topic Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient? in Operating System - Linux

Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

AlienRoadShow — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:01:43 GMT

I use to load HP-UX 9 and 10 on 1 and 2gb disks but can't do the same with Red Hat 9. So where is the sleek and streamlined O/S that is supposed to be Linux? 6 gb to load when I can get 2000 down to 1 gb?

So how is this more efficient?

Where is all the overhead going?

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Jerome Henry — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:06:35 GMT

Hu hu !

You'll have posts here !

Of course, everybody will tell you that you are not compelled to install EVERYTHING, because RH delivers CDs with everyting. It would be like havig 2K, plus 2k office suite, visual basic development suite, photoshop and so many other tools.

Some linux distrbutions rely on one or 2 diskettes ! You had the names I think in former post. Do you want them back ?

But seriously, you are right to say that a decent RH install will require almost 2 GB...

Maybe to look like m$ ?...

J

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

AlienRoadShow — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:09:50 GMT

What is "...Maybe to look like m$ ?... ..."

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Balaji N — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:15:44 GMT

he he he.....

when u say HP UX, it is just the OS. the kernel plus some basic utilities which install in /usr.

everything else, u need to load from the 4 (or is it now 5) application CD's.

but when you say linux, you just dont mean the kernel, but most (if not all) of the GNU utlities, X (KDE/GNOME/WMaker/...), sendmail/apache/squid (you name it) all applications, ....

Isnt that list too big.

It depends on what you want? there is BBC linux, which gives you plenty of utilities with X in around 50 MB, tombsbrt (not sure if the name is correct), which is a 1 floppy distro, Knoppix - 600 MB compressed which gives you most of the stuff you want, etc.. Not to forget that there are people who run linux on flash. dont know of the size.

so, when you want all these applications, you need a huge server. but most people prefer to install what they want and that (IDE) disks are not very costly than buying RISC boxes or hefty license charges.

so take your pick. i intend to see a flame war starting here.
-balaji

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Balaji N — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:17:05 GMT

to give you the polished look offered by Microsoft Windows, if i get it correct.
-balaji

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Jerome Henry — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:19:24 GMT

Hmmm.... m$ is microsoft, sorry for this...
All new OSes are heavier than the former, and XP is the heaviest, and requires resources that implies that actual (not that new, ok) computers have no hope to upgrade to XP.
Many complained about that, and some m$ (you know who...) techs replied, as far as HD is concerned, that nowadays who would set up a new OS with less than 10 GB drive ?

That was quite a big joke for us all, for it clearly showed that if you had quite an old system, you had to stick to your good old win9x or 2k...

My joke was betting that RH did the same, compelling you to stick on RH6.0 on an old machine... but it's of course a joke, as you are not to install everything if you don't have room for everything...

J

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Gregory Fruth — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:26:55 GMT

It depends on what config you select in the Red Hat installer.
Typically the default "workstation" or "server" configs include
a lot of applications & misc. stuff that don't come with HP-UX.
To get a stripped down version of Red Hat you'd have to
use the "expert" or "custom" install option to skip installing
the stuff you don't want. Perhaps there's a "base" config
or something.

If you installed GIMP, Star Office, TeX, etc. (like you typically
get with Red Hat) on HP-UX it wouldn't fit on a 2 GB disk.

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Jerome Henry — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:27:41 GMT

Mm, Bill,

May I borrow your thread to congratulate Balaji for reaching top 5 ? I do not know if I can start a thread for this, as I didin't for Steven 2 weeks ago...

Tks !

Let's continue on sleeky Linux !
J

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Balaji N — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:47:17 GMT

thanks jerome. nice to see that people notice these stuff and congratulate.

working late? me, going to work through the night. checked out for the ITRC chat site but its down. else thought will chat with fellow forumers , if anyone is around.

thanks again and sorry for hijacking this thread.
-balaji

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Tony Contratto — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:40:14 GMT

Hi Bill,

According to the disk space requirements listed here:

http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-9-Manual/install-guide/s1-steps-partitioning.html

The disk space required for a minimal custom install of RedHat 9 is 475MB.

Also, I don't think that comparing disk space requirements for RedHat 9 to either HP-UX 9 or 10 is a fair comparison. If you read the HP-UX 11i Installation Guide, it clearly states that you should have a minimum of a 4GB root disk.

--
My $0.02
Tony

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Caesar_3 — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:44:52 GMT

Hello!

You get the 6GB because you install all the
packages that in the installation disks.
If you will install only what you need
you will reduce a lot of space.
If you install the minimal instalation of
RH9 it will be about 350MB

In the box of RH9 you have a lot of tools
that maybe you don't use them, a lot of
tools that to the same things.

Caesar

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Steven E. Protter — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:21:22 GMT

I'm doing an HP-UX 11.11 install on a D320 server right now, as I'm typing.

The install program was very happy to install everything in a 4 Gig disk, including 1 GB of swap. I expanded it, because this server is going to do some work for Merijn(I hope) but the install was very efficeint, Enterprise ready and ready to roll on a pretty old piece of hardware(you don't want to know about my hardware struggle!!!Ouch!).

As to Linux, if you want to do everything, then you need a lot of disk space. If however you define small specific purposes you can squeeze it into a very tiny space.

Lets say you want to dedicate the box to sendmail, and sendmail only. Don't install X Windows because you can do all you need with the command line. Install only those utilities you REALLY need and you can get it into a pretty small disk, even with a liberal filesystem for /home (mailboxes) and /var mail log.

Same thing if you decide, its only going to be a web server. You pare things down to what you really need.

Do you really need to do kernel development on a small specific purpose box? Maybe you just need the ability to recompile with a parameter or two changed.

Its better to do discreet installations of any Unix anyway. Any software on the machine, weather a deamon or command line program is a potential security risk. If its not there, the hacker can't use it.

SEP

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Balaji N — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:48:54 GMT

u made a valid point SEP.

run minimal services on a box as far as possible. and if it is going to be a production box, ensure that you split various services into different boxes. (say mail on one, web services on another, etc..)

helps you maintain the boxes easily and you dont run a risk of getting everything down at the same time.

-balaji

ps: SEP, installing 11.11 for Merijn. Just was on Merjin's site and saw a note that he needs a ssh access for offering his services of porting on 11.11. is it for that?

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Jerome Henry — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:59:41 GMT

So it's true Balaji, you're working all night !

Both last posts remind me Steven's one on Bill first one : practice servers, and I would add : jus install the one you practice. Now Bill, you're lucky, there is RHN with Red Hat, giving you the opportunity to keep your system up to date, so, secure AFA OS is concerned : all troubles can come from how you install...

(but who would like to attack you ?... :]

J

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Balaji N — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:48:07 GMT

hmm.. let me add..(though it might not make sense here).

RHN charges you if you have more than one system.

and i have seen a few people out here recommend apt-rpms. apt is the default package manager on Debian systems.

with aptrpm installed, and your sources configured properly,

you can just do an

apt-get install sendmail

and it will download the sendmail rpm from the sources and install it for you. and you dont need RHN at all.

when i get time, i am going to try this out.

-balaji

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

AlienRoadShow — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 21:37:18 GMT

OK, couple of comments here, SCSI vs. EIDE/IDE disk controllers. SCSI supports multiple disks where applications other than the O/S can launch. This is the typical HP-UX 9 and 10 architecture as well as the 'pre disk array' architecture. But as you all know EIDE/IDE are restricted to one master and one slave and are the PC standard.

So much for PC firmware and what a great argument for an old 715 work station with SCSI ports sold standard.

OK, because I am a LINUX newbie, and because I want to sample everything I need the LINUX server config and I guess that's the 6 GB requirement on an EIDE/IDE controller.

(* Oh boy. Latency hell. *)

But thanks to those who pointed out LINUX and GNU applications are like Windows and Office applications combined.

I guess all of those GNU M$ office opposites are sold apart of the LINUX O/S but aren't necessarily a part of the O/S.

Thanks again.

(* PS - Is it pronounced LYNIX, like Lynn-X, or is it pronounced LIE-NEX, like 'LIE-NEX'? *)

(* PSS - Hey, it that a PUN? :-) *)

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Bruce Copeland — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 22:22:48 GMT

Bill:

FWIW, I just loaded RH8 on a coworker's notebook with gnome, Open Office, a few basic development tools for kernel building, and both MySQL and PostgreSQL. Required about 1.7 Gbytes. That's very good compared to the 3+ Gbytes required for the equivalent Microsoft stuff (it's a dual boot system). It is not great compared to what we had for OS a few years back.

As for the linux pronunciation, you can find almost any variation used. The correct pronunciation is LEEnux--derived from the Norwegian pronunciation for Linus.

Bruce

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Balaji N — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 22:48:48 GMT

filched from LOST

####[ GNU/Linux One Stanza Tip (LOST) ]#######################

Sub : Pronouncing "LINUX" LOST #179

Well, it is something like "lih-nucks" .. You can hear it from
the horse's mouth (Linus himself) pronounce it at:
http://lost.sourceforge.net/linus_saying_linux.au

####[mallet (at) efn.org]#####################################

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

AlienRoadShow — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:22:28 GMT

LOL

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

Balaji N — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:47:41 GMT

for what?
hearing Linux say Linux!

Njoy.
-balaji (leaving home. good night! Its already morning here)