I have tried to install an ubuntu server just for fun on vm and tried the minimal settings for webserver and as you said, it was minimal at first, but after few weeks, i ran apt-get update and upgrade, there comes the nightmare where new version if the same apps required a mass of new deps...
I don't know if the same happened on debian, but that's what i got on Ubuntu, which is/was based on Debian I used to use "expert" installation and pick my own apps during installation. It will not take more than an hour to select and install it on a modern system. If you have been using and installing Slackware many times, then you will know which packages that can be removed during selection :) |
Quote:
Do you have any useful definition of "server", more than "it serves http and/or a database"? What's unusual about having a webserver and rdbms on my laptop to support the applications that need them? Why shouldn't I have X on my storage box so I can check the media files stored on it? Why would my boxes be easier to manage if they *weren't* homogenous? The "bloat" meme is just a variant on bad feng shui, and the "server" meme is just cognitive dissonance about spending extra money putting a universal Turing machine in a rack. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
While having different server type installation options might be a nice twist, that such wide server support is already available to an admin is a nice feature in itself. For myself, I am a desktop user with basic file sharing needs. That the stock Slackware installs a lot of server support I don't use doesn't affect usability. Just additional disk storage. Thus the end result, as viewed through ps or free, seems much the same as a minimal install. Through this thread I appreciate that the lack of certain enterprise options tend to eliminate Slackware from such large-scale decisions, but for small and medium businesses (SMB) where folks do not need those options and tend to need only self-contained local servers, seems Slackware remains a sane option for SMB server usage. Again, just talking out loud because I don't have a server background. Quote:
|
Quote:
Code:
aaa_base |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I am aware of at least two people who are long time Slackware users who recently have had to make tough decisions not to use Slackware for business purposes. While I don't know that having PAM would have changed those decisions, having such support would always help when business decisions are made around Slackware. Regarding potential problems with PAM, I use a different distro for other people that I install Linux. I have not had any problems with PAM. For Slackware, I am in favor of some kind of PAM support despite my own personal needs not requiring PAM. Quote:
|
Quote:
Cheers |
My only need of PAM is only for CSB project since it does require PAM for 2.2 and newer. That's why i used PAM on my system and so far everything worked with other packages. If i don't need pam, i can just find the --disable-pam parameter.
Another project that i just recently found that also required PAM is dynalogin, two factor authentication suite. I couldn't add it to SBo since it requires PAM, but then i add them to my SlackHacks where i also place my PAM packages there. Basically it's the same PAM packages that i made for CSB project. |
Quote:
They are still required even though you don't run X system |
I am not the gentleman you addressed these too but I will try to give some answers.
Quote:
Of course in theory you can say just dont enable it and most of that is gone. But in real life sometimes it is not so simple. Are you absolutely sure that there is absolutely nothing any of those packages activated? Are you absolutely sure there is nothing in any of those packages that got activated, either by a user or an automatic process, later? Are you sure that none of the programs you use will use some libraries installed by the other packages when they detect they are present? In reality you can waste an awful lot of time chasing down problems that would have been neatly avoided simply by not installing things that are not needed. KISS is a powerful principle when followed. And I know it is fashionable these days to pretend resources such as disk space and memory are infinite, but they are not. In many cases the limitations may be high enough not to worry about, but in others there are not. If I am setting up a single purpose box it may truly not have sufficient storage to install hundreds of unnecessary packages. Quote:
Having server daemons running on your workstation is not unusual. That does not mean your workstation gets reclassified as a server. A server daemon and a server machine are not the same thing, though obviously there is a relation, a server machines primary purpose is generally to host a handful of daemons while a workstations role is more diversified. You shouldnt have an X server on your storage server because that is just adding a tremendous amount of unnecessary junk to deal with when you have to troubleshoot something. I probably wouldnt even install a monitor on a box being used for that purpose, shell access by serial cable is reliable should remote login fail. Quote:
|
Quote:
Basically it would be an official Slackware but with packages, settings, utilities, etc. all tuned towards a secure server environment than a desktop. Something like Slackware Server Edition, maybe? I dunno... |
Quote:
Code:
aaa_base |
Quote:
|
Actually you'd be surprised at what all I put on my BLFS system. UIs, media support, games, web browsers, Xfce, productivity software.
I'd dare to say I'm hardly content with a libc, kernel, and shell only. Sorry, but I'm not a masochist. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://cybercenter.com.pt/?p=15 Quote:
But that is no different than having Slackware newbies that complain about lack of dependency checking: they don't have the mental toolkit to handle it. Quote:
If a newbie does decide to go with Slackware then some difficulties are to be expected, but is nice to have options. Keeping with Slackware tradition, all extra stuff should be turned off by default. I, for one, would define a "minimal install" as "just enough packages for the task required". As a proof of concept, I started with "just enough packages for slackpkg" then expanded it to "just enough packages for wordpress" http://cybercenter.com.pt/?p=86 As ponce said, the problem is maintaining it across releases. Some people like Alienbob, ponce or kikinovak have the skill (and resolve!) to do it, but most of us rely on the community efforts (ie: binary package repositories, slackbuilds, etc...). |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:09 AM. |