Slashdot Mirror


Outlining Thin Linux

snydeq writes: Deep End's Paul Venezia follows up his call for splitting Linux distros in two by arguing that the new shape of the Linux server is thin, light, and fine-tuned to a single purpose. "Those of us who build and maintain large-scale Linux infrastructures would be happy to see a highly specific, highly stable mainstream distro that had no desktop package or dependency support whatsoever, so was not beholden to architectural changes made due to desktop package requirements. When you're rolling out a few hundred Linux VMs locally, in the cloud, or both, you won't manually log into them, much less need any type of graphical support. Frankly, you could lose the framebuffer too; it wouldn't matter unless you were running certain tests," Venezia writes. "It's only a matter of time before a Linux distribution that caters solely to these considerations becomes mainstream and is offered alongside more traditional distributions."

46 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. min install by bugs2squash · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm sure I've installed minimal gentoo and Debian systems that fit that description.

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:min install by Nutria · · Score: 3, Insightful

      10 years ago, and I was a late-comer to the idea.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:min install by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As have I. I have several Debian based routers and KVM servers that are out pure CLI. I have no idea what the writer is taking air. And neither does the writer, methinks.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:min install by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ubuntu already divides the server from the Desktop. It is split in two, and he didn't need to open his mouth, just do a Google search and he would have found it.

      Of course, the distro doesn't have the exact minimal install he needs, but no distro will because everyone has a different set of needed packages. Unless he builds it himself. If only there were a way to do that......I'm pretty sure Gentoo "emerge nginx" will do exactly what he's asking, too.

      Also, who on earth is Paul Venezia? He calls himself someone "who builds and maintain large-scale Linux infrastructures." Can that possibly be true?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:min install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also, who on earth is Paul Venezia? He calls himself someone "who builds and maintain large-scale Linux infrastructures." Can that possibly be true?

      He's a master at clickbait articles. It's an Info World article. Were you really expecting quality journalism?

    5. Re:min install by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the concern is not how stripped down of an install you can do, but how competing needs can result in desktop centric package decisions effecting server installs. This is probably related to systemd and the perception that it is a technology designed around the problems desktop users focus on at the expense of the issues server admins worry about.

    6. Re:min install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yeah i think this is a response to recent bloat -- from my POV after testing RHEL 7 I am testing out FreeBSD for something more straightforward - not sure it will work out but definitely don't like stuff like systemd for example.

    7. Re:min install by MikeBabcock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As a frequent user of the CentOS-6.5-x86_64-minimal.iso install image, I can see that its still not *as* thin as the author describes but none of the unnecessary bits are included and its super-easy to customize.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    8. Re:min install by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      If you want a real thin install, pick something like Gentoo and Slackware. You can build minimal installs from the kernel up. In ye olden days when I was working on pretty minimal hardware (low RAM, slow CPUs, small drives), I used to install minimum base on top of a very small kernel (only the hardware found on the machine, plus a few generic IDE drivers just in case I had to move the HD and fire it up on another computer). It's a pain in the rear, and with even low-end hardware having huge amounts of RAM and storage space, I don't bother.

      The whole point of the net install version of Debian is that it installs a very base version of Linux; and then you build on top of it. If you really need some sort of unique kernel variant, most fine tuning can be done in /boot or /proc.

      I'll be blunt, if you claim to be a sysadmin who works with Linux, and you don't know how to build an optimized small footprint server, then you're talking bullshit, and whoever has hired or contracted you should give you the boot really fast.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:min install by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hmm, I got the impression that this guy only used Ubuntu desktop versions and never installed a real Linux server distro. He's been swatting flies with a sledge hammer, because he doesn't know any better.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    10. Re:min install by jma05 · · Score: 2

      Suse minimal install used about 7MB RAM to run, when I tested it some 3 years ago. Most popular server Linux distros provide a minimal option. Ubuntu had (had - because I am not sure if it is still being maintained) JeOS (Just Enough OS) just for VMs.

    11. Re: min install by staalmannen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A nice alternative is Alpine linux which feels a lot like Arch but uses openrc init, grsec kernel and musl libc. To make it even lighter, busybox is the default userland ( but coreutils is an option). It is apparently well suited as a minimal secute Xen host.

    12. Re:min install by micheas · · Score: 3, Informative

      Tom's root boot linux was two 3.25" floppies. I didn't know there was a smaller distro.

    13. Re:min install by dbIII · · Score: 3, Informative

      He had it on one floppy for a while, but eventually due to a lot of kernel modules (that means drivers for MS centric folks) it grew to a boot floppy and a separate root floppy.
      I used it as a general purpose toolkit for stuffed MS and linux machines for a few years, before using DamnSmallLinux, knoppix and now clonezilla for that role.

    14. Re:min install by nabsltd · · Score: 2

      What packages are you talking about?

      Everything that exists to deal with things that happen because an inexperienced GUI user might do something stupid (like manually change the system time).

      Last I used systemd (Fedora), the dependency tree for packages is such that packages like NetworkManager are required by systemd. Do a minimal CentOS 7 install and see just how many packages you can remove from the system without having systemd be removed because of dependencies. Then, look at the list of remaining packages and you'd have to be a complete liar to tell us that none of them are GUI-centric.

    15. Re:min install by unrtst · · Score: 2

      Gentoo? Not really unless you setup a build server for yourself separately, ...

      From the summary:

      When you're rolling out a few hundred Linux VMs locally, in the cloud, or both,

      If you're managing a few hundred VM's, you should have the infrastructure in place to support them. There's loads of ways to do that, but if you're using Gentoo, that will include a build server (or cluster).

      Similar if you're doing very small installs, they are often trimmed down and prepared from a full install so you can tweak the compressed filesystems and all that stuff.

      You are right though - there's no need for some new distro split. The only thing I can see motivating this that is arguably legit is systemd. That's not going to be a server vs other or embedded vs other war though, it's going to be (if it happens at all) a systemd versus other-init-systems battle.

  2. Sounds like Slackware to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm sure I'm also wrong somehow. I haven't touched Slack in 10 years. What am I missing?

    1. Re:Sounds like Slackware to me. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Slackware indeed. You'll never know it has a GUI if you don't go looking for it, and architecture decisions are made based on Patrick's desire to keep it stable and sane.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
  3. Linux From Scratch by blackt0wer · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.linuxfromscratch.or... Everything you need, nothing you want.

  4. CoreOS seems to be headed that way by pentabular3808 · · Score: 2

    Pretty much fits the desc.. Supports docker & clustering but very very little else. Should probably shoe-horn a hypervisor onto that little OS.

  5. Good response to the Systemd fight... by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I see this as a response to the systemd war, and a viable one at that. A server does not need systemd... "It boots faster." Why bother when post takes 20 minutes? "It is tied into udev and network manager." Servers generally don't dhcp or hotplug... Since "the desktop" is going full tilt boogie in one direction and damn everyone who disagrees, it makes sense for the server folks to say "See ya!" And soon after someone posts about how to get lxde running on the server. :)

    1. Re:Good response to the Systemd fight... by jrumney · · Score: 2

      "Servers" is not just that instance of node.js that you run in your VM. Servers in general do need hotplug (for example, a RAID array of hot swappable hard drives), and there are benefits of using DHCP for networks of servers too.

    2. Re: Good response to the Systemd fight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sooo...put Systemd on your newbie friendly desktop distro and initd on your neckbeard certified server edition.

      Sounds good to me. Can we stop fighting now?

    3. Re: Good response to the Systemd fight... by jythie · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is tech. Any suggestions that there is not one right universal way to accomplish something is a personal insult to one`s preferred technology. After all, all smart people must come to the same correct solution.

    4. Re:Good response to the Systemd fight... by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Funny

      And the new systemd friendly ways of doing this are the only possible ways to do it. The ways we have been doing it all along could not possibly work.

  6. All the main Linux distros already do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All the major Linux distributions already do this. Ubuntu has a minimal and a Server spin, Fedora has a new Server only spin, CentOS and RHEL have Server only spins, Debian has a minimal install, etc etc etc. The only way the guy's arguement makes even a little sense is if he thinks a server distribution is somehow made better by it not being possible to add a desktop interface to it. In other words, a distribution that ships only server packages and refuses to ever include anything that features a GUI.

    Even then the arguement doesn't make any sense because it would assume a distribution loses polish in one area if it also allows packages in another area. There is no reason to believe this is true.

  7. I gotta say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Linux sucks. Windows isn't much better other than the support.

    Computing is not where I thought it would be 25 years ago. Users have continually less power, not more.

    Linux gives people power in the wrong places. Places people rather let the system do the work. And it's based on Unix and Unix frankly sucks.

    Fuck. I wish Plan 9 or Lisp Machines or something else won other than this half-ass kludge.

    Fuck it. I'm going to sell my house tomorrow and build a log cabin in Canadian woods before the winter arrives. Out of here, bitches.

  8. What about BSD derivatives by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not trolling... I don't use BSD really, but my understanding is that some of the BSD distros are more server focused. I don't mind being corrected but my understanding is this could be a legit alternative if the idea of splitting Linux is a no go. I don't know why BSD isn't seen or heard of more (I do know it is used and has a strong following, but doesn't seem as prevalent as Linux... Mac doesn't count here). For BSD adherents, maybe this is the break they are looking for?

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    1. Re:What about BSD derivatives by devphaeton · · Score: 5, Informative

      When it comes to the Big Three (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD) the complete system is precisely what this Venezia guy is describing. It is a working system with everything you'd need to run a legitimate server. Things like X, dev tools (excluding C compilers) etc are considered "3rd party add-ons". IME BSD systems are logical, intuitive, robust, light and fast. The other nice benefit is that everything is developed by the same team, and the documentation is superb.

      Don't get me wrong, I love linux too. But the BSDs are sorely under-appreciated for what they are and can do.

      That said, the base install of most of the original Linux distributions (or the base install plus a handful of packages) is also what sysadmins have been using for decades as a "server-oriented linux system".

      --


      do() || do_not(); // try();
    2. Re:What about BSD derivatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While the world is fanboying Linux, the BSD's have kept on plodding along doing what they do BEST, giving you...
      - A single point of distribution and *authorship* of the entire base system. BSD provides all of kernel, base utils, networking, and port/package bootstraps and makefiles from one single consistant shop. They also generally include a C compiler.
      - A rock solid platform you can depend on. Linux is too bloated and over the course of history has crashed many many times. BSD's you can compile and run the stable branch without fear. I've only had two times an issue with FreeBSD stable and the were fixed within *days*.
      - A stripped down, layerless (no layer upon layer of gui management tools for the idiots amoung you), configuration. It's your favorite editor like VI, and your config files.
      - It literally is just the base system plus the limited things you want to add.

      Provided you are competent enough to actually learn manual system administration, FreeBSD is pure simplicity and bliss.

      Most Linux MAC and Windows users are too feeble to grow into that.
      It's true and unfortunate. And it's the reason they prevail in market share, they are made to be dumb and easy.

  9. Re:Maybe better dependency management. by Blaskowicz · · Score: 2

    To micro-manage such things Gentoo and its USE flags can be an option. Though, the time and kilowatt-hours needed to compile all of KDE probably make it not worth it (if you actually can compile a CUPS-less desktop environment).

    I don't know if CUPS is actually used for what I do.. but I do like printing support on a computer without a printer. I can print to a pdf or ps file, and then carry that file by USB drive or another method to a print shop or a place I can use a printer. So for your particular example, it may be valuable.

  10. Yes, just like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    We used to run linux in the server room because it was lean and easy to admin. Windows was slow, mousy, and dependencies were hellish.

    Now we run Windows Server 2012 with no GUI, virtualized, and admin with powershell. We've ripped out tens of thousands of dollars of Red Hat; windows is cheaper.

    Basically there aren't any linux server distros that are like Red Hat used to be before the Fedora fiasco. It seems like Red Hat today is doing a bad job of trying to be a GUI laptop distro running on server hardware. And they are letting mature stuff like PADL's LDAP modules go to seed while shipping raw, buggy stuff like SSSD, instead of maintaining the old stuff until the new is reliable enough for real world use.

    1. Re:Yes, just like that. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Windows sysadmins amaze. For fifteen years I listened to them rattle on about how the GUI in Windows NT and its descendants was absolutely necessary, that it opened up servers to people who couldn't or wouldn't learn how to work from a CLI. So a few server distros put the head on their installs, worked like mad dogs to build GUI and web-based management systems like Webmin, and now suddenly all those Windows sysadmin flunkies are declaring Server 2012 is the bestest ever because you can run in headless with a CLI.

      Listen you fucking asshole. *nix has been running CLI longer than most people posting here have been alive. It had mature toolsets and script libraries when Windows was a 16-bit cooperative multitasking layer on top of fucking MS-fucking-DOS. Generations of system administrators have lived and fucking died while Windows was forcing a clunky GUI toolset that you couldn't fucking script properly, and that you ended up having to go to REGEDIT and a bazillion GPO entries to fine tune.

      Oh no, but Windows is so fucking cutting edge because in the last seven or eight years has developed a fucking shell that you can properly fucking script (even if the scripting language in question is a verbose and unbelievably slow executing piece of shit that is in almost every way the exact opposite of the elegance of *nix).

      Well congrat-u-fuck-ulations Mr. "We paid a bazillion dollars to Redmond in licensing fees so we could have a scriptable CLI-based OS in our data center". I bet you even think you did an amazing thing.

      Fucking Windows admins. Arrogance, stupidity and a total lack of knowledge of their own fucking operating systems incredibly dubious history as a Server OS.

      Meanwhile, in the time it takes you to type out the name of a Powershell scriptlet and its arguments to import a CSV and puke it out as a SQL script, I can do write the code in awk or Perl in a bash wrapper. But hey, I must be stupid and you must the be the super fucking genius.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Yes, just like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Aren't you just the negative stereotype? Sadly, this is what comes to mind when I hear "open source evangelist".

    3. Re:Yes, just like that. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who said anything about open source? Even the old direct Unix server variants all ran Bourne shell or c shell and their descendants. For chrissakes, a CLI-based server OS running a scriptable shell is decades old, predating Windows and FOSS by decades. This idea that Server 2012 is doing anything unique boggles the mind of anyone with even a basic understanding of operating system development and administration for the last half century. Maybe the Microsoft-funded diploma mills churn out admins who actually believe that Server 2012 is some revolutionary step, but for those of us who have been in the industry for oh, over seven or eight years, seeing somebody claim "we tossed out *nix and put in Server 2012 'cause it wuns with just a CLI" is liking seeing some fuckwit claim "I just invented the toothbrush!"

      If you threw out *nix servers because you like the modern Windows toolset, then great! No prob. I have a network that runs a Server 2012 AD domain and a couple of Hyper-V servers, so it's not like I'm allergic to Windows. But fuck man, reading the parent's post (I dunno, maybe it's your post, I can understand why you would go AC to write such an incredible retarded post), with the underlying notion that Server 2012 is doing something revolutionary, and yeah, I start seeing red. Server 2012 is merely Microsoft, after twenty fucking years, getting the fucking hint.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Yes, just like that. by abe+ferlman · · Score: 2

      Man if I could troll like that I'd sure sign my name.

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    5. Re:Yes, just like that. by Jeeeb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We used to run linux in the server room because it was lean and easy to admin. Windows was slow, mousy, and dependencies were hellish. Now we run Windows Server 2012 with no GUI, virtualized, and admin with powershell. We've ripped out tens of thousands of dollars of Red Hat; windows is cheaper.

      If you don't mind me asking, what were you running on the servers which allowed an easy switch over? How did you go retraining a group of Linux admins to run Windows? Why not move off Redhat to another Linux platform?

    6. Re:Yes, just like that. by terjeber · · Score: 2

      with the underlying notion that Server 2012 is doing something revolutionary

      Not to defend the original AC, but me thinks you did not read his entire post. It opens with: "We used to run linux in the server room because it was lean and easy to admin. Windows was slow, mousy, and dependencies were hellish."

      Stating that he claims the new headless developments in Windows Server are new (in general, obviously new to Windows) or revolutionary is disingenuous at best. What I get from what he is actually writing is that while Linux has been moving towards bloat and cr@p, or moving towards becoming Windows-y if you will, Windows has been doing the opposite, trying to become more Unix-y. That is clearly the case, isn't it? Even Linus thinks Linux is bloated.

      Microsoft was never a real Server-OS vendor so that they took a while to "get it" shouldn't be surprising. The fact that they are now eating their own medicine (in Azure) probably has a lot to do with it. Heck, it isn't that long ago that all of microsoft.com ran on Sun. Once it stopped, unsurprisingly both IIS and Windows Server suddenly received significant improvements - for those of us who prefer low-footprint server operating systems.

    7. Re:Yes, just like that. by benjymouse · · Score: 2

      Windows sysadmins amaze. For fifteen years I listened to them rattle on about how the GUI in Windows NT and its descendants was absolutely necessary, that it opened up servers to people who couldn't or wouldn't learn how to work from a CLI.

      You are inventing a demographic that we cannot verify, then you are ascribing a position to "them" which you then proceed ridicule because of the alleged hypocritical 180. The very definition of a strawman: Create it, pretend it is real, "kill" it.

      So a few server distros put the head on their installs, worked like mad dogs to build GUI and web-based management systems like Webmin, and now suddenly all those Windows sysadmin flunkies are declaring Server 2012 is the bestest ever because you can run in headless with a CLI.

      Am I getting this right: Are you seriously saying that the (alleged) argument from the Windows camp was what forced server distros [to] put the head on their installs? Seriously?

      and now suddenly all those Windows sysadmin flunkies are declaring Server 2012 is the bestest ever because you can run in headless with a CLI

      Citation needed. I have never seen anyone declaring Windows Server 2012 the best ever OS because of the CLI.

      What you may have overlooked is the fact that Windows Server from very early on had policies. Policies even existed before AD. In Unix/Linux we scripted everything, often hoping that the scripts would perform the same on every server.
      During all that time some 80% of what we scripted could be expressed declaratively and more robustly using policies. Policies could ensure that application packages (MSIs or EXEs) were installed (or uninstalled), that security permissions were set up correctly, could create, rename or delete accounts, files, registry entries etc.
      Very little could not be expressed using declarative policies - and they could even be set to use scripts.

      For the parts of remote administering that were too cumbersome to create policies for, there was always scripting. Yes, Windows scripting (.bat, .vbs and the like) used to kinda suck compared to Unix/Linux - but it *was* there.

      Yes, Windows always had the GUI option - even if you did not use it. That kinda sucked for the big deployments - not so much for the smaller ones where the GUI could sometimes be an efficient way to troubleshoot a misbehaving server.

      Listen you fucking asshole. *nix has been running CLI longer than most people posting here have been alive.

      I am sorry that I have to be the one to break this to you, but: *nix did not invent the CLI. Indeed, every OS that came before Unix *all* of them had the CLI as the main shell.

      Generations of system administrators have lived and fucking died while Windows was forcing a clunky GUI toolset that you couldn't fucking script properly, and that you ended up having to go to REGEDIT and a bazillion GPO entries to fine tune.

      Seem like you had trouble with the declarative way of thinking. To me, GPOs made perfect sense. It was declarative in a way that 'nix did not have until Chef and Puppet arrived. With GPOs you could describe which application packages had to be installed on which group of machines, both servers and desktops.
      Move the machine to another org unit or group and group policy would ensure that aqpplications were uninstalled and new ones installed to match the new provisioning. I guess you never got that.

      Oh no, but Windows is so fucking cutting edge because in the last seven or eight years has developed a fucking shell that you can properly fucking script (even if the scripting language in question is a verbose and unbelievably slow executing piece of shit that is in almost every way the exact opposite of the elegance of *nix).

      I assume that you are talking about PowerShell. Initially I just want to point out that yo

      --
      Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
  11. Layers by gmuslera · · Score: 2

    Not just thin. The time has come for cluster-targetted distributions. Openstack, CoreOS and others are minimal linux meant to do mostly a supporting work for loading over them as VMs or container clouds the more bulky application linux servers/images/containers. All is about having a bunch of servers (real or virtual), installing something minimal that builds a cloud on them. It's linux all way down.

  12. Re:Before you hate systemd by silas_moeckel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The linked article alone is reason to hate systemd a GUI admin tool. It goes on about .desktop file format again GUI garbage. I've never seen a server do anything with automount, it's frankly a security issue all mounts should be explicit and done by a sysadmin with root privs. Maybe some cheesy backup script? Servers do not need nor should they have a GUI, a VGA port is overkill but windows needs it. VM's again never need a VGA port it's just a waste of ram a serial port works fine for either. The base logic is all things need to be done via CLI first and done well (far to many CLI's were an afterthought to a GUI and it shows). D-Bus again it's mostly a GUI thing, it need not be on a server. DHCP on a server?

    I really do not care much about systemd their is nothing not using it in a professional linux right now (something with all the big third party app support) and frankly it's not bothered me enough but I do see anything useful in it either.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  13. Alpine Linux by xming · · Score: 2

    I used to use Gentoo minimal installs but recently discovered Alpine Linux (http://alpinelinux.org/) which is even better.

  14. Re:Maybe read the thread by benjymouse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Citation needed. I have never seen anyone declaring Windows Server 2012 the best ever OS because of the CLI.

    With respect, the above poster is replying to someone that appears to be asserting that. I suggest reading other posts higher up in the thread before wasting time writing such long replies that miss the point.

    With respect, the GP of my post never asserted that. For reference this is the entire post:

    We used to run linux in the server room because it was lean and easy to admin. Windows was slow, mousy, and dependencies were hellish.

    Now we run Windows Server 2012 with no GUI, virtualized, and admin with powershell. We've ripped out tens of thousands of dollars of Red Hat; windows is cheaper.

    Basically there aren't any linux server distros that are like Red Hat used to be before the Fedora fiasco. It seems like Red Hat today is doing a bad job of trying to be a GUI laptop distro running on server hardware. And they are letting mature stuff like PADL's LDAP modules go to seed while shipping raw, buggy stuff like SSSD, instead of maintaining the old stuff until the new is reliable enough for real world use.

    There is no assertion of "all those Windows sysadmin flunkies are declaring Server 2012 is the bestest ever because you can run in headless with a CLI" in that quote, is there?

    There is a certain bias towards Server 2012, but no claim of it being the best ever server OS. Much less a claim that others think it is the best ever server OS.

    I suggest reading other posts higher up in the thread before writing short post that you cannot even get right.

    --
    Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
  15. BSD by ThePhilips · · Score: 3, Informative

    What this guy is looking for is called BSD. In the past, base system was bit less than 30MB. Useless, but still less than base setup of most modern distros.

    Among Linuxes, probably only Slackware stayed relatively close to the roots and still can be stripped to the bone. And Debian isn't that far off, really, if you are willing to go on rampage with the rm command (remove man pages, documentation, supplemental files, localizations, etc).

    Othereise, this guy has probably missed completely that people are already for years building their own "lean and slim" special-purpose distros using the Gentoo as a factory distro. Because what he asks is really "special-purpose". In most real-world cases, the disk space is cheap and the users want to be able to install new software with just few clicks.

    --
    All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    1. Re:BSD by JoSch1337 · · Score: 2

      Please don't go around your Debian system with rm to remove man pages, docs and localization...

      Instead use the path-exclude mechanism of dpkg:

      http://raphaelhertzog.com/2010...

  16. Please identify submitter honestly by plcurechax · · Score: 2

    This submission was made by snydeq who may or may not be Paul Venezia, but certainly appears to have a clear vested interest in frequently promoting Paul Venezia's column and other articles from Info World on a nearly weekly basis.

    Considering the overwhelmingly poor quality of the vast majority of Info World's trade rag (slang trade magazine), where most of the better "articles" (i.e. aka "filler," the stuff between the ads) tend to be cribbed from vendor's white papers, don't seem to merit being frequently promoted at Slashdot unless there is a financial arrangement in place, in which case the ethics of journalism would indicate that such a financial arrangement should be disclosed to readers.

    Not that I'm suggesting Slashdot considers itself involved in journalism, regardless of the usage of the terms such as: articles, submissions, and editors in the Slashdot vernacular. I will mention that the US FTC publishes March 2013 disclosure guidelines for sponsorship, marketing, and promotions.