'Many' packages installed - CentOS 4.1

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 11:14 -0400, John Hinton wrote:
> Tom Brown wrote:
> 
> > Hi
> >
> > Installed my first CentOS box last night after coming from Whitebox - 
> > This is perhaps me being stupid but on install i opted for 'Custom' 
> > install as i prefer minimal and then build as i suit. I went through 
> > the list of things to install and removed everything apart from 
> > networking. Install happenned and tons of stull ended up being 
> > installed including X openoffice and the like - Why was that when i 
> > de-selected everything apart from networking? It was very much 
> > bloatware and not what i want on a server.
> >
> > thanks for any hints
> > _______________________________________________
> 
> First, this is RedHat's direction, not something specific to CentOS 
> (just cloning you know).
> 
> This has been my complaint with RedHat products for some time now (about 
> rh 7.3 or so). CentOS is simply following that system. One of the things 
> that's really hard to get rid of are the graphical interfaces.... RH 
> manage this... RH manage that, which seems to make X-fonts install, but 
> I'm not sure if this is all. You can turn them off in one place and then 
> find them in set to install in at least one other situation. Got to turn 
> them off all over the place. An install of el4 versions seems to force 
> X, whether you want it or not, in spite of unchecking X.
> 
> I hate to say it, but it reminds me of Winders! Bloatware... Yeah! More 
> is better philosophy. I liked the rh 7.2 installation, where you 
> selected your packages, it did a dependancies check, provided a list of 
> what was going to be installed and the ability to go back and not 
> install whatever it was that was forcing the other depends aps, or to 
> accept those dependancies and go forward with the install. A great, 
> although perhaps a bit techinical installation process. I suppose this 
> is the price we pay for attempts at positioning the OS to the 
> mainstream. It needs the more automated methods, but I'm still a bit 
> upset that 'Custom Install' doesn't work like it used to and seems to 
> get worse with each new release.
> 
> I'm not so bothered by disk space as I am by more ways for intrusion. 
> It's just more crap to keep updated... and stuff that never gets used. I 
> do subscribe to the school of thought that it is best to stay within the 
> official RPMs and enjoy the beauties of yum or up2date. That has been 
> pretty darned reliable and greatly simplifies administation over 
> multiple machines. I really don't enjoy removing packages after the 
> install as it's pretty easy to break something doing that as well (and I 
> love these things that are broken that you don't find out about for 3 
> weeks, meanwhile... who knows what might be lost).
> 
> So, OK... yeah, you hit on one of my nerves with what RH has done... but 
> I'll live with it, but my 'score' for their OS gets reduced on this 
> front as well.
> 
> -----
> Score reductions for RH: (not to be confused with score reductions for 
> CentOS. CentOS get A+++ on all fronts)
> 
> They weren't happy with my money for running up2date from their servers 
> but wanted more, stating they were going to give me support time. I 
> don't want support time, so I'm here. I wouldn't have minded more money, 
> but not that much more!
> 
> RHEL should have an upgrade path from one version to the next. I can 
> understand (barely) the lack of this ability from rh 9 to rhel, but from 
> el3 to el4? Yeah, so maybe I'd need to fix 50 config files, but that's 
> better than moving hundreds of hosting clients and the thousands of 
> configs for them. I am certain doing this would be an extremely complex 
> issue for RH.
> 
> Bloatware... and each release gets just a bit worse and is generally gui 
> related. We don't want no stinkin' GUIs on servers!
> 
> A general degradation in the quality of updates. I had exactly one issue 
> with updates from rh 5.2 through rh 7.2. I've lost count during my rhel 
> time... still not a lot, but at least 3 or 4.
> 
> The ability to legally run a 'test' machine fully updated without cost 
> went away. I used to 'buy' rh off the shelf. A bit more monetary support 
> for rh and most came with a free subscription. I would run a 'test' 
> machine with this subscription and feel more secure with going live with 
> new updates to the real world machines or simply to use it as a 
> 'learning tool' without breaking somebody's stuff.
> ------
> 
> Still not quite enough to make me jump over to Debian... not while 
> CentOS is alive. But I think Debian has gained a lot of good people, 
> translated into more knowledge/more time and efforts/better packages due 
> to RedHat's change.
----
John - you are rambling

RHEL 4 / CentOS 4 installs a very light package set  (and no X) if you
simply choose server. I think that there was mention of a special server
CD iso for installing a super light set and that it was working with
text install but not the GUI install. See the archives from a few weeks
ago - something like Server CD. I didn't even know one had existed.

You do have to be careful when you add stuff because some things will
cause a bunch of stuff to be installed as dependencies.

Craig


[Index of Archives]     [CentOS]     [CentOS Announce]     [CentOS Development]     [CentOS ARM Devel]     [CentOS Docs]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Carrier Grade Linux]     [Linux Media]     [Asterisk]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Xorg]     [Linux USB]
  Powered by Linux