Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Fatware: Distros That Need To Slim Down

Posted by samzenpus on from the getting-in-shape dept.

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.'"

13 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 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
    3. 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."
    4. 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...

    5. 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.

    6. 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

  2. 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.

  3. #! 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. 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.
  7. 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."