General

Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

 
SOLVED
Go to solution
AlienRoadShow
Frequent Advisor

Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

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?
Yours, Mine and Yours
29 REPLIES 29
Jerome Henry
Honored Contributor
Solution

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

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
You can lean only on what resists you...
AlienRoadShow
Frequent Advisor

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

What is "...Maybe to look like m$ ?... ..."
Yours, Mine and Yours
Balaji N
Honored Contributor

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

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
Its Always Important To Know, What People Think Of You. Then, Of Course, You Surprise Them By Giving More.
Balaji N
Honored Contributor

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

to give you the polished look offered by Microsoft Windows, if i get it correct.
-balaji
Its Always Important To Know, What People Think Of You. Then, Of Course, You Surprise Them By Giving More.
Jerome Henry
Honored Contributor

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

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
You can lean only on what resists you...
Gregory Fruth
Esteemed Contributor

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

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.

Jerome Henry
Honored Contributor

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

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
You can lean only on what resists you...
Balaji N
Honored Contributor

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

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
Its Always Important To Know, What People Think Of You. Then, Of Course, You Surprise Them By Giving More.
Tony Contratto
Respected Contributor

Re: Is LINUX really that sleek and efficient?

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
got root?