I'll just start by saying that while I disagree with Soren, I in no way took anything that he said to be flaming or trying to insight a flame war...
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Soren Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Michael told me in a different e-mail that he replied off-list by > accident, so I'm taking the thread back on the list] > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 08:07:14AM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote: >>> We should probably add an install option to the server CD to only >>> install the base system, so that the die hard group of old school >>> admins can keep their Ubuntu systems as small as possible, though. >> I'm not sure if you're trying to spark a flame war or not. > I think this is a great idea (I actually even suggested that in the last Server Team meeting). I'm all for keeping the install process as simple as possible, which means keeping the questions and options to a minimum, but I think an additional option to install a bare system or to include a set of recommended tools would be worthwhile. > >> Here's my list: >> >> openssh >> samba >> apache >> postfix >> dovecot >> openvpn > um, he's not really suggesting making all these part of the standard install, is he? Pretty sure I don't need dovecot or openvpn on my webserver or any of those but Samba on my file server. Not even Windows Server is that sloppy. Though the original email was off-list, I'm guessing he was being sarcastic here. > >> screen > > Agreed. > >> vim (full) > > vim-full depends on a stack of GUI stuff, but a more full featured vim > than vim-tiny (like e.g. the "vim" package) would be lovely to have by > default. > >> Just to name a few. And how could anyone possibly object to any of those? >> Why, they're just basic stuff that I really, really need. Not like it'll >> hurt anything. So what that ubuntu-server requires a stack of DVDs to >> install. DVDs are cheap! > There are certain software packages that go on EVERY linux server I set up, such as screen and openssh-server. However, I refrain from suggesting these go in to the server seed, because some people may not use them and they are easily, for me, to apt-get them. I'm not preaching to turn Ubuntu into the perfectly customized server distro just for me, I'm preaching to keep it efficient and secure, while providing the canvas for admins to create the perfectly customized server for themselves. > >> And, excuse me, saying we can just apt-get remove it is surely the >> *dumbest* suggestion I've heard on an Internet list anytime recently. > While not the dumbest, I do not like this suggestion, though I do practice it. Particularly on my Redhat servers. I go though the running daemons and uninstall any that are stupid to have on a server (like pcmcia and bluez services). I have a "sudo yum remove" line all written down in a text file that I just copy, paste, and run on every server, right after install. > > "Oh, so maybe we shouldn't even install a coreutils? Or a kernel? Maybe > we should make an apt-get remove --ALL option?" (I'm taking a stab at > the take-whatever-people-say-and-blow-it-completely-out-of-proportions > things. How am I doing?) > I think there is a pretty big difference between compiling your own kernel and running "sudo apt-get install foobar". > Do you think there are things in the standard seed that doesn't belong > there? If you truly want to do everything yourself I guess you'd even > want the server install to not include the standard seed, but only > minimal? That would remove such completely useless things as psmisc, > man-db, iptables, ftp, at, cron, file, openssh-client, and wget. > I don't believe I've ever used ftp or openssh-client from a server, so those could easily go. I very very rarely have used at and am actually kinda surprised to hear it is installed by default. >> So don't start me out in a mansion when a rustic cabin is adequate for >> my needs. > > To keep to the house analogies, I think that your suggestion is closer > to just providing the foundation of the house and leave it up to anyone > who actually wants a place to live to build the house itself, install > doors, windows, heating facilities, bathrooms, kitchens, etc., because, > you know, a very significant percentage of the world's population > manages survives without most of these things, so who are we to go and > decide that everyone should have heating facilites installed even though > they can just choose to not turn them on? > I would prefer the foundation so I can customize the size, layout, and features how I want them. This is assuming your analogy means I can just point my finger and say "sudo apt-get install toilet". > > I'm sure you'll enjoy installing extra packages over that sort of > connection. > I think he was refering to using gui tools from a remote workstation over that connection. The server itself could have been connected to the internet with a 100mbit fiber line. Also, everyone keeps bringing this up that "you'll wish you had it when things go sour" but even with my stripped down installs I've never felt that I was lacking any tools on the server when troubleshooting. > -- > Soren Hansen I'm too lazy and busy to proofread all this, so I hope I was intelligible and courteous. James Dinkel -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
