or sometimes even the Debian support forums. Most problems that I had to resolve usually only required me to install missing packages. I suppose the situation is similar with Lubuntu. I'm not a heavy user though, so your mileage may vary.

As far as Bitcoin Core is concerned, I just installed it using the software manager that comes with Xubuntu. Starts up just fine, syncs fine, no errors so far. I didn't wait for the full blockchain to load though, so I can only give you a quick impression.

If you build from scratch you might have to install some additional packages, but as mentioned above, usually the same fixes apply to both Ubuntu and Xubuntu.

[LoyceV]

The documentation in the bitcoin.org site only talks about Ubuntu but no other distros.

It's all Ubuntu-based, so it shouldn't be a problem.

I would like to start a new node in some old computer I got, but the problem is, Ubuntu uses GNOME which is too much of a bloatware for my taste and specially for my older computer.

Can I go off-topic and think out of the box? I prefer Linux Mint over Lubunu and Xubuntu. I've tried them all many times.
I use Linux Mint on an old netbook with 1 GB RAM. It's still running Mint 17.3 (supported until April next year), and it works fine. I've used Bitcoin Core (pruned) on it for a long time, but stopped using it because it syncs too slow. If you keep it on continuously as a node, that shouldn't be a problem. I did install a SSD, but RAM and CPU are quite limited. I just tested it: Progress syncing Bitcoin Core: 0.09% per hour.

You say Gnome is too bloated, but have you tried Clearlooks? I once again have a blue bar on top of my active Window (like Windows 95), my Window Manager is Makro + Compositing (instead of the bloated Compiz), I disabled all animations and 3D effects, and it feels less bloated.

[cellard]

The documentation in the bitcoin.org site only talks about Ubuntu but no other distros.

It's all Ubuntu-based, so it shouldn't be a problem.

I would like to start a new node in some old computer I got, but the problem is, Ubuntu uses GNOME which is too much of a bloatware for my taste and specially for my older computer.

Can I go off-topic and think out of the box? I prefer Linux Mint over Lubunu and Xubuntu. I've tried them all many times.
I use Linux Mint on an old netbook with 1 GB RAM. it's still running Mint 17.3 (supported until April next year), and it works fine. I've used Bitcoin Core (pruned) on it for a long time, but stopped using it because it syncs too slow. If you keep it on continuously as a node, that shouldn't be a problem. I did install a SSD, but RAM and CPU are quite limited. I just tested it: Progress syncing Bitcoin Core: 0.09% per hour.

You say Gnome is too bloated, but have you tried Clearlooks? I once again have a blue bar on top of my active Window (like Windows 95), my Window Manager is Makro + Compositing (instead of the bloated Compiz), I disabled all animations and 3D effects, and it feels less bloated.

Mint looks nice but I like the minimalist approach of Xubuntu, Lubuntu is probably overkill (too minimalist).

I plan on running a full node (non pruned) so im going to go for high capacity HDD because SSD's of 2TB+ are still too expensive. Also im paranoid that if I ever need to sell an SSD, I don't manage to fully wipe it and some Bitcoin stuff would remain, I heard SSD is harder to wipe than HDD and I want to sell them eventually.

How long did it took to verify the blockchain when you opened Core? I will be using 8 GB of RAM, the CPU is pretty old tho, around 2008 but should do. It will need to verify the full blockchain as it's not pruned and it's HDD.. might take a while but I guess no longer than 5 minutes. The modern Core versions verify really fast.

Clearlooks looks nice but I think GNOME will still be more resource consuming even if you make it look simpler, Xfce and specially LXDE are lighter.

[LoyceV]

Also im paranoid that if I ever need to sell an SSD, I don't manage to fully wipe it and some Bitcoin stuff would remain, I heard SSD is harder to wipe than HDD and I want to sell them eventually.

In general, I empty the disk, then fill it with random data. That makes any restore virtually impossible. It could be some re-mapped sectors still contain data, but I'm not sure (and don't worry about it).

How long did it took to verify the blockchain when you opened Core?

On my netbook it took quite long, although I didn't time it.
I will be using 8 GB of RAM, the CPU is pretty old tho, around 2008 but should do. It will need to verify the full blockchain as it's not pruned and it's HDD.. might take a while but I guess no longer than 5 minutes.[/quote]
If at all possible, put the chainstate-directory on a small SSD (you can symlink it). That made it much faster on my desktop.

Clearlooks looks nice but I think GNOME will still be more resource consuming even if you make it look simpler, Xfce and specially LXDE are lighter.

True. I just don't like it.

[cellard]

In general, I empty the disk, then fill it with random data. That makes any restore virtually impossible. It could be some re-mapped sectors still contain data, but I'm not sure (and don't worry about it).

True, worrying about your private keys being recoverable after fully wiping an SSD is probably too much paranoia... but then again, is there such a thing anymore? there are exploits and bad people everywhere trying to ruin your life. Maybe there is an expert here in this field that could calculate what are the chances that sensitive data is left inside an SSD after fully wiping it.

If at all possible, put the chainstate-directory on a small SSD (you can symlink it). That made it much faster on my desktop.

I think I talked to achow101 once about symlinks and the idea of separate chainstate folder in an SSD to make it go faster. The general consensus was that this is not a good idea at all, and you must have all of your Bitcoin Core files within the same folder (therefore same HDD).

[LoyceV]

I think I talked to achow101 once about symlinks and the idea of separate chainstate folder in an SSD to make it go faster. The general consensus was that this is not a good idea at all, and you must have all of your Bitcoin Core files within the same folder (therefore same HDD).

Bitcoin Core 0.15 didn't allow me to symlink my wallet.dat anymore, which is why I switched to symlinking chainstate. Any idea why it's a bad idea (or a link to the discussion?)? Assume that I trust my computer, if I wouldn't trust it, I wouldn't run it, and if it gets compromised, my wallet gets stolen with or without symlinks.

I don't want to keep going off-topic, so I'll respond to achow101's post in this post:

~ So if the wallet.dat file were to be moved or accessed in some way without those temporary database files that are in a completely separate folder, wallet corruption can occur and funds can be lost

Thanks for explaining. This isn't something I worry about, so I keep using my symlink. If it ever corrupts my wallet, I have backups.

Note that being able to symlink your wallet.dat file was never an intended feature.

I consider this a normal Linux feature, and I assume that's why it worked.

[achow101]

Bitcoin Core 0.15 didn't allow me to symlink my wallet.dat anymore, which is why I switched to symlinking chainstate. Any idea why it's a bad idea (or a link to the discussion?)? Assume that I trust my computer, if I wouldn't trust it, I wouldn't run it, and if it gets compromised, my wallet gets stolen with or without symlinks.

The wallet.dat file is a database file. When it is opened as a database, new temporary files are actually created in the same folder as the wallet.dat file. These temporary files are required in order to have the wallet be properly opened. In the even of an unclean shutdown, those temporary files are required in order to properly open the database again. However when you symlink the wallet.dat file, those temporary database files are actually created in the folder where the symlink is, not the folder containing the actual wallet.dat file itself. So if the wallet.dat file were to be moved or accessed in some way without those temporary database files that are in a completely separate folder, wallet corruption can occur and funds can be lost. Symlinking can also cause some other problems that could lead to corrupted wallet files and losing funds, so we decided to disable symlinking. Note that being able to symlink your wallet.dat file was never an intended feature.

Some discussion about this can be found here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10885#issuecomment-329717802