Outlining Thin Linux 221
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."
min install (Score:5, Informative)
Re:min install (Score:4, Insightful)
10 years ago, and I was a late-comer to the idea.
Re:min install (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.
Re:min install (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 ar
Re: (Score:2)
Try a CentOS 7 minimal install, does not even have ifconfig, lspci or a bunch of other what I would consider basic stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
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 complet
Re: (Score:2, 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.
Paul Venezia is not worth reading, let alone discussing, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:min install (Score:4, Informative)
Re:min install (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:min install (Score:5, Informative)
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 [linuxfromscratch.org]......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?
Re:min install (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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
He's talking about systemd. That's the only real architectural change that affects the server installs of many desktop/server distros. I don't know why he couldn't just come out and say it, though.
As you say, Gentoo or Slackware will still let you make "thin" servers if you feel the need for that.
Re: (Score:2)
He's talking about systemd. That's the only real architectural change that affects the server installs of many desktop/server distros.
Not the only one (nor is systemd entirely desktop driven). Before systemd ate it, DBUS gave us the session bus, and many applications would only ever use the session bus, and could not be used without a login (usually X) session, even if they really didn't need it. In many cases one had to at least recompile and sometimes even hack the source to change it to use the system bus (or disable DBUS support entirely.)
Then there are the various attempts to unify configuration across large suites of applications,
Re: (Score:2)
Explain this systemd for me please. I'm still pissing around with distros from 2008 until a recemt netrunner install specifically for the ease of use (its bulletproof stable on my hardware).
Can you reallly not just compile the init crap back in?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: min install (Score:2)
Sysvinit+OpenRC is the default on Gentoo [gentoo.org].
Alternatively you can use systemd.
Re: min install (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ubuntu is actually a very poor example, since it's one of the oldest offenders of just the sort of thing the guy's complaining about: Things like resolvconf, for example, have no place on a server (It's for helping the machine transition between nameservers when it changes networks) but it still installs on every -server install (at least as of 12.04)
Re:min install (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Gentoo idea is interesting but, the LFS suggestion isn't really applicable. I've built and run LFS systems (even wrote my own package manager just for the amusement of it) and, though it's very fun and you learn a lot, "fun" and "learn a lot" is not something sysadmins look for in enterprise grade software. Really, this guy is indirectly asking, "What distros aren't using systemd?" Maybe he's used systemd and hates it or maybe he's just dreading the thought of it after reading so many negative commen
Re:min install (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Embedded Linux (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The min installs are close. However many of the packages. Are setup for desktop or general use. Not desktop.
Sounds like Slackware to me. (Score:2, Informative)
I'm sure I'm also wrong somehow. I haven't touched Slack in 10 years. What am I missing?
Re:Sounds like Slackware to me. (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
The main difficulty you will find is the lack of a package manager. While installing software is not a problem, keeping it upgraded can be a bit of a challenge.
Slackware does make patches for security issues, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux From Scratch (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone use LFS for production at all? It is more of a learning distro.
Re: (Score:2)
CoreOS seems to be headed that way (Score:2)
Good response to the Systemd fight... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
servers aren't all unique, some need to provide the internet archive with 50 petabytes of storage(on 7 TB/disc spinning rust if they are using raid 1+0), some need to be secure against outside hacks and obvious indoor hacks, some need to host the 'cloud', some need to be able to route 3000 petabytes of data a day(route not store)....
Re: (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.
I think the point was that either udev could be forked or an older version of it could be kept kicking around for servers, and that network-manager wouldn't be needed at all. Device and network client configuration can be done via conf files with minimal effort (especially in context of a managed deployment via Puppet or the like). I agree, by and large. I'd argue that we could even do without udev, if it didn't take more effort to live without than to live with it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm unclear on the udev hatred that has arisen with systemctl.
I've been using udev for a long time. It's under-documented, I think (don't believe anyone wrote a TLDP for it, for example), but fairly straightforward to work with in most cases. It beats having an immense pre-defined /dev with lots of devices that will probably never physically exist on a given machine., and it won its place by being better than a competitor.
I can see where a udev tie-in to systemctl would be advantageous, especially when star
Re: Good response to the Systemd fight... (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?
Re: Good response to the Systemd fight... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny you should say that. There are several systemd features which cater specifically to servers, such as monitoring of daemon states, and then there's that hot plug comment, certainly you wouldn't want a hot plug ability on a device that you don't have a chance to turn off right? Right?
Seriously systemd is not the answer. But claiming the features of systemd is not something desirable to have on a server is plainly absurd. If I were to build a server now I certainly wouldn't want systemd, but I would be l
Re: (Score:2)
A server needs systemd as much or more than a desktop. Systemd done right can adapt the system to handle temporary or permanent outages cleanly and can ensure that complex nets of dependencies are met without dealing with lots of fiddly little inter-dependent scripts.
The problems are A) systemd isn't yet done right - there are critical cases where it's less functional than what it replaces and B) it's not just an init system, it includes less-desirable abominations such as journalctl.
Re:Good response to the Systemd fight... (Score:5, Funny)
Like... (Score:2)
Windows Server 2012 R2 Core? What about Ubuntu JeOS? (Just Enough OS)
Yes, just like that. (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.
Re: Yes, just like that. (Score:2)
But how can that be? Linux is free?! /sarcasm
Re:Yes, just like that. (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Aren't you just the negative stereotype? Sadly, this is what comes to mind when I hear "open source evangelist".
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Year of the linux desktop, with Microsoft Windows in the server closet.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing these individuals seem to do is drag MS into the subject - as if they are still fighting their own little wars over some 1990's idealogical differences. But they never put forward any actual rational arguments or facts to back up their bile: just hate posts
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Maybe read the thread (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Man if I could troll like that I'd sure sign my name.
Re:Yes, just like that. (Score:4, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
We've ripped out tens of thousands of dollars of Red Hat;
I like Red Hat, but it sounds like you didn't know much about administering servers anyway, if you needed RedHat support.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to conjure up a guess then beat him over the head with it :)
You know practically nothing about his requirements or the requirements of his boss/company, but still felt fine assuming you did... Weird.
All the main Linux distros already do this (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
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe better dependency management. (Score:2)
My proceedure for weekly security updates for my computer is: download all packages to be upgraded, then reboot into maintenance mode and physically install them. Basically I run LMDE (debian unstable mostly).
I occasionally check the downloads and see a strange package being downloaded. So I look up the dependencies, and see some of the most bizarre dependencies. For example, that KDE requires CUPS ( I don't have a usable printer ).
So instead of worrying about what needs to be installed first clean up all t
Re: (Score:3)
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 exampl
Re: (Score:2)
I ran Gentoo on a Pentium 4 for a while and compiling KDE without CUPS was definatly possible. Although it could take the best part of a week to run a full emerge pass if certain really big packages were all updated at once.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nothing. On one of my systems, it took 10 days to build one package: OpenOffice.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I never installed OO on that machine (for exactly that reason)
Remove tab completion (Score:2)
Reading this it feels like removing tab completion in the shell is something to sought after. It's for interactive use and needlessly weighs down thin and lean VM server installs.
Make sure support for ncurses and ssh -X is eradicated, too.
I gotta say it (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.
Versatility (Score:2)
Just read Lennart Poettering's article the other day on convergence/brtfs. After having overcome some reflexive
repugnancy, saw that it made sense, and O got interested to see how that will work out.
Now Paul Venezia makes the case for divergence, in a particular (though not unimportant) use case. Makes sense as well!
I guess all this versatility is inherent in Linux -- it's just the issue at which point the di- or con- is applied, and who does
the applying, so to speak.
What about BSD derivatives (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about BSD derivatives (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".
Re: (Score:2)
I have wanted to run *BSD as our server OS for years, but the lack of native Oracle java support has held us back. Our app demands Oracle java and will not run on OpenJDK. Wish it would, because that's the only dang thing holding me off of *BSD these days.
I can fully expect some people will claim the lack of availability of native Oracle java support is a benefit of BSD. I would not argue against that sentiment, but my paycheck
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes no sense whatsoever (Score:2)
Every server is different, packages and dependencies are very much relevant. Some need a fully functional framebuffer with OpenGL support to generate web images/video.
If you are asking to configure system on build master and then mass deploy to individual servers, without any unnecessary development/configuration tools, that's a reasonable idea.
This seems like a very veiled attack on systemd (Score:2)
He points out, correctly, that many servers don't need much. Particularly with cloud services, servers might spin up a whole bunch of very lightweight virtual machines doing one thing (running a web server like nginx for example).
So his big idea is a "server-only" distribution that doesn't have any support at all for GUI operation. But he doesn't really explain the benefit. As far as I can understand, he names one single benefit: such a distro would be "not beholden to architectural changes made due to d
CoreOS uses systemd (Score:2)
You may be right, but I wonder if the author of the article is aware that one of the leading cloud friendly distros, CoreOS, uses systemd. If fact, systemd is an integral part of fleet:
RedHat's geard, which is part of OpenShift, also uses systemd.
It seems to me that the opposite is hap
Layers (Score:3)
BIOS (Score:2)
One thing we need to do is pry open the BIOS. Why should we need a VGA and keyboard or serial port to configure the hardware? Why is initializing the memory interface a secret? We can't improve servers if the hardware is still tied to the original IBM PC.
Re: (Score:2)
It's UEFI now.
Reinventing BSD (Score:2)
It's only a matter of time... (Score:2)
It's only a matter of time until lazy-assed system admins create installation packages (aka "distros") that include exactly what should be running on a particular VM.
I mean, FFS, what the hell does the OP expect? For the world to do his job for him?
Lazy bastard...
Journalist Finds Nerve, Keeps Tickling (Score:2)
Before you hate systemd (Score:2)
I am sure some people are interested in the topic on its own right, but obviously most just want to escape from systemd. In this case, please first read this paper [0pointer.de]. Even if you think the end result is crap, there are some very lucid ideas in there. You would do well to at least consider them as you adopt OpenRC or whatever in your thin Linux distribution. I swear that I have no relationship with systemd project and only occasional hobbyist relationship with Linux.
Re:Before you hate systemd (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know much about the initd vs. systemd argument, I haven't kept up with it and honestly I don't care, but I would like to add this:
Isn't one of the beauties of Linux, and free software in general, the power of choice? systemd is offering a choice, an alternative. Surely there will be distributions that use systemd and those that do not. Now the end user has - gasp - a choice. How is this bad? If you think systemd sucks for whatever reason then just don't use it. If you think it is awesome, then go ah
Alpine Linux (Score:2)
I used to use Gentoo minimal installs but recently discovered Alpine Linux (http://alpinelinux.org/) which is even better.
BSD (Score:4, 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.
Please identify submitter honestly (Score:3)
This submission was made by snydeq [slashdot.org] 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 [infoworld.com] on a nearly weekly basis.
Considering the overwhelmingly poor quality of the vast majority of Info World's trade rag (slang trade magazine [wikipedia.org]), 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 [ftc.gov] for sponsorship, marketing, and promotions.
Re: (Score:2)
MS-DOS for servers!
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.fwbuilder.org/ [fwbuilder.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm usually happy with the command line but I used this and floppyfw to create a reasonable facsimile of a Checkpoint firewall as a substitute while it was in transit.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you be specific here? What on a basic net install of Debian or CentOS does not fit your criteria? Christ, the base install of Debian doesn't even come with Samba.
Re: (Score:2)
I have six or seven Debian servers, none of which have GUIs, let alone music players. Now it is true that a few servers do have audio capabilities on the motherboards, so an audio driver is being loaded. If I want so squeeze a bit more RAM out of the machines, I could disable those modules, but other than that they are very minimal installs. Basic userland, Samba, maybe LAMP and a few other useful tools and that's about it. I don't know how much smaller you can get without moving to embedded variants like D