SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
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
over-bloated ... server ... small LAMP server ... minimal setup ... bloated ... desktop/workstation ... server ...
Do you have any useful definition of "bloated", other than "there are potentially useful files where I would prefer to have empty disk space"? What other resource is that "bloat" consuming?
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.
I think the hardest task there will be not to assemble them but to maintain and support them between releases
Probably true.
Quote:
and having to maintain and support two versions of the needed packages
Yes, looks like quite a few packages. Not my decision, but I still lean toward a special PAM directory in /extra. Seems like a sane compromise to appease both groups of users.
Quote:
I havent used Debian recently but the one place I remember it really shining was in the installer. It made it very easy to do a minimal base install and only add what you needed over the network afterwards.
True. Yet the out of the box stock Slackware can be configured as a LAMP, mail, FTP, DNS, DHCP, gateway, print, or file (NFS/CIFS) server. Also full build environments are supported out of the box. No additional packages needed. Most of those services are not enabled by default and can be enabled or disabled with chmod.
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:
And you will get your system bloated in no time
Possibly --- when apt "Install-Recommends" is configured to true. Much bloat can be avoided if set to false.
If you have been using and installing Slackware many times, then you will know which packages that can be removed during selection
Sure, here is one template for 14.1. Not minimal, but includes all the "server" software that comes with Slackware plus some useful extra. As I said it'll be good till next release.
If you have been using and installing Slackware many times, then you will know which packages that can be removed during selection
Sure, here is one template for 14.1. Not minimal, but includes all the "server" software that comes with Slackware plus some useful extra. As I said it'll be good till next release.
All I've said is, "Why does Slackware need package <insert name here> if it's for a limited audience?" as well as "If it's needed for a very limited purpose, why not create an SBo for package <insert name here> on SlackBuilds.org as well as any other required files and packages?".
I think part of the purpose of this thread is to determine whether that usage is indeed limited. A sufficient number of people have voiced approval for adding PAM support and have shared that Slackware was not a choice for server usage, in part because of the lack of PAM. Others have voiced opinions they can live with or without PAM and offer no vote. Others have noted that even if most Slackware users are mostly desktop or hobbyist users, adding PAM would bump Slackware upward a few notches with marketability in the enterprise server realm.
Quote:
I'm trying to make a point that the more complexity we cram into Slackware, the more complex the overall system will be to Johnny H. Q. Public that is looking for simplicity.
I have a long track record of advocating more GUI admin tools as optional additions to Slackware. Much of the response through the years has been against those requests and on occasion, hostile. IOW, most Slackers are against adding such tools even when they would be optional in /extra. The bottom line is I don't think John Q. Public plays a role in adding PAM support. Adding GUI admin tools might attract a John Q. Public, but generally, most Slackers are not interested in John Q. Public. John. Q. Public will not care one way or another about PAM. Only admins care and that is the focus of this thread.
Quote:
I don't know if anyone is listening to that, but honestly, I just get sick of seeing people say, "Add package <insert name> to Slackware so we can be like everyone else!"
One of the great attractions of Debian over Slackware is the huge difference in package selections. Even after a seasoned Slacker learns to build packages, the difference remains huge. I have read many Slackware reviews through the years and one of the reasons reviewers refrain fondness for Slackware is the comparative lack of binary packages and GUI admin tools. Yes, there is a cultural difference between Slackers and other distro users, but John Q. Public is never going to choose Slackware, partly because of the lack of binary packages and GUI admin tools. Throughout this thread, the idea of adding PAM support is focused toward making Slackware more palatable in the enterprise, not to just add more packages or another layer for John Q. Public.
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:
In that comment, maybe there needs to be a spin off project created and dedicated to making a server oriented edition of Slackware focused on security, resource controls, and network interoperability.
The derivative distro Superb Mini Server Project? I don't know whether PAM is added.
Do you have any useful definition of "bloated"
Do you have any useful definition of "server"
Sorry, English is not my native language and I am unable to discuss the "useful" meanings of these words. I think I use them properly in the right context. Linguistics is not really my passion and the last time I checked I was in Linux Questions forum.
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.
Sure, here is one template for 14.1. Not minimal, but includes all the "server" software that comes with Slackware plus some useful extra. As I said it'll be good till next release.
I am not the gentleman you addressed these too but I will try to give some answers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 55020
Do you have any useful definition of "bloated", other than "there are potentially useful files where I would prefer to have empty disk space"? What other resource is that "bloat" consuming?
In the broadest strokes, the resource the bloat consumes is called slack. My slack, anytime I am troubleshooting some odd problem that turns out to be related to something I did not want or need on my system to begin with.
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:
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?
Server: A system intended to provide services over the network, as opposed to a workstation.
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:
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.
I disagree. Avoiding bloat is simply one of the ways to apply the KISS principle, both to avoid problems and make it easier to fix things when problems do arise.
I think you are still missing some libs from x/ directory
They are still required even though you don't run X system
It works fine for me but any improvements are welcome. I'll take another look at it during the long winter. And here is another one with a minimal X and basic audio support added. And when Slackware Next is out I'll make another one. You know we have looong winters here. I think you get the point.
I'm trying to make a point that the more complexity we cram into Slackware, the more complex the overall system will be to Johnny H. Q. Public that is looking for simplicity. It doesn't matter where that complexity comes from, the question is, is this complexity for the overall good and the better?
I don't know if anyone is listening to that, but honestly, I just get sick of seeing people say, "Add package <insert name> to Slackware so we can be like everyone else!"
For the average LFS user who needs no more than a kernel, a libc and a shell to be happy, everything else is probably bloat. Then, of course, there are those among us who actually use Slackware to get work done, and who depend on the presence of a certain number of tools. And yes, I know how to build some extra packages.
If someone improvises a "minimal install", and then is *surprised* when their "minimal install" is *excessively* minimal, and doesn't know how to diagnose and fix it, do they have the mental toolkit to handle anything other than a full install?
I see that as a problem as well, and I think PV recommends a full install because he doesn't want to deal with those problems.
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:
Originally Posted by 55020
We have to be realistic about the abilities of Slackware beginners. In my opinion, there are two possible answers if people want something less than full Slackware.
One is, change your mind.
And the other is, use Porteus. Its modularity has been well thought out, and it keeps people in the Slackware family.
Could not agree more but, as said repeatedly for years: Slackware is not the best choice for a newbie
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...).
Last edited by Slax-Dude; 07-31-2014 at 04:35 AM.
Reason: grammar: of != off
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
