Re: True Home LINUX install [Re: [Cooker] A true Server install]
> > -no X-utilities (xbill, xcreensaver, xclock, etc.) > > Huh? Why should a home install have no games, screensavers or clocks? > What's the purpose of this? > If you don't have any x utils then I don't know what you would like to do with X ... kde / gnome stuff is still X based. > > -selection of one or several windows managers > > with selection of sub-packages to install (like: Install KDE2, but do not > > install kdetoys, kdepim) > > Again, why no "toys" and no PIM? PIM is important, at least for me. > Just nstall more than one windowmanager, depending on how you configure your system ..one way would be to login via kdm and then choose the windowmaker you like. > > -no command-line utilities > > Then the whole system wouldn't run. And command-line utilities are often > way more flexible than these GUI programs. > Considering that system() uses /bin/sh -c you are goin to have a broken system ... besides, even m$ windows has got console-based utils installed, so that when your system brerka down you can always repair it. > > -Wine/DosEmu as options (with simple dialog box, like: Would you like to > > install DOS support? You will need it to run native DOS programs) > > Wine/DosEmu is something *I* could spare very well. > Not every /home/ user will necessarily use windows programs under wine in GNU/Linux. > > -of course, no default installation of Netscape. I don't want to clean it up > > after install manually > So, you don't use netscape but you use something else? There are some alternatives out there I must say... May I ask what you use to browse the web then? > > > -Libraries > > I still rather new to Linux, and don't know which libraries I can delete > > without affecting system (just : libc /5MB/ or glibc /27MB/ are used by the > > system? At least one of them, I guess, can be deleted) > > Well, try rpm -e libc glibc and see what's more needed :-) Hint: It's > glibc, so you may very well delete libc5. > libc is for compat .. -- geoff
Re: True Home LINUX install [Re: [Cooker] A true Server install]
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 08:09:42PM +0400, Vadim Plessky wrote: > > I would like to have option of TRUE HOME INSTALL for Mandrake LINUX. Sorry, I don't get what you mean by true home install, or to be more precise, I seem to have a different understanding of a true home install. > Under this, I mean: > -no development tolls/compilers/headers Install no devel packages and you'll have this. > -no X-utilities (xbill, xcreensaver, xclock, etc.) Huh? Why should a home install have no games, screensavers or clocks? What's the purpose of this? > -selection of one or several windows managers > with selection of sub-packages to install (like: Install KDE2, but do not > install kdetoys, kdepim) Again, why no "toys" and no PIM? PIM is important, at least for me. > -no command-line utilities Then the whole system wouldn't run. And command-line utilities are often way more flexible than these GUI programs. > -Wine/DosEmu as options (with simple dialog box, like: Would you like to > install DOS support? You will need it to run native DOS programs) Wine/DosEmu is something *I* could spare very well. > -of course, no default installation of Netscape. I don't want to clean it up > after install manually So no browser at all? I really disagree with you on that. Sure, Netscape ain't the best browser available, but it's still better than the other browsers available for Linux. Mozilla is very promising, but for daily use it's too slow (for me). > -Libraries > I still rather new to Linux, and don't know which libraries I can delete > without affecting system (just : libc /5MB/ or glibc /27MB/ are used by the > system? At least one of them, I guess, can be deleted) Well, try rpm -e libc glibc and see what's more needed :-) Hint: It's glibc, so you may very well delete libc5. For me a TRUE HOME INSTALL would include something like needed command line utilites (wget, ncftp, perl, editors (vi, joe, ), shell (bash) :-]), gnome, possibly KDE, some WM with one to choose from, roxen (because it's smaller and would still be good enough for the static sides most home users may create), NO telnet/ssh, etc.pp. Alexander Skwar -- Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com | http://www.dp.ath.cx Sichere Mail? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] fuer GnuPG Keys ICQ:7328191
True Home LINUX install [Re: [Cooker] A true Server install]
I would like to have option of TRUE HOME INSTALL for Mandrake LINUX. Under this, I mean: -no development tolls/compilers/headers -no X-utilities (xbill, xcreensaver, xclock, etc.) -selection of one or several windows managers with selection of sub-packages to install (like: Install KDE2, but do not install kdetoys, kdepim) -no command-line utilities -Wine/DosEmu as options (with simple dialog box, like: Would you like to install DOS support? You will need it to run native DOS programs) -of course, no default installation of Netscape. I don't want to clean it up after install manually -Libraries I still rather new to Linux, and don't know which libraries I can delete without affecting system (just : libc /5MB/ or glibc /27MB/ are used by the system? At least one of them, I guess, can be deleted) And libs like xaw3d, SDL, etc. can be easily deleted even by me maually :-), but I'd like this automated. I am running Mandrake 7.0 (Dec 99), and belive that a lot of thins were fixed in 7.1 installer. Hope, 7.2 will be even more user-friendly and easy to use Best regards, Vadim Plessky On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, you wrote: > Geoffrey Lee wrote: > > Yo! > > > > [...] > > > > > in a way this is just mandrake, lots of linuces install without a > > > desktop, because they seem to have been distributed with less of a > > > one-size-fits-all approach. to be fair 7.0 was also easy to pull the > > > desktop out and run a server only install. i haven't attempted since, > > > but > > > > Of course we have to cater for server install as well, why do you think > > we have apache and inn and samba etc in the distro .. :-) > > > > > it's a feature that a small, but still significant minority will > > > probably expect to be possible, without a week of after-install pursuit > > > of dependencies in thousands of trigger files for what just installed > > > -- sounds a hell of a lot more like unbloating a solaris box after it > > > was installed with 'all' to me. > > > > > > bottom line, if you want a minimalist server, linux is an option ,but > > > probably mandrake isn't the best option of the linuxes out there at > > > present, from what i've seen. But Mandrake remains a great desktop > > > bells-and-whistles distro. > > > > Well, IMHO you can run a Mandrake as server, absolutely no problem. We > > aim to make it more user-friendly but that doesn't mean that we dump away > > the server image. > > > > Even if you do a default server install you ould still have to do some > > massive configuration to make it secure, now think, we have lots of kinds > > of srever we don't really know what server you want to run, perhaps ypu > > just want apache, in which case you would probably remove telnet whatever > > etc ... > > > > > Question: This list seems primarily focused for employees of > > > Mandrake-Cooker. I would prefer not to bog down this list with long > > > > Yes there are mdksoft employees here but a lot of folks here are just > > volunteers who make bugz report to us ..(for which we are very grateful! > > :-) > > > > -- > > Geoff > > Geoff, > > All i'm asking for is a "Console Server Install" installs only the > basics not X, > KDE, GNOME, let the user add to the installation, (add inn, openldap, > postgres) > heck even make them standard if you want. It would be easier for me to > un install > a few server services then what I have to do now. > > As for security. When selecting that option turn everything off by > default. This > might fit in nicely with the current security scripts in 7.1. I would > like to see > the default have nothing, make me turn it on if I want it. Instead of > turning it > on by default and then making the user find everything on and turn off > the stuff > they don't want. > > In this respect openbsd is superior to all linux distributions. Granted > I don't > expect Mandrake to become as secure as openbsd over night. But wouldn't > it be a > good idea to start the process. Mandrake could become the Easiest and > the most > Secure linux distribution. > > Just my two cents. > > -Jason
Re: [Cooker] A true Server install
Geoffrey Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yo! > > [...] > > > > > All i'm asking for is a "Console Server Install" installs only the > > basics not X, > > KDE, GNOME, let the user add to the installation, (add inn, openldap, > > postgres) > > heck even make them standard if you want. It would be easier for me to > > un install > > a few server services then what I have to do now. > > > > customized install? that might work .. > > > > As for security. When selecting that option turn everything off by > > default. This > > might fit in nicely with the current security scripts in 7.1. I would > > like to see > > the default have nothing, make me turn it on if I want it. Instead of > > turning it > > on by default and then making the user find everything on and turn off > > the stuff > > they don't want. > > > > you would need to talk to Yoann about msec .. Yoann? At install time, you can choose security level 4 & 5, where all server will be off by default... -- -- Yoann http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~yoann/ - Windows Where do you want to go today? - MacOSWhere do you want to be tomorrow? - LinuxAre you coming, or what? -- Bill Maidment
Re: [Cooker] A true Server install
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 09:09:46PM +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote: > That's Mandrake. Imagine, Mandrake also requires lilo *AND* grub, god knows > why. Do we really need the bashing? They made a determination about what they think should be included in the package. They heard your opinion on it. Now give it a break. -- Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ben.reser.org "Heuristics are bug ridden by definition. If they didn't have bugs, then they'd be algorithms."
Re: [Cooker] A true Server install
Submitted 30-Aug-00 by Bryan Paxton: > I also propose this big one. > Completely split up the distro. > inux-mandrake is aimed at desktop users right ? > So why on earth would an end-user need to run an MTA, httpd, name server, > etc. ? Lets see, some mail clients (like mutt) require an MTA in order to be able to send mail. Apache can be used as a staging server (limited to connects from 127.0.0.1) for testing sites before deployment, name servers can be run as caching only servers to reduce lookup times. > I propose having different downloads/cds. > Linux-Mandrake: Desktop > Linux-Mandrake: Server > And so on. But then you have the middle ground users who require some servers for their desktop work (as shown above). This scheme whould require a Frankenstein-like hybrid for those poor souls :p (Though it wouldn't be nearly as bad as the person who starts replacing key system components with similar ones from another distro.) -- Anton GrahamGPG ID: 0x18F78541 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> RSA key available upon request "Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense."
Re: [Cooker] A true Server install
Yo! [...] > > All i'm asking for is a "Console Server Install" installs only the > basics not X, > KDE, GNOME, let the user add to the installation, (add inn, openldap, > postgres) > heck even make them standard if you want. It would be easier for me to > un install > a few server services then what I have to do now. > customized install? that might work .. > As for security. When selecting that option turn everything off by > default. This > might fit in nicely with the current security scripts in 7.1. I would > like to see > the default have nothing, make me turn it on if I want it. Instead of > turning it > on by default and then making the user find everything on and turn off > the stuff > they don't want. > you would need to talk to Yoann about msec .. Yoann? > In this respect openbsd is superior to all linux distributions. Granted > I don't > expect Mandrake to become as secure as openbsd over night. But wouldn't > it be a > good idea to start the process. Mandrake could become the Easiest and > the most > Secure linux distribution. > I love BSD :) -- Geoff
Re: [Cooker] A true Server install
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Jason Jeremias wrote: > Geoff, > > All i'm asking for is a "Console Server Install" installs only the > basics not X, > KDE, GNOME, let the user add to the installation, (add inn, openldap, > postgres) > heck even make them standard if you want. It would be easier for me to > un install > a few server services then what I have to do now. > > As for security. When selecting that option turn everything off by > default. This > might fit in nicely with the current security scripts in 7.1. I would > like to see > the default have nothing, make me turn it on if I want it. Instead of > turning it > on by default and then making the user find everything on and turn off > the stuff > they don't want. > > In this respect openbsd is superior to all linux distributions. Granted > I don't > expect Mandrake to become as secure as openbsd over night. But wouldn't > it be a > good idea to start the process. Mandrake could become the Easiest and > the most > Secure linux distribution. > > Just my two cents. > > -Jason This is something I've wanted for a very long time. There's no sense in having say apache turned on for next boot(chkconfig apache on/off). But this simply doesn't do the trick if you want to truely have a secure linux distro. Most of the security comes down to configuration files. Examples: inetd.conf: everything should be commented out except maybe identd httpd.conf: cgi, ssi , indexing, etc... should all be commented out by default. If someone is going to run a webserver, they need to enable this themselves. Though, we come at cross fire here since mandrake is aimed at the end-user, and everything is supposed to work out of the box. So by disabling and setting restrictive defaults we break that "out of the box" scheme. Persoally I really don't care if it works out of the box, security is always the first thing on my mind. But since this distro is aimed at end-users we can not jail them and ask them to figure how to break loose. That defeats the whole purpose of linux-mandrake(gr hu GNU/linux : ) ). So what to do ? Sure we can always have hardening scripts like msec and B.U.S.(check it out from the cvs), but that simply isn't it enough. A requirement on vendor side to have a safe version roll out is needed. I propose a light-weight system audit of linux-mandrake(configuration files), as well as things like having a package to chroot bind and other daemons(it would be like the anon-ftp package). I also propose this big one. Completely split up the distro. inux-mandrake is aimed at desktop users right ? So why on earth would an end-user need to run an MTA, httpd, name server, etc. ? I propose having different downloads/cds. Linux-Mandrake: Desktop Linux-Mandrake: Server And so on. I know this is a really rough scheme I've laid out. But deal with it : ) -- Bryan Paxton Go to the room with the chair and wait for your life...
RE: [Cooker] A true Server install
>> I'd really like to see a server only >> install. Something that doesn't install any >> X, KDE, GNOME, etc. >> >> Really drives me nuts when I do a server >> install of Mandrake and it proceeds to >> install a bunch of stuff I would never put >> on my server. Then I spend the next hour >> looking at rpm -qa | more un installing all >> this stuff. > > Have you try with expert install , server > option, slider all at left : at minimum, and > then select individual packages if you want > add some more ??;o) I seem to compare Red Hat and Mandrake a lot, I wonder if I secretly enjoy it. Anyway.. I can perform a Red Hat 6.2 Custom install, select only the following package groups: Base Mail/WWW/News Tools Networked Workstation NFS Server SMB (Samba) Server Anonymous FTP Server Web Server DNS Name Server Network Management Workstation Kernel Development Utilities .. not select ANY individual packages, and have a functioning development and network server with no X in under 5 minutes. There will be two X packages, XFS and XFree86 libs. Not gonna yell and scream about the libs, and a simple "rpm -e" kills the XFS. Can you do this with Mandrake? Does Mandrake allow you to select entire package groups, or do you still have to pick a system type, and then go through individual packages to kill everything you want/don't want? To me, system types are a little too restrictive. I can't choose between "Development" and "Server", I want both. But I don't want "Everything", and I REALLY don't want any "X" at all. Now, I will say, separating those things out as carefully as Red Hat does I think is going a little too far, but it's hard to draw a line. Some of their groups are really bloated, too (at least in my opinion). I think that something along the lines below would be more than adequate: Web Server - Has Apache and Stuff Mail Server - Sendmail/Postfix Stuff File Server - FTP, NFS and Samba Stuff Printer Stuff - CUPS, LPD, etc. Network Server - DNS, SNMP, DHCP, NTP, etc. Database Server - MySQL/Postgres X - XFree86 without the KDE/GNOME stuff. KDE - KDE and base apps GNOME - GNOME and base apps Development Tools - Base development tools Kernel & Compilation Tools - Only the stuff necessary to compile a new kernel Documentation & Manuals - All the optional LDP guides and other stuff that aren't necessary for everyone/every install but are useful for completeness/newbies Basic Utilities and Tool - Stuff that isn't required for the base operating system, but makes things a heck of a lot more useful, *but doesn't bloat the system* I think a combination of a Custom/Expert install, the above package group selections, the sliding bar to add all the nice "junk", and then a final quick run through of individual package selection would make an install about 10 times quicker. Don Head [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Linux Mentor, LCA, Network+ [1 314 692-1942] Wave Technologies, Inc. [1 800 826-4640 x1942] [AIM - Don Wave][ICQ - 18804935][Yahoo - Don_Wave]
Re: [Cooker] A true Server install
Geoffrey Lee wrote: > > Yo! > > [...] > > > > > in a way this is just mandrake, lots of linuces install without a desktop, > > because they seem to have been distributed with less of a > > one-size-fits-all approach. to be fair 7.0 was also easy to pull the > > desktop out and run a server only install. i haven't attempted since, but > > Of course we have to cater for server install as well, why do you think we > have apache and inn and samba etc in the distro .. :-) > > > it's a feature that a small, but still significant minority will probably > > expect to be possible, without a week of after-install pursuit of > > dependencies in thousands of trigger files for what just installed -- > > sounds a hell of a lot more like unbloating a solaris box after it was > > installed with 'all' to me. > > > > bottom line, if you want a minimalist server, linux is an option ,but > > probably mandrake isn't the best option of the linuxes out there at > > present, from what i've seen. But Mandrake remains a great desktop > > bells-and-whistles distro. > > > > Well, IMHO you can run a Mandrake as server, absolutely no problem. We aim > to make it more user-friendly but that doesn't mean that we dump away the > server image. > > Even if you do a default server install you ould still have to do some massive > configuration to make it secure, now think, we have lots of kinds of srever we > don't really know what server you want to run, perhaps ypu just want apache, > in which case you would probably remove telnet whatever etc ... > > > Question: This list seems primarily focused for employees of > > Mandrake-Cooker. I would prefer not to bog down this list with long > > Yes there are mdksoft employees here but a lot of folks here are just > volunteers who make bugz report to us ..(for which we are very grateful! :-) > > -- > Geoff Geoff, All i'm asking for is a "Console Server Install" installs only the basics not X, KDE, GNOME, let the user add to the installation, (add inn, openldap, postgres) heck even make them standard if you want. It would be easier for me to un install a few server services then what I have to do now. As for security. When selecting that option turn everything off by default. This might fit in nicely with the current security scripts in 7.1. I would like to see the default have nothing, make me turn it on if I want it. Instead of turning it on by default and then making the user find everything on and turn off the stuff they don't want. In this respect openbsd is superior to all linux distributions. Granted I don't expect Mandrake to become as secure as openbsd over night. But wouldn't it be a good idea to start the process. Mandrake could become the Easiest and the most Secure linux distribution. Just my two cents. -Jason
Re: [Cooker] A true Server install
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, you wrote: > in a way this is just mandrake, lots of linuces install without a desktop, > because they seem to have been distributed with less of a > one-size-fits-all approach. to be fair 7.0 was also easy to pull the > desktop out and run a server only install. i haven't attempted since, but > it's a feature that a small, but still significant minority will probably > expect to be possible, without a week of after-install pursuit of > dependencies in thousands of trigger files for what just installed -- > sounds a hell of a lot more like unbloating a solaris box after it was > installed with 'all' to me. > > bottom line, if you want a minimalist server, linux is an option ,but > probably mandrake isn't the best option of the linuxes out there at > present, from what i've seen. But Mandrake remains a great desktop > bells-and-whistles distro. > Dave, This is a fair list for answers such as this. Don't worry about it. -Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Question: This list seems primarily focused for employees of > Mandrake-Cooker. I would prefer not to bog down this list with long > winded comment off topic here -- would you be able to recommend a mail > list more appropriate to a reply such as this? > > > -Dave Dennis > Seattle WA > > On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Jason Jeremias wrote: > > Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 08:09:21 -0800 > > From: Jason Jeremias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Cooker] A true Server install > > > > I'd really like to see a server only install. Something that doesn't > > install any X, KDE, GNOME, etc. Just a good ol console runing server > > that (take an example from openbsd) is secure by default. > > > > Really drives me nuts when I do a server install of Mandrake and it > > proceeds to install a bunch of stuff I would never put on my server. > > Then I spend the next hour looking at rpm -qa | more un installing all > > this stuff. > > > > Any chance this may happen in the future. > > > > -Jason
Re: [Cooker] A true Server install
Alexander Skwar wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 08:09:21AM -0800, Jason Jeremias wrote: > > I'd really like to see a server only install. Something that doesn't > > install any X, KDE, GNOME, etc. Just a good ol console runing server > > that (take an example from openbsd) is secure by default. > > That's Mandrake. Imagine, Mandrake also requires lilo *AND* grub, god knows > why. > > SCNR -cut- Yes it is Mandrake, But maybe Mandrake could be made better by adding such an installation option. I'm sure there are many others who would like to see this. -Jason
Re: [Cooker] A true Server install
William H Bouterse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This would also be helpful for rapid > minimal size non-X server installs select nothing and you'll get it! Well not truly minimal, but around 150MB (in expert) the true minimum is around 80MB (at least will be when glibc is stripped, 14MB worth won)
Re: [Cooker] A true Server install
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 08:09:21AM -0800, Jason Jeremias wrote: > I'd really like to see a server only install. Something that doesn't > install any X, KDE, GNOME, etc. Just a good ol console runing server > that (take an example from openbsd) is secure by default. That's Mandrake. Imagine, Mandrake also requires lilo *AND* grub, god knows why. SCNR Alexander Skwar -- Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com | http://www.dp.ath.cx Sichere Mail? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] fuer GnuPG Keys ICQ:7328191
Re: [Cooker] A true Server install
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 10:18:55AM -0700, David Dennis wrote: > Question: This list seems primarily focused for employees of > Mandrake-Cooker. I would prefer not to bog down this list with long > winded comment off topic here -- would you be able to recommend a mail > list more appropriate to a reply such as this? Although (or Because?) I'm no Mandrake employee, I disagree with you on that. As I see it, this list is intended for discussions about Cooker, Mandrakes forever-beta distribution. As such, discussions like this are perfectly fine on this list, as this is a kind of feature request which could be included in upcoming stable distributions. Alexander Skwar -- Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com | http://www.dp.ath.cx Sichere Mail? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] fuer GnuPG Keys ICQ:7328191
Re: [Cooker] A true Server install
Yo! [...] > > in a way this is just mandrake, lots of linuces install without a desktop, > because they seem to have been distributed with less of a > one-size-fits-all approach. to be fair 7.0 was also easy to pull the > desktop out and run a server only install. i haven't attempted since, but Of course we have to cater for server install as well, why do you think we have apache and inn and samba etc in the distro .. :-) > it's a feature that a small, but still significant minority will probably > expect to be possible, without a week of after-install pursuit of > dependencies in thousands of trigger files for what just installed -- > sounds a hell of a lot more like unbloating a solaris box after it was > installed with 'all' to me. > > bottom line, if you want a minimalist server, linux is an option ,but > probably mandrake isn't the best option of the linuxes out there at > present, from what i've seen. But Mandrake remains a great desktop > bells-and-whistles distro. > Well, IMHO you can run a Mandrake as server, absolutely no problem. We aim to make it more user-friendly but that doesn't mean that we dump away the server image. Even if you do a default server install you ould still have to do some massive configuration to make it secure, now think, we have lots of kinds of srever we don't really know what server you want to run, perhaps ypu just want apache, in which case you would probably remove telnet whatever etc ... > Question: This list seems primarily focused for employees of > Mandrake-Cooker. I would prefer not to bog down this list with long Yes there are mdksoft employees here but a lot of folks here are just volunteers who make bugz report to us ..(for which we are very grateful! :-) -- Geoff
Re: [Cooker] A true Server install
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, you wrote: > I'd really like to see a server only install. Something that doesn't > install any X, KDE, GNOME, etc. > Really drives me nuts when I do a server install of Mandrake and it > proceeds to install a bunch of stuff I would never put on my server. > Then I spend the next hour looking at rpm -qa | more un installing all > this stuff. > > -Jason Have you try with expert install , server option, slider all at left : at minimum, and then select individual packages if you want add some more ??;o) -- - Franco Silvestro c/o CeSIA - Universita' degli Studi di Bologna mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Cooker] A true Server install
Jason Jeremias wrote: > > I'd really like to see a server only install. Something that doesn't > install any X, KDE, GNOME, etc. Just a good ol console runing server > that (take an example from openbsd) is secure by default. > > Really drives me nuts when I do a server install of Mandrake and it > proceeds to install a bunch of stuff I would never put on my server. > Then I spend the next hour looking at rpm -qa | more un installing all > this stuff. > > Any chance this may happen in the future. > > -Jason This would also be helpful for rapid minimal size non-X server installs attempted by less Linux savvy individuals like myself, who would have a baseline to start from instead of trying to figure out what to take away and usually making a slaughter of it ! :) William Bouterse Talkeetna Ak
Re: [Cooker] A true Server install
in a way this is just mandrake, lots of linuces install without a desktop, because they seem to have been distributed with less of a one-size-fits-all approach. to be fair 7.0 was also easy to pull the desktop out and run a server only install. i haven't attempted since, but it's a feature that a small, but still significant minority will probably expect to be possible, without a week of after-install pursuit of dependencies in thousands of trigger files for what just installed -- sounds a hell of a lot more like unbloating a solaris box after it was installed with 'all' to me. bottom line, if you want a minimalist server, linux is an option ,but probably mandrake isn't the best option of the linuxes out there at present, from what i've seen. But Mandrake remains a great desktop bells-and-whistles distro. Question: This list seems primarily focused for employees of Mandrake-Cooker. I would prefer not to bog down this list with long winded comment off topic here -- would you be able to recommend a mail list more appropriate to a reply such as this? -Dave Dennis Seattle WA On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Jason Jeremias wrote: > Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 08:09:21 -0800 > From: Jason Jeremias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Cooker] A true Server install > > I'd really like to see a server only install. Something that doesn't > install any X, KDE, GNOME, etc. Just a good ol console runing server > that (take an example from openbsd) is secure by default. > > Really drives me nuts when I do a server install of Mandrake and it > proceeds to install a bunch of stuff I would never put on my server. > Then I spend the next hour looking at rpm -qa | more un installing all > this stuff. > > Any chance this may happen in the future. > > -Jason > >
[Cooker] A true Server install
I'd really like to see a server only install. Something that doesn't install any X, KDE, GNOME, etc. Just a good ol console runing server that (take an example from openbsd) is secure by default. Really drives me nuts when I do a server install of Mandrake and it proceeds to install a bunch of stuff I would never put on my server. Then I spend the next hour looking at rpm -qa | more un installing all this stuff. Any chance this may happen in the future. -Jason
