Ubuntu without pre-installed software?

[Tom H]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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:


>>>> 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.
>
> 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're saying that a default Debian DE install doesn't have a
plymouth equivalent, then yes that's one package possibly with some
dependencies that Ubuntu has extra.

Debian might not use upstart but it still has an nit package so its a
wash in that department.

if I have the time, I'll do a default install of 12.04 and of Wheezy
to see how they compare in terms of disk use and package count.


>> 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.

That hardware's an edge case; upstart's parallel boot's probably too
much to handle (there may be a way to turn it off).