FC4 for servers
Vano Beridze
vano.beridze at silkroad.ge
Sat Feb 5 18:16:11 UTC 2005
Res wrote:
> I'm sure this argument has been had before, but what I'd like to see
> in FC4 is the ol server install, being just that, install has bare
> minimum stuff instlaled, FC1,2 and 3 seems to load a lot of not needed
> crap.
>
> I mean loomk at a min server install for RH9 or even current
> slackware, then look at it on FC, guys a server install should be
> exactly that, WTF has cannaserver got to do with being a server, it
> doesnt! nor does several other things, the least stuff instlaled and
> run on a server is paramount, the more crap that runs that clearly is
> not needed = more and higher risks
>
> Lets not end up like m$ huh!
>
>
> flame away :P
>
Unfortunately nobody is getting serious about that problem.
Last time I asked for the REAL minimal install they told me to propose
the package
list that I think is minimal. I honestly don't know. I would rather
prefer Fedora people do that
but don't put all the crap in your minimal installation or don't call it
minimal.
Minimal installation for me is the following:
packages that are barely needed for booting the system.
(kernel,glibc,etc...)
yum,up2date?,rpm to add more packages at will.
maybe some basic utility commands. (shadow_utils,mount)
That's all.
I don't want to beleive that nobody is able to identify the packages
that are needed to only boot the system.
Look at alternatives:
Debian, has base install
Gentoo, has base install
FreeBSD, has base install
OpenBSD, has base install.
Solaris, has base install.
And please don't tell me that fedora is a desktop OS.
--
Vano Beridze
Software Developer
Silk Road Group S.A.
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list