FC4 for servers

[Vano Beridze]

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.