Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

38 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Got that. It's called Debian Net Install.
    Done.

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mod parent down! Saying "Ubuntu sucks" is redundant.

    2. Re:Really? by ilikenwf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unfortunately not.

    3. Re:Really? by marcello_dl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      even slimmer: debootstrap --variant minbase on another partition

      more info on debian installation manual.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    4. Re:Really? by couchslug · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fascinating idea.

      Is this some fork of Ubuntu?

      (runs)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:Really? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Funny

      apt-get install what-I-need-and-nothing-else

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Really? by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 4, Informative

      TFA was a complete exercise in BS. Here's another example of how to do a slim Linux install: during a Mageia or Mandriva install, select the Custom option, deselect everything, click through to proceed but when it stops to check if you really, really want to have such a sparse choice select "truly-minimal-install" and you will get exactly what it says, without X or even man pages.

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    7. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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...

    8. Re:Really? by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    9. Re:Really? by the_B0fh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because some of us have used both, and know people who are the release managers for both, and know what kind of shortcuts Ubuntu takes (things that will screw you over).

      debian testing is far more stable than ubuntu stable.

    10. Re:Really? by nickittynickname · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really? I enjoy Ubuntu. I would recommend it in a hot second. There is so much community support out there you can google any problem and find a walk through. It's popular enough that most new application target it to make sure it works.

    11. Re:Really? by RevSpaminator · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ubuntu didn't always suck. I've used it since the Flatulent Badger release and, for years, it was pretty standard Debian with a bunch of stuff preconfigured for new users. Over the last 3 or 4 years I've watched it become more and more "user friendly" and it seems like every release breaks a bunch of things I had manually installed/configured. Now when I go into familiar /etc files I see, more and more, "# Do not edit this file. Some new mysterious daemon will screw up all your hard work." Unity wasn't why I gave up on Ubuntu, but it certainly didn't help. I don't appreciate any GUI that presumes I want to do everything full screen mode. (I could save the cycles and not load any GUI for that.) I've now switched to Arch Linux. I'm learning a lot of things I never had to deal with before. I still don't have it the way I want it, but the rolling releases make it worth the effort. I particularly appreciate the fact that the Arch website regularly notifies users when an update needs special attention or of major architectural changes.

    12. Re: Really? by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it seems you've yet to discover the beauty of

      apt-get --no-install-recommends install $something

      as to why anybody would use ubuntu server, the answer is simple - predictable release cycle

    13. Re: Really? by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And I meant this comment to the story submitter. Maybe yes, more VM specific distros are needed, but without knowing what you are looking for, how can we help? You state you have a specific environment yet want more off the shelf options. Er, which is it? For what? Come on /. admins, please edit or revise before posting story nonsense.

      --
      "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
  2. Ubuntu Core by simonbp · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ubuntu core distribution is ~34 MB, and available for x86, amd64, and ARM. It's more than suffcient to bootstrap a lean OS.

    1. Re:Ubuntu Core by ilikenwf · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's also nonstandard in terms of all the stupid patches and daemons it comes with.

    2. Re:Ubuntu Core by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Funny

      If "nonstandard" is a problem, maybe you should be looking at OSes from a certain angry bald man.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    3. Re:Ubuntu Core by ilikenwf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Ubuntu Core by Thud457 · · Score: 5, Funny

      RMS isn't angry.
      He's just very, very disappointed in the rest of us.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    5. Re:Ubuntu Core by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Than its fairly safe to say you (and other Linux users) have a fairly different meaning of 'standard' than ... well, everyone else in the world.

      You don't eat CPU time at idle, thats exactly the opposite of idle. I realize you mean that the daemons sit around eating CPU doing nothing you care about, but I suspect, even on a desktop install of Ubuntu you'll find the CPU sitting at 99.9% idle in top since those daemons are in sleep/wait states and not using any CPU.

      Raspian has no CPU in use when even when X is running if you're not doing anything. Daemons swap out and don't waste CPU if they aren't in use and aren't shitty daemons. They do waste swap space though.

      No Linux distro on the planet uses the stock kernel. All of them have different locations for many different files. All of them have major patchs to all sorts of 'standard' apps.

      You seem to not understand what makes a distro different. If they were all 'standard' you wouldn't have xteen million variations of Linux.

      Linux's lack of standardization is repeatedly brought up as one of its largest problems in becoming a more common desktop since software vendors don't want to target a bunch of slightly different distro's to pick up a statistically insignificant portion of the population.

      Have you even used more than one Linux distro?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    6. Re:Ubuntu Core by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Funny

      "ubuntu" is Swahili for "I can't configure Debian".

    7. Re:Ubuntu Core by higuita · · Score: 4, Informative

      No Linux distro on the planet uses the stock kernel.

      Slackware uses stock kernels

      All of them have different locations for many different files.

      Slackware puts the files where the app developers want to, they dont move files around, breaking stuff (are you listen redhat/fedora!)

      All of them have major patchs to all sorts of 'standard' apps.

      Slackware tried to used just the upstream code. Only when there are problem reported and there is a fix in the upstream cvs/svn/git, its is ported to the latest release (or the git version is used)

      So yes, there are standard, plain and simple distros... slackware is one of the most stable distros there is by not messing all over

      Linux's lack of standardization is repeatedly brought up as one of its largest problems in becoming a more common desktop since software vendors don't want to target a bunch of slightly different distro's to pick up a statistically insignificant portion of the population.

      Strange, there are things like static binaries, that work EVERYWHERE... you can also ship the libraries, for a pseudo static binary.
      But solving that isnt that hard, just have several VMs with the main distros and recompile... yes, its harder than having the source code open and let users/distros developers compile it for you, but that is the price for having closed source.

      --
      Higuita
  3. TurnKey Core by americamatrix · · Score: 4, Informative

    I always like to use TurnKey Core for such things http://www.turnkeylinux.org/core

    It's small, lightweight and runs very quickly even on older hardware. It does a great job.


    -americamatrix

  4. RHEL/CENTOS minimal by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    RHEL/CENTOS minimal does this just fine.

    Why bother about a solved problem?

    1. Re:RHEL/CENTOS minimal by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Informative

      CentOS minimal is 342Mb, which isn't as small as the Ubuntu, but I guess it comes with more "what you'd install anyway" packages.

      There's the netinstall too, which is 230Mb. Nowadays if it can fit on a CD, its considered insignificant in size.

  5. Archlinux, Slackware, Gentoo by ilikenwf · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you really want lightweight and have a specific purpose in mind, just use something that only gives you what you want/need based on what you install. Then, localepurge.

    1. Re:Archlinux, Slackware, Gentoo by couchslug · · Score: 4, Funny

      I this saw long ago on a Windows 3.1 networking site:

      "Freedom of choice means you have some work to do."

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  6. #! Linux by Tyler+R. · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm really liking Crunchbang lately! It's very fast, very stable, and it's based on Debian so it works pretty well with mainstream software. It also comes with non free repositories, and codecs.

  7. task-*.rpm by hduff · · Score: 4, Informative

    For RPM-based distros, it's easy enough to set up a task-*.rpm to install a minimal subset of the entire repository for a specific purpose, like a LAMP server. I'm sure .deb-based distros have something similar, so I'm really not seeing the problem here, just a lack of understanding the power of FOSS by the OP.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  8. Re:Agree -- issues w/ VirtualBox... by Sparticus789 · · Score: 4, Informative

    PEBKAC

    I have Fedora 18 running in VBox with a Windows 7 host at this exact moment.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
  9. vmware tools? by iaw4 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  10. many of the demands made by by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the author in TFA are irrelevant outside the proprietary sphere of vmware. what i suspect is really being cited is the piss-poor nature of error reporting and handling with respect to what images it can and wont handle.

    every linux distro ive seen has a 'bare minimal install' option; puppet chef and to a lesser extent cfengine and spacewalk exist solely to chisel the initial image into "your server." PXE boot can ensure "your server" just gets decompressed into the guest space as well. dont understand any of those? just save and copy a version of "your server" as a blueprint to use whenever a new one is necessary

    speaking as someone whos contributed to open source projects like Fedora, i can agree bluetooth isnt necessarily appropriate everywhere. thats a bottle of mr potterings special sauce that had you cared to research might make more sense. however, it is rather shocking to hear a vmware user whos software uses a minimum of a gigabyte of disk storage (that doesnt include the generous 20 gigabytes free for your host OS) bitch about the default load of something like, say, centos which stands around 4 gigabytes. That includes KVM/QEMU. indeed this is not as you put it "rocket surgery."

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  11. wankers... by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you aren't recompiling the kernel to include only the things you "really need", you don't deserve to be talking about bloat.

  12. SUSE Studio is another option by houghi · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://susestudio.com/ and make your own. As light or as heavy as you desire.
    A starting point is JeOS. From the first page:
    You can export your custom operating system as a Virtual machine, Live USB Disk, CD/DVD-ROM, Hard Disk Image and so much more.

    As you want something very specific a great way would be SUSE Studio. Because I might want just a little bit different configuration then what you would want.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  13. Re:It's already there... by volkerdi · · Score: 4, Informative

    2GB for a full Slackware install? Try nearly 8.

    And yeah, I'd like to put it on a diet, but once something is already included it becomes quite entrenched. It's extremely difficult to remove anything large enough to make a difference without causing rioting in the streets with torches and pitchforks. I suspect it's the same for any Linux distribution.

  14. Your problem has already been solved. by zachary.grafton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't be a pansy. Use Gentoo. Quit bitching about not having the features you want, or having features you don't need. Need to deploy a bunch of VMs? Just create your own portage mirror, remove the packages you don't want to be available, create an overlay for things that aren't in portage and to deploy your own meta package, for shits and giggles, since you seen to be so fascinated with binary packages, build all the packages you want, create binary packages for everything, then deploy to a VM. Once that's done, just copy the base VM image every time you need to deploy a new VM, then log in, run a portage update and quit whining. Hell, I'm sure you could even create your own packages for deploying binary kernels. I'm so sick of this, "My linux doesn't do what I want because I'm a (insert your distro here) fanboi."

    1. Re:Your problem has already been solved. by zachary.grafton · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've been using it for almost 6 years as my primary desktop and laptop OS. Never had an issue like that, but then again, I take the time to search for critical bugs before I update, and considering this situation is supposed to be used for multiple VMs, it's not like rolling back to a previous snapshot is hard, minimal testing before deploying is assumed.

  15. What about PuppyLinux or DamnSmallLinux? by hillbluffer · · Score: 4, Informative

    What about PuppyLinux or DamnSmallLinux?

    http://puppylinux.org/ http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/

    Both are tiny, and boot in less than a minute.