A single cd server cd for centos 3, i think, was released in Linux format
magazine sometime ago..this month a DVD for CentOS 4.1 has been
released...so there ought to be a single disk ou there :)
On 25/08/05, Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
--
Filianx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050825/b6f157ae/attachment.htm
