3 ms·
maybe, maybe not. What that tells me though, is that they didn't sit down and say: "Here's how we optimize this to work for the cloud". I can't say other distro
by CaptSpify 11y ago
maybe, maybe not. What that tells me though, is that they didn't sit down and say: "Here's how we optimize this to work for the cloud". I can't say other distro's do either, but it seems like something they should do
- avar 11y agoI don't think they should. This way lies madness. You want e.g. the kernel & packages to be pruned down to only have the things needed for each cloud host? That means that for N cloud hosts Red Hat would have to potentially build N different patches for any update or security fix. Now you can't certify software to run on "RHEL 7" anymore, it has to be "RHEL 7, assuming it has XYZ, which some cloud hosts don't". It can be done, but it's a huge hassle, it's much easier to just ship the same distro to everyone. Space is cheap.
- CaptSpify 11y ago> That means that for N cloud hosts Red Hat would have to potentially build N different patches for any update or security fix. Why would they have to do that? AFAIK, patches apply to packages, not the entire distro. If $package_x isn't installed, it doesn't get the patch. If it is installed, it does get the patch. And for me, the concern isn't space, as much as running processes, and littered un-needed files.
- avar 11y agoIf you're concerned about either of those RHEL is not the distro for you. It has a bunch of running processes, some of them are even written in Python! Talk about unoptimal. Similarly it's not the smallest Linux distro by far. I think this whole line of argument is just some misplaced nostalgia for distro micro-optimization. It's not the mid-90s anymore. Space and CPU is cheap, you're not going to gain anything significant by trimming down your distro. If those things were actually important you wouldn't be using Azure in the first place.