Linux Fatware: Distros That Need To Slim Down

snydeq writes "We need bare-bones Linux distros tailored for virtual machines or at least the option for installs, writes Deep End's Paul Venezia. 'As I prepped a new virtual server template the other day, it occurred to me that we need more virtualization-specific Linux distributions or at least specific VM-only options when performing an install. A few distros take steps in this direction, such as Ubuntu and OEL jeOS (just enough OS), but they're not necessarily tuned for virtual servers. For large installations, the distributions in use are typically highly customized on one side or the other — either built as templates and deployed to VMs, or deployed through the use of silent installers or scripts that install only the bits and pieces required for the job. However, these are all handled as one-offs. They're generally not available or suitable for general use.'"

Comments

vmware tools?

[iaw4]

and why do we still need vmware tools to be installed separately? why are these guest tools not already natively supported out of the box?

Re:Ubuntu Core

[ilikenwf]

With the kernel it's almost always fairly mainstream changes - security patches, upstream stuff, BFS, whatever. With the userland, I see patches only when necessary on something like Gentoo or Arch... With Ubuntu though, it's a nightmare.

Real world example: I develop with the Nightingale Media Player. While setting it up to use the current taglib, we managed to get it to work just fine with the taglib shipped with about every distro you can imagine...except Ubuntu. Some patch they have going on there completely breaks the build, as well as playback and tag parsing.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can You explain to me why Ubuntu sucks? I have seen this statement multiple times on Slashdot, but I really think this is just a stupid trend.

When I configured my workstation, I downloaded the Ubuntu 12.04 minimal CD [30MB] and installed a encrypted commandline system . After that I installed Xorg and compiled DWM with my preferred settings, then I installed browser, editor etc. The system is slim, fast and stable but it is still Ubuntu, so can You explain why my system sucks?

Ubuntu consists of a Linux kernel and GNU userland like most other Linux distros, but I also get the following:

1. Applications and kernel that is compiled with hardening flags. Current Debian is built with absolutely no hardening, so a zero day in a network service on Debian will be very very easy to exploit.

2. Security updates to 2017

3. Reasonably current software.

I also like Debian very much, but I think it is stupid to keep saying that Ubuntu sucks...

Re:Really?

[Sloppy]

I run Ubuntu server on a certain box, for one reason. If I weren't for this case, that machine wouldn't have Ubuntu, but it does:

Mythbackend.

I want the backend to run the same version of MythTV as my Mythbuntu front ends (and regardless of whatever you overall think of Ubuntu, MythBuntu is a pretty good "applicance" if you're into MythTV). One of the ugly things about MythTV is that the front and back ends need to be the same version; MythTV isn't very tolerant of differing versions. (Or at least that's what the case was in the 0.23-0.24 days; I haven't tried mixing 0.25 with 0.24.)

So I can either compile my own to make sure each side is using the same version (which totally defeats the point of MythBuntu) or I can make sure all the boxes use the same version, by making them all use the same basic repository. I did the latter, because I'm lazy.

BTW, if I were deploying a new system in 2013, I would take a good hard look at LXC, running a minimal Ubuntu with their release of Mythbackend inside of a container, hosted by an overall more stable, less .. scary(?) distro. I think lots of oldschool Linux dudes reach for "heavier" virtualization, not realizing what features have been added to the vanilla (!!!) kernels in the last couple years. No Linux-Vserver or OpenVZ patches needed (assuming you don't consider the contained system to be potentially hostile; DO NOT think of LXC as a security tool, yet). LXC isn't done, but it's already at a point where it's useful in some situations, and your box may very well have it built in, right now.