3 ms·
I agree -- there are plenty of reasons to use a minimal Ubuntu install. My point was that if size constraints are so tight that you feel trimming kernel modules
by subway 9y ago
I agree -- there are plenty of reasons to use a minimal Ubuntu install. My point was that if size constraints are so tight that you feel trimming kernel modules out is a reasonable use of effort, then Ubuntu starts to be a more awkward fit.
If you constantly have to trim away bits left by the package manager (man pages, examples, extra kernel modules), your time is probably better spent with a distro that allows you to avoid ever laying those into the rootfs to begin with.
Also worth noting:these images are full minimal root filesystems. "installer" images refer to the images containing software --the debian/ubuntu installer for bootstrapping a root filesystem onto a mounted volume. The minimal images from thearticle do not contain this installer, and are stanalone root filesystems.
- secabeen 9y agoYeah. To be more clear, you can install a "minimal" system of Ubuntu on bare metal by just installing the "required" packages only, although I think the default if you don't select any tasks in the installer is to install "required" + "standard", which is a small amount more than just "required". Either way, it doesn't include much. I have to install openssh-server on my "nothing-but-standard" systems, before chef comes in and drags along another 1000 packages. The installs the OP is talking about are images that don't even have a kernel, and don't use the traditional installer.