Ubuntu without pre-installed software?
tomh0665 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 19 08:30:42 UTC 2012
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 September 2012 22:57, Tom H <tomh0665 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As for a minimal, customisable Ubuntu - well, the netinst ISO is a
>>> good suggestion. Failing that, there is Debian!
>> netinst?! I don't think that Ubuntu has such an ISO. :)
> Yes it does. Here you go:
My point was that it isn't called netinst...
>> I don't think that an Ubuntu install will be larger or significantly
>> larger that a Debian one for the same WM or DE.
> Nah, there is not a lot in it. Debian is a bit smaller and runs a bit
> better on low-end hardware, but it doesn't have Ubuntu's graphical
> startup and shutdown screens, replacement init dæmon and thus fast
> bootup and shutdown times and some other niceties.
I'd like to see some hard data on that no just some claim based on the
meme that Debian's more geeky/nerdy and therefore has a smaller
footprint. I mostly install X-less boxes of both Ubuntu and Debian and
there's basically no difference. I suspect that this extends to WMs
and DEs. You'll also see that I said "significantly" because I've
noticed that Ubuntu sometimes adds extra dependencies to packages
On the speed front, I'll take Ubuntu's upstart to Debian's sysvinit anyday!
More information about the ubuntu-users