You are not logged in.

#1 2008-10-06 04:18:51

solarwind
Member
From: Toronto
Registered: 2008-03-18
Posts: 546

Arch Linux Size

Debian systems usually package things in different files for the same program. For example, one program can have a package for libs, bin, src, utils, etc. You install what you want only. But in Arch, I think you get everything when you specify a package. So, does this make for a larger system (in terms of disk space)? Is Arch suitable for a system low on disk space, or would Debian be a better fit?

Offline

#2 2008-10-06 04:53:54

fukawi2
Ex-Administratorino
From: .vic.au
Registered: 2007-09-28
Posts: 6,217
Website

Re: Arch Linux Size

Define "low-disk space" and what do you want to do with the system? If you just want to install the base and that's it, then you should be able to do that in under 600mb. If you want a fully fledged desktop with GUI, then it will come back to your definition of "low-disk space" smile

Offline

#3 2008-10-06 07:14:59

verve
Member
Registered: 2008-09-08
Posts: 30

Re: Arch Linux Size

The base system (ie default install) is more around the 400-350 mb mark. With minimal GUI (openbox/dwm/other except xmonad + openbox + firefox/opera + thunar + terminal + mousepad + openoffice) you're looking at 1.8gigs or so.

If your constraint is size, then performance is probably also a problem. Which is why in this case you should stick with CLI applications (except browser which should be kazehaze, dillo, or opera) regardless of the distro.

Last edited by verve (2008-10-06 07:15:29)

Offline

#4 2008-10-06 08:02:35

.:B:.
Forum Fellow
Registered: 2006-11-26
Posts: 5,819
Website

Re: Arch Linux Size

With present day multi-GB HDs and systems, I don't think there's really a  need to do what Debian does (and I can tell you a lot of Arch users won't like splitting out stuff like headers and stuff). Leave it all where it's supposed to be.

A system that's suitable for lower diskspace would exclude both Arch and Debian. Slack and derivates are the most viable candidates, apart from source-based distros which allow you to build your own system, thus leaving you to decide how lean it will be.


Got Leenucks? :: Arch: Power in simplicity :: Get Counted! Registered Linux User #392717 :: Blog thingy

Offline

#5 2008-10-06 08:07:12

molom
Member
From: Australia
Registered: 2008-01-21
Posts: 264
Website

Re: Arch Linux Size

B wrote:

With present day multi-GB HDs and systems, I don't think there's really a  need to do what Debian does (and I can tell you a lot of Arch users won't like splitting out stuff like headers and stuff). Leave it all where it's supposed to be.

A system that's suitable for lower diskspace would exclude both Arch and Debian. Slack and derivates are the most viable candidates, apart from source-based distros which allow you to build your own system, thus leaving you to decide how lean it will be.

Very true, there's a lot smaller Slackware derivatives opposed to Debian. Eg. Wolvix and Slax

Offline

#6 2008-10-06 08:33:26

dav7
Member
From: Australia
Registered: 2008-02-08
Posts: 674

Re: Arch Linux Size

And Crux.

Of course, there's always LFS. LFS lets you redefine your own definition of "low disk space" - the LFS docs note that you can fit an Apache install in 8MB, and that's without space considerations/optimizations!

A basic LFS install with a kernel (2-3MB), an X server (500KB-20MB), a toolkit (40MB-80MB) or two (180MB-250MB), Firefox (15MB) and a terminal (500KB-3MB) shouldn't set you back more than 300MB at the very most - that size could be reduced greatly.

But hey, Debian can be stuffed into a small amount of space - the N810 internet tablet runs OS200x (currently OS2008, as it's '08), a system based on Debian. The N810 has 250MB of internal memory. big_smile

-dav7

Last edited by dav7 (2008-10-06 08:34:27)


Windows was made for looking at success from a distance through a wall of oversimplicity. Linux removes the wall, so you can just walk up to success and make it your own.
--
Reinventing the wheel is fun. You get to redefine pi.

Offline

#7 2008-10-06 10:15:46

iphitus
Forum Fellow
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: 2004-10-09
Posts: 4,927

Re: Arch Linux Size

kernel + busybox + uclibc + mutt + lynx + snownews + vi + bastet (google it) = very small!

you could build that and put it in an initramfs, that'd be an awesome fallback ramfs.

Offline

#8 2008-10-06 11:24:38

solarwind
Member
From: Toronto
Registered: 2008-03-18
Posts: 546

Re: Arch Linux Size

1.8 Gigs? Not bad. That's pretty much the answer what I was looking for. Thanks all!
And today's flash disks don't come in terabyte sizes, please note.

Last edited by solarwind (2008-10-06 11:25:06)

Offline

#9 2008-10-06 11:49:50

molom
Member
From: Australia
Registered: 2008-01-21
Posts: 264
Website

Re: Arch Linux Size

Oh. That was easy, we all get into details for nothing lol

Last edited by molom (2008-10-06 11:52:34)

Offline

#10 2008-10-06 16:13:36

solarwind
Member
From: Toronto
Registered: 2008-03-18
Posts: 546

Re: Arch Linux Size

My question is, why didn't Arch Linux split up packages like Debian? It would allow for more organized installation but not distract from the "Arch philosophy".

Offline

#11 2008-10-06 16:51:29

verve
Member
Registered: 2008-09-08
Posts: 30

Re: Arch Linux Size

Arch philosophy means keep it as simple as possible, among other things. I don't feel mantaining this feature pays off when very few people are going to take advantage out of it.

Also, notice how most of arch packages are pretty much vanilla sans crucial patches.

Last edited by verve (2008-10-06 22:54:45)

Offline

#12 2008-10-06 20:58:16

fukawi2
Ex-Administratorino
From: .vic.au
Registered: 2007-09-28
Posts: 6,217
Website

Re: Arch Linux Size

solarwind wrote:

My question is, why didn't Arch Linux split up packages like Debian? It would allow for more organized installation but not distract from the "Arch philosophy".

Making 3 - 4 packages instead of 1, and having to install 3 - 4 packages, or maintain a Group to encompass those package, would be more 'Simple'? hmm

Offline

#13 2008-10-06 21:23:19

solarwind
Member
From: Toronto
Registered: 2008-03-18
Posts: 546

Re: Arch Linux Size

fukawi2 wrote:
solarwind wrote:

My question is, why didn't Arch Linux split up packages like Debian? It would allow for more organized installation but not distract from the "Arch philosophy".

Making 3 - 4 packages instead of 1, and having to install 3 - 4 packages, or maintain a Group to encompass those package, would be more 'Simple'? hmm

Yes. It's not 3 - 4, it's 2 or 3 and usually people would install just the binary packages, just like Debian.

Offline

#14 2008-10-06 21:38:08

meandean
Member
Registered: 2008-06-24
Posts: 67

Re: Arch Linux Size

fukawi2 wrote:
solarwind wrote:

My question is, why didn't Arch Linux split up packages like Debian? It would allow for more organized installation but not distract from the "Arch philosophy".

Making 3 - 4 packages instead of 1, and having to install 3 - 4 packages, or maintain a Group to encompass those package, would be more 'Simple'? hmm

My system would certainly be more 'simple' if I only had the package I needed rather than a bunch I did not.

If one package is simple then I guess ubuntu-desktop is as simple as it gets. smile


Even a chicken can install Debian, when you put enough grain on the enter key.

Offline

#15 2008-10-06 21:52:26

PJ
Member
From: Sweden
Registered: 2005-10-11
Posts: 602

Re: Arch Linux Size

I really hope that Archlinux will never split packages! It's much more developer friendly to have just one package that contains everything, less things that can go wrong when compiling against different libraries.

Offline

#16 2008-10-06 21:57:33

.:B:.
Forum Fellow
Registered: 2006-11-26
Posts: 5,819
Website

Re: Arch Linux Size

solarwind wrote:

1.8 Gigs? Not bad. That's pretty much the answer what I was looking for. Thanks all!
And today's flash disks don't come in terabyte sizes, please note.

I have an SSD (so essentially a flash disk), 32 GB. I think the people having TB disks are still a small minority wink. What you do see (what I saw recently) is people allotting 100 GB to their / roll. Which is, honestly, wasted GB's. Not some, a lot.

[stijn@hermes ~]$ df| grep -v shm
Bestandssysteem       Grtte Gebr Besch Geb% Aangekoppeld op
/dev/sda5             3,9G  2,1G  1,6G  58% /
/dev/sda6             2,0G  195M  1,8G  10% /var
/dev/sda7              25G   23G  753M  97% /home

My ~ is getting crammed, but a little management (and an external HD) can easily remedy that. /var could be sized down easily, too, but that would limit the space for package cache though smile. This has quite some stuff installed.

Last edited by B (2008-10-06 22:02:55)


Got Leenucks? :: Arch: Power in simplicity :: Get Counted! Registered Linux User #392717 :: Blog thingy

Offline

#17 2008-10-07 00:30:32

fukawi2
Ex-Administratorino
From: .vic.au
Registered: 2007-09-28
Posts: 6,217
Website

Re: Arch Linux Size

solarwind wrote:

Yes. It's not 3 - 4, it's 2 or 3...

solarwind wrote:

For example, one program can have a package for libs, bin, src, utils, etc.

Sorry - I haven't used Debian and just counted your original post which listed 3 - 4, assuming not every program has a -utils package.

solarwind wrote:

...just like Debian.

This isn't Debian wink

Offline

#18 2008-10-07 01:06:08

solarwind
Member
From: Toronto
Registered: 2008-03-18
Posts: 546

Re: Arch Linux Size

fukawi2 wrote:
solarwind wrote:

...just like Debian.

This isn't Debian wink

Yeah, I totally need reassurance or I wouldn't be able to sleep tonight.

Of course it isn't debian. Everyone borrows ideas from everyone else. Just because it's not Debian doesn't mean it can't have even one bit to do with it. I'm just questioning the packaging process. I think it could be improved. Putting unnecessary source code and wasting precious gigabytes of storage isn't the best idea.

Offline

#19 2008-10-07 01:14:40

Misfit138
Misfit Emeritus
From: USA
Registered: 2006-11-27
Posts: 4,189

Re: Arch Linux Size

Ok, closing down this bikeshed.
Frankly, I am rapidly losing my patience with some of the attitude around here as of late.
Forum etiquette is in my sig, be sure and peruse it before starting another bikeshed thread.
If you think the packaging can be improved, patches are welcome.

Closed.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB