FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-19-2012, 12:31 AM
"Eddie G. O'Connor Jr."
 
Default Ubuntu without pre-installed software?

In a nutshell I don't think there are ANY "rules" or limits as to how
and what you want to install, from Enlightenment DE's to Bodhi....it's
ALL ABOUT YOU!...Imagine literally "crafting" a desktop PC's OS with
EVERYTHING you want and NOTHING you DON'T!>...Imagine how fast, sleek,
elegant, and "You"-zer friendly it can REALLY be! I have imagined my
Ubuntu OS as something different from others in the desktop background,
the way certain files open, and what they open with, how my web browser
handles certain sites...etc. It's to the point where sometimes I log in
just to "tweak" my system in bits and pieces! I love it!.....(You think
I should get "out" more and interact with some REAL people!?....LoL!)



EGO II

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-19-2012, 01:55 AM
Liam Proven
 
Default Ubuntu without pre-installed software?

On 18 September 2012 22:57, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Liam Proven <lproven@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> As for a minimal, customisable Ubuntu - well, the netinst ISO is a
>> good suggestion. Failing that, there is Debian!
>
> netinst?! I don't think that Ubuntu has such an ISO.

Yes it does. Here you go:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD

> I don't think that an Ubuntu install will be larger or significantly
> larger that a Debian one for the same WM or DE.

Nah, there is not a lot in it. Debian is a bit smaller and runs a bit
better on low-end hardware, but it doesn't have Ubuntu's graphical
startup and shutdown screens, replacement init dæmon and thus fast
bootup and shutdown times and some other niceties.

--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-19-2012, 02:00 AM
Liam Proven
 
Default Ubuntu without pre-installed software?

On 19 September 2012 01:31, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. <eoconnor25@gmail.com> wrote:
> In a nutshell I don't think there are ANY "rules" or limits as to how and
> what you want to install, from Enlightenment DE's to Bodhi....it's ALL ABOUT
> YOU!...Imagine literally "crafting" a desktop PC's OS with EVERYTHING you
> want and NOTHING you DON'T!>...Imagine how fast, sleek, elegant, and
> "You"-zer friendly it can REALLY be! I have imagined my Ubuntu OS as
> something different from others in the desktop background, the way certain
> files open, and what they open with, how my web browser handles certain
> sites...etc. It's to the point where sometimes I log in just to "tweak" my
> system in bits and pieces! I love it!.....(You think I should get "out" more
> and interact with some REAL people!?....LoL!)

Please don't top-post, and go easy on the block caps as well, OK?

It is quite fun to build your own personal distro with just your own
apps, but Linux is not a sleek, svelte little OS. No matter how much
you strip it down, if you want a Web-enabled Internet-ready graphical
desktop, it is going to be quite big and complex.

If you want to see how slim and light an OS can be, have a look at Haiku.
https://www.haiku-os.org/

It's an open-source version of BeOS. Still only at alpha stage, but
runs and you can surf the web with it. It's rather nice, impressively
complete, and *fast*.

Alternatively, if you were ever an Amiga user, try AROS: it too is
Web-ready these days and while its GUI is idiosyncratic, it's
blisteringly small and fast.
http://aros.sourceforge.net/

There's an enhanced AROS distro called Icaros that gives a more
complete environment:
http://vmwaros.blogspot.co.uk/

Also starting out as Amiga-like but now evolved into something quite
different is Syllable:
http://web.syllable.org/pages/index.html

All of these will show you how complex, bloated and sluggish Linux is
by comparison.

--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-19-2012, 08:23 AM
Tom H
 
Default Ubuntu without pre-installed software?

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr.
<eoconnor25@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No need to get worried. I too was just voicing my opinion, I actually think
> BOTH methods might be acceptable. For the "experienced" Linux users, I mean
> really....who WANTS to spend half the afternoon removing software they'll
> never use or don't need? And then again, for the "noobies" of which I am
> one, I NEED to have some of that stuff pre-installed for me, because I'm not
> "learned" enough to know how to install everything with the configurations I
> need or have become accustomed to. But I think there SHOULD be a middle
> ground, and the fact that they're doing away with an Alternative .iso file
> might mean that both you and I have to become more affluent in using Ubuntu
> on a daily basis!

I had to look at the archives to find out to who you were replying
given that you don't quote the sender and text that you're replying to
and noticed that you're breaking threading every time that you
reply...

I don't see what losing the alt iso from 12.10 onwards has to do with
anything. If you don't use the expert install option of an alt iso you
end up with the same install as a live CD. Furthermore you can use the
mini or server iso to avoid the defaults of a live CD.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-19-2012, 08:30 AM
Tom H
 
Default Ubuntu without pre-installed software?

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Liam Proven <lproven@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 September 2012 22:57, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Liam Proven <lproven@gmail.com> wrote:


>>> As for a minimal, customisable Ubuntu - well, the netinst ISO is a
>>> good suggestion. Failing that, there is Debian!
>>
>> netinst?! I don't think that Ubuntu has such an ISO.
>
> Yes it does. Here you go:
> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD

My point was that it isn't called netinst...


>> I don't think that an Ubuntu install will be larger or significantly
>> larger that a Debian one for the same WM or DE.
>
> Nah, there is not a lot in it. Debian is a bit smaller and runs a bit
> better on low-end hardware, but it doesn't have Ubuntu's graphical
> startup and shutdown screens, replacement init dmon and thus fast
> bootup and shutdown times and some other niceties.

I'd like to see some hard data on that no just some claim based on the
meme that Debian's more geeky/nerdy and therefore has a smaller
footprint. I mostly install X-less boxes of both Ubuntu and Debian and
there's basically no difference. I suspect that this extends to WMs
and DEs. You'll also see that I said "significantly" because I've
noticed that Ubuntu sometimes adds extra dependencies to packages
(bizarrely IMO).

On the speed front, I'll take Ubuntu's upstart to Debian's sysvinit anyday!

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-19-2012, 02:22 PM
Liam Proven
 
Default Ubuntu without pre-installed software?

On 19 September 2012 09:30, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Liam Proven <lproven@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18 September 2012 22:57, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Liam Proven <lproven@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> As for a minimal, customisable Ubuntu - well, the netinst ISO is a
>>>> good suggestion. Failing that, there is Debian!
>>>
>>> netinst?! I don't think that Ubuntu has such an ISO.
>>
>> Yes it does. Here you go:
>> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD
>
> My point was that it isn't called netinst...

Ah. Then I will consider my hair truly split, in that case, and I
salute the sharpness of your logical razor.

>>> I don't think that an Ubuntu install will be larger or significantly
>>> larger that a Debian one for the same WM or DE.
>>
>> Nah, there is not a lot in it. Debian is a bit smaller and runs a bit
>> better on low-end hardware, but it doesn't have Ubuntu's graphical
>> startup and shutdown screens, replacement init dæmon and thus fast
>> bootup and shutdown times and some other niceties.
>
> I'd like to see some hard data on that no just some claim based on the
> meme that Debian's more geeky/nerdy and therefore has a smaller
> footprint.

It's nothing to do with its nerdiness. It's to do, I think, with
niceties like a fancy, event-driven init replacement, graphical
screens with progress or activity meters on certain functions and so
on. The exact sort of stuff that /is/ the difference between Ubuntu
and its progenitor, these days.

If you want hard data, I'll be happy to provide. Is this the right
private email address that I should send the invoice for my time to?

> I mostly install X-less boxes of both Ubuntu and Debian and
> there's basically no difference.

That's right. Because they are X-less. The difference is in the
graphical desktops.

> I suspect that this extends to WMs
> and DEs. You'll also see that I said "significantly" because I've
> noticed that Ubuntu sometimes adds extra dependencies to packages
> (bizarrely IMO).

Precisely. That /is/ the difference.

I've run raw Debian, modified Debians such as Crunchbang and LMDE, and
various Ubuntus up on legacy machines in the 5-8y age range this year.
Have you?

> On the speed front, I'll take Ubuntu's upstart to Debian's sysvinit anyday!

I agree. It is nice and speedy.

Until you try it on a machine from 2000 with a Pentium 3 and 128MB of RAM.

--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-19-2012, 02:39 PM
Avi Greenbury
 
Default Ubuntu without pre-installed software?

Tom H wrote:
> I'd like to see some hard data on that no just some claim based on the
> meme that Debian's more geeky/nerdy and therefore has a smaller
> footprint. I mostly install X-less boxes of both Ubuntu and Debian and
> there's basically no difference.

Yeah, we've many installs of each, and what difference there may be
doesn't appear to be worth considering. We use the same volume sizes
for each, for instance. OSs are so small that their relative size
isn't really worth considering.

> I suspect that this extends to WMs and DEs. You'll also see that I
> said "significantly" because I've noticed that Ubuntu sometimes
> adds extra dependencies to packages (bizarrely IMO).

I've a Ubuntu PC and a Debian one; I don't notice much difference in,
well, anything between the two actually. Ubuntu used to be prettier,
but vanilla gnome3 is nice enough for me now.

> On the speed front, I'll take Ubuntu's upstart to Debian's sysvinit anyday!

I've found this fascination with fast boot times a bit of an oddity
for a while now - I go through a normal boot so rarely that I'd be
much happier with a faster resume from Hibernate, or a less buggy
netwok-manager or something than the shaving of another four seconds
off the time it takes to boot.

--
Avi

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-19-2012, 02:44 PM
Liam Proven
 
Default Ubuntu without pre-installed software?

On 19 September 2012 15:39, Avi Greenbury <lists@avi.co> wrote:
> Tom H wrote:
>> I'd like to see some hard data on that no just some claim based on the
>> meme that Debian's more geeky/nerdy and therefore has a smaller
>> footprint. I mostly install X-less boxes of both Ubuntu and Debian and
>> there's basically no difference.
>
> Yeah, we've many installs of each, and what difference there may be
> doesn't appear to be worth considering. We use the same volume sizes
> for each, for instance. OSs are so small that their relative size
> isn't really worth considering.

You need to use old hardware to really notice it. Professionals in
well-funded companies and developers seldom see it.

In one of the companies I am involved with, the senior tech was until
recently using an dual-core Atom with 1GB of RAM. He became quite
performance-sensitive. Some of our customers are on kit 5y older than
that, though.

I encountered someone still running Win 98 SE and Netscape 7.2 last
week. Yes, really.


>> I suspect that this extends to WMs and DEs. You'll also see that I
>> said "significantly" because I've noticed that Ubuntu sometimes
>> adds extra dependencies to packages (bizarrely IMO).
>
> I've a Ubuntu PC and a Debian one; I don't notice much difference in,
> well, anything between the two actually. Ubuntu used to be prettier,
> but vanilla gnome3 is nice enough for me now.

As I say, try it on a 2003-4 era box. :¬)

>> On the speed front, I'll take Ubuntu's upstart to Debian's sysvinit anyday!
>
> I've found this fascination with fast boot times a bit of an oddity
> for a while now - I go through a normal boot so rarely that I'd be
> much happier with a faster resume from Hibernate, or a less buggy
> netwok-manager or something than the shaving of another four seconds
> off the time it takes to boot.

I am almost the reverse. I make sure to do a hard reboot of my laptops
every few days and desktops get powered off every night.


--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-19-2012, 04:28 PM
Johnny Rosenberg
 
Default Ubuntu without pre-installed software?

I took a closer look at that ”mini” install and it seems to be the
answer to my subject. I will definitely try it next time I install
Ubuntu. Thanks for suggesting, debating and arguing…! ;D



Kind regards

Johnny Rosenberg
ジョニー・*ーゼンバーグ

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-20-2012, 11:25 AM
Tom H
 
Default Ubuntu without pre-installed software?

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Liam Proven <lproven@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 September 2012 09:30, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Liam Proven <lproven@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 18 September 2012 22:57, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Liam Proven <lproven@gmail.com> wrote:


>>>> I don't think that an Ubuntu install will be larger or significantly
>>>> larger that a Debian one for the same WM or DE.
>>>
>>> Nah, there is not a lot in it. Debian is a bit smaller and runs a bit
>>> better on low-end hardware, but it doesn't have Ubuntu's graphical
>>> startup and shutdown screens, replacement init dmon and thus fast
>>> bootup and shutdown times and some other niceties.
>>
>> I'd like to see some hard data on that no just some claim based on the
>> meme that Debian's more geeky/nerdy and therefore has a smaller
>> footprint.
>
> It's nothing to do with its nerdiness. It's to do, I think, with
> niceties like a fancy, event-driven init replacement, graphical
> screens with progress or activity meters on certain functions and so
> on. The exact sort of stuff that /is/ the difference between Ubuntu
> and its progenitor, these days.

If you're saying that a default Debian DE install doesn't have a
plymouth equivalent, then yes that's one package possibly with some
dependencies that Ubuntu has extra.

Debian might not use upstart but it still has an nit package so its a
wash in that department.

if I have the time, I'll do a default install of 12.04 and of Wheezy
to see how they compare in terms of disk use and package count.


>> On the speed front, I'll take Ubuntu's upstart to Debian's sysvinit anyday!
>
> I agree. It is nice and speedy.
>
> Until you try it on a machine from 2000 with a Pentium 3 and 128MB of RAM.

That hardware's an edge case; upstart's parallel boot's probably too
much to handle (there may be a way to turn it off).

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:24 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org