Shrinking consumed diskspace

Tue May 29 13:40:00 UTC 2007

On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 02:48:47PM +0200, Anders Häggström wrote:
> > I'm looking now at a fresh feisty server installation. I've run one
> > (1) command after rebooting: 'apt-get clean'. I now have a total
> > space consumption of 362796 kB which is 354 MB. The kernel is
> > 2.6.20-15-server.
> Good for you, but it doesn't help me with the fact that something went
> strange with my installation.

Clearly not, but rather than persistently claim that you know better
what a ubuntu server installation looks like, you could try listening.
I'm hoping you wrote to the mailing list to get advice and not to shout
things and not want to hear the response.

> > I don't know what you did, but my fresh feisty server installation
> > is very different fro that. You should report a bug.
> Maby I'll just had bad luck. I will try to redo the installation
> before I report any bugs. And if I get the same result (a
> generic-kernel and a lot of unnecesary packages, like the metapackage
> ubuntu-standard that also were installed) I will report a bug for it.
> If the standard installation of a server is 350MB, then I maby will be
> able to shrink it further. =)

How are you installing it? From an iso? If so, what's the name of this
iso?

> > One could argue that. One could also argue that it's more important
> > from a things-should-just-work perspective that if someone is
> > unlucky enough to only have wifi access from his/her server, we
> > shouldn't rob him/her of his/her only way of connecting to the
> > network.
> Thats true but I doubt that is very common. And a lot of other things
> that is done in Ubuntu is done for the common use, not for special
> uses. One with special use is often aware that it is special use and
> will be able to handle that situation by hin/her self.

We do many things that are not for the common case. If you look at the
amount of modules we include with a a default kernel, you'll know what I
mean. :)

> > You need to realise that "server" does not necessarily mean huge,
> > expensive things with only fancy RAID cards and so on. It just means
> > an no-desktop installation. If people need to use some sort of
> > bluetooth device, they shouldn't be forced to install a complete
> > desktop. It's a perfectly valid use case.
> No, ofcource not. In my defenition of a server is a minimal install
> that is specialised to hadle specific tasks in service to other
> computers. Therefor, on a server you only have what is needed to be
> able to do the task. No more, no less, exept for some managemet tools.

Right, I'm afraid that's not how it works with the kernel. With the
kernel it's everything or nothing. :)

> > Also, since you're spending so much time getting rid of those last
> > 12MB, I'm guessing YOUR server is not a big, several thousand euro
> > machine either?
> No, do I need to have expensive hardware or be backed up by a large
> company to be taken seriously?

No, and I can't see why you say that. I pointed that out, because you
were making a fuss over the presence of e.g. bluetooth modules in the
kernel, since that stuff "didn't belong on a server".

> Again, the smaller the better, because less things can mess things up
> and it's easier t get an overview of the system. 

Not necessarily. If you remove the kernel, your system will be *a* *lot*
smaller, but will not work quite as well. ubuntu-minimal should be a
small installation with just enough to not be annoying to work with. If
there's something you feel should be removed (because it doesn't match
these criteria), I suggest you file a bug against ubuntu-meta on
Launchpad.

> > To be perfectly honest, I'd be hesitant of accusing others of
> > shouting random things if I were you. Case in point: apt-get not
> > handling dependencies..
> There is a big difference between false claims and a
> missunderstanding. And this was just a missunderstanding. I will try
> to explain what I meant with an example: If I install package X with a
> dependency Y. Both X and Y gets installed no matter if I use apt-get
> or atpitude, right?  The bit difference (and this is what I meant) is
> when I remove package X with apt-get package Y will still be installed
> and unused. If I remove package X with aptitude (if I installed it
> with aptitude) package Y will also get removed, if it is not needed by
> some other packages.

So does apt-get. The observant reader will notice that apt-get tells you
when you have "superfluous" packages installed every time it is run.

> > Indeed, but how would you expect me to stop the discussion before
> > you even started it?
> You couldn't have stoped it before it began, but you could take me a
> litle more seriously because I'm not just plain wrong.. (well, maby I
> am in your eyes)

Well, maybe if you also took *me* seriously, it would be a good start.
It's hardly constructive to just say "no", when I point things out to
you.

-- 
| Soren Hansen    | Linux2Go                  | http://Linux2Go.dk/ |
| Seniorkonsulent | Lindholmsvej 42, 2. TH    | +45 46 90 26 42     |
| sh at linux2go.dk  | 9400 Norresundby, Denmark | GPG key: E8BDA4E3   |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-server/attachments/20070529/26719a6a/attachment.pgp>