Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 05:38:48PM +0100, lee wrote: >> >> What do you consider as "base OS"? >> > It's somewhat nebulous, but, as a general working definition, the system >> > stuff below the applications layer. (Not in the OSI sense.) >> Are there significant differences in that with different Linux >> distributions? > > It depends on what you mean by "significant". From some points of view, it's > very, very different -- different init systems (although that seems to be > slowly converging on systmed), different packaging, different logging > conventions. Or maybe you care that there are different library and even > kernel versions. But from other points of view, that's all implementation > details. I`d say that there aren`t any significant differences then: It doesn`t matter for a particular software which package management is used, whether there are different logging conventions or how the software is started. When your MTA or library or kernel has a bug, it has the bug regardless, unless the makers of the distribution perhaps modify or fix things so that they have a distribution-specific version. Different versions do matter, though that averages out because any version can have a problem: One distribution may happen to skip a particular version which is buggy while another distribution has it. Five versions later it can be the other way round. The difference is for the user who likes one package management system better than another, or prefers one init system over the other. It leads to an interesting question, though: How come that one distribution works better than another despite there is no significant difference in the software they are using? >> >> And on top of that, what is the Fedora-way of replacing gnome --- which >> >> I find totally useless --- with fvwm, which perfectly does what I want? >> > It sounds like you want to do a minimal install and then add up from that. >> Yes, that`s what I always did with Debian. > > You can do that on Fedora, although minimal isn't quite as small. Hm, I never noticed a choice like that ... "Minimal" isn`t about "small" in this case, it`s about not installing what I don`t need. BTW: You were saying an MTA has been removed from the default installation because it cannot do anything useful, especially not in an office environment, unless appropriately configured, and that when you configure it, it doesn`t make a difference when you need to install it first. The same goes for pulseaudio. It doesn`t do anything useful, especially not in an office environment where soundcards are usually not used, and not at all when you don`t want to use a soundcard. In case it could actually do something useful for you, you have to configure it to do so, and in that case, it doesn`t make a difference when you need to install it first. So why is it not only installed by default but impossible to get rid of it without removing gdm and some other packages? I don`t need pulseaudio. Alsa handles things anyway and does it just fine without. All that pulseaudio does is that it adds an obsolete layer and wastes CPU time in doing so. I might use gdm in case I want to start a gnome session, though. And when I log in a second user, last time I checked the second user doesn`t have any sound. I can`t get it to do DRC, either. So why is pulseaudio installed? Unlike an MTA, it serves no purpose at all. >> > I think you will benefit from this effort in that the minimal install will >> > be better defined and curated. >> That would be nice --- I wouldn`t even have thought that there is one if >> I hadn`t read on this list that there is one, somewhere. I still don`t >> know how I would start with a minimal install, though. > > In the GUI installer, under software selection, scroll to the bottom and > pick "Minimal Install". It should ask me what I want to install ... Debian does it right, their installer has many steps, and you can even go back and re-do one, or do some in a different order. One of the steps is to pick what you want to install. > In kickstart, close-to-minimal is the default, and you can use "%packages > --nocore" if you're really serious. I don`t even know what kickstart is ... > You can use the installer in text mode. You can also use it in completely > scripted mode. That`s cool :) How do you do that? >> > On the specific you do give, I'm pretty confident in saying that you're >> > actually wrong. >> Unless the installer majorly changed from F19 to F20, I`m not wrong. >> > Storage is hard, and the new anaconda contains the most >> > sophisticated and powerful GUI partitioning tool ever made. >> Seriously? And like I said, I don`t like GUI installers at all. > > Seriously. Then it must have been re-designed from scratch since F19. > And since you don't want a GUI installer, you probably should > preconfigure your disk with whatever tools you want and then install > onto it with kickstart. That depends on what you consider should be part of an installer and what not. I think it should be possible to get the partitioning you want without using additional tools beside the installer. That doesn`t mean that the tools have to be built-in. The installer could give you a choice to use cfdisk or parted or something built-in. It doesn`t even need something built-in to do the partitioning, though. It would suffice to tell it what to do with which partition. -- Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug) -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
