Ubuntu without pre-installed software?
lproven at gmail.com
Wed Sep 19 14:22:02 UTC 2012
On 19 September 2012 09:30, Tom H <tomh0665 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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...
Ah. Then I will consider my hair truly split, in that case, and I
salute the sharpness of your logical razor.
>>> 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
It's nothing to do with its nerdiness. It's to do, I think, with
niceties like a fancy, event-driven init replacement, graphical
screens with progress or activity meters on certain functions and so
on. The exact sort of stuff that /is/ the difference between Ubuntu
and its progenitor, these days.
If you want hard data, I'll be happy to provide. Is this the right
private email address that I should send the invoice for my time to?
> I mostly install X-less boxes of both Ubuntu and Debian and
> there's basically no difference.
That's right. Because they are X-less. The difference is in the
> 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
> (bizarrely IMO).
Precisely. That /is/ the difference.
I've run raw Debian, modified Debians such as Crunchbang and LMDE, and
various Ubuntus up on legacy machines in the 5-8y age range this year.
> On the speed front, I'll take Ubuntu's upstart to Debian's sysvinit anyday!
I agree. It is nice and speedy.
Until you try it on a machine from 2000 with a Pentium 3 and 128MB of RAM.
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884
More information about the ubuntu-users