5 ms·

What bloat? No one is forcing you to install anything, so your OS can be stripped down to a base level. From there on you can compile and install the applicat

What bloat? No one is forcing you to install anything, so your OS can be stripped down to a base level. From there on you can compile and install the application using whatever dependencies you like. The problem is that no one wants to do this step manually, so we're back to the issue of packaging which CoreOS doesn't seem to solve.

xradionut 13y ago
So it's like Server Core for Windows Server 2012? Stripped down to the essentials?
- ciupicri 13y ago
  Was that a question for me? Anyway, I'm not familiar with Server Core, but after reading some documentation [1], it looks to me like a Linux server without X11 and extra services which is quite the norm. [1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh846323%28v=vs.85%29.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh84...
  - 0b1100110 13y ago
    I worked as a sysadmin, most of our machines were virtual machines that ran either Debian, or Ubuntu Server LTS. We also had a few CentOS machines as well. Ubuntu Server was bigger than Debian and CentOS,but only one of them had any kind of graphical interface. And that was only because my Boss insisted since he refused to learn to use a command line. It was normal for all of the machines to only have init, sshd (non-standard port, no password), iptables(it was a while ago, ok?), security measures such as fail2ban, monitoring scripts, and whatever service they were running. That was usually it. If I could strip any extraneous services that weren't needed, I did so and saved the image as a template for next time. My bosses loved me since when I started, most of the machines had 512Mb-1Gb of RAM allocated(mostly unused), and I managed to drop the necessary RAM down to about 128Mb for the services that didn't require more. Internal websites, DNS, etc. Since We had a couple huge machines running most of the VMs, I also set up a pretty large dedicated RAID0 for /tmp space, and set the VMs to aggressively page to disk. Our Giant Email server used to require 7+ Gigs of RAM for all of the work it did (We're talking massive amounts of email constantly here, at least 20 domains serving multiple businesses), but I dropped it down to 2Gb. No loss of reliability or noticeable speed, and it freed up lots of resources for other machines to use. tl;dr Linux Servers are usually as tiny as they can possibly be without affecting speed or reliability. Also due to the sheer amount of tweaking you can usually get the most bang for your buck with only a week or two of tweaking. MS Server needed at least 1Gb last I checked, but that was a while back. You can have literally 8 Linux servers for the same resources as one Windows Server.
    - bifrost 13y ago
      > And that was only because my Boss insisted since he refused to learn to use a command line. I'm certain I'm going to get crap for this, but your Boss had no business being near a server if he wasn't willing to get with the program and A) Delegate B) Lead by Technical Superiority. I feel really weird to say this, but I get the "non-technical technical manager" now because what they're supposed to be doing is MANAGING and not doing technical things, because they fail at "doing" and are suposed to be good at telling people what to do and tracking progress/etc. werd.
bifrost 13y ago
> What bloat? No one is forcing you to install anything The last time I did a "base" install of CentOS and Ubuntu, it installed a TON of garbage, almost none of it relating to the actual operation of the machine. The "base" install also missed a variety of tools that I'd consider essential to a "base system". Granted I've only been a unix/unix-like system user for around 20 years, but it seems like things are bloated when they get to that point. Before people go off fudding/etc, I use a variety of operating systems daily, and I've written my own installer for 2 of them so they'd be better off FOADing....
- drill_sarge 13y ago
  When I do a "base" install I use Debian netinstall .iso and there's zero "garbage".
  - bifrost 13y ago
    There's plenty of Garbage, but perhaps less so than stock Ubuntu or Fedora. Its also Debian so you're unfortunately likely to be fairly behind the current patchlevel thats required for a maintained/modern OS. Not that Debian is bad, but its often woefully behind. Not that long ago I discovered how hard it was to get CentOS up to spec on "the new stuff", it was rather frustrating as well.

xradionut 13y ago

So it's like Server Core for Windows Server 2012? Stripped down to the essentials?

ciupicri 13y ago
Was that a question for me? Anyway, I'm not familiar with Server Core, but after reading some documentation [1], it looks to me like a Linux server without X11 and extra services which is quite the norm. [1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh846323%28v=vs.85%29.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh84...
- 0b1100110 13y ago
  I worked as a sysadmin, most of our machines were virtual machines that ran either Debian, or Ubuntu Server LTS. We also had a few CentOS machines as well. Ubuntu Server was bigger than Debian and CentOS,but only one of them had any kind of graphical interface. And that was only because my Boss insisted since he refused to learn to use a command line. It was normal for all of the machines to only have init, sshd (non-standard port, no password), iptables(it was a while ago, ok?), security measures such as fail2ban, monitoring scripts, and whatever service they were running. That was usually it. If I could strip any extraneous services that weren't needed, I did so and saved the image as a template for next time. My bosses loved me since when I started, most of the machines had 512Mb-1Gb of RAM allocated(mostly unused), and I managed to drop the necessary RAM down to about 128Mb for the services that didn't require more. Internal websites, DNS, etc. Since We had a couple huge machines running most of the VMs, I also set up a pretty large dedicated RAID0 for /tmp space, and set the VMs to aggressively page to disk. Our Giant Email server used to require 7+ Gigs of RAM for all of the work it did (We're talking massive amounts of email constantly here, at least 20 domains serving multiple businesses), but I dropped it down to 2Gb. No loss of reliability or noticeable speed, and it freed up lots of resources for other machines to use. tl;dr Linux Servers are usually as tiny as they can possibly be without affecting speed or reliability. Also due to the sheer amount of tweaking you can usually get the most bang for your buck with only a week or two of tweaking. MS Server needed at least 1Gb last I checked, but that was a while back. You can have literally 8 Linux servers for the same resources as one Windows Server.
  - bifrost 13y ago
    > And that was only because my Boss insisted since he refused to learn to use a command line. I'm certain I'm going to get crap for this, but your Boss had no business being near a server if he wasn't willing to get with the program and A) Delegate B) Lead by Technical Superiority. I feel really weird to say this, but I get the "non-technical technical manager" now because what they're supposed to be doing is MANAGING and not doing technical things, because they fail at "doing" and are suposed to be good at telling people what to do and tracking progress/etc. werd.

bifrost 13y ago

> What bloat? No one is forcing you to install anything The last time I did a "base" install of CentOS and Ubuntu, it installed a TON of garbage, almost none of it relating to the actual operation of the machine. The "base" install also missed a variety of tools that I'd consider essential to a "base system". Granted I've only been a unix/unix-like system user for around 20 years, but it seems like things are bloated when they get to that point. Before people go off fudding/etc, I use a variety of operating systems daily, and I've written my own installer for 2 of them so they'd be better off FOADing....

drill_sarge 13y ago
When I do a "base" install I use Debian netinstall .iso and there's zero "garbage".
- bifrost 13y ago
  There's plenty of Garbage, but perhaps less so than stock Ubuntu or Fedora. Its also Debian so you're unfortunately likely to be fairly behind the current patchlevel thats required for a maintained/modern OS. Not that Debian is bad, but its often woefully behind. Not that long ago I discovered how hard it was to get CentOS up to spec on "the new stuff", it was rather frustrating as well.