You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Topic closed
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
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"
Are you familiar with our Forum Rules, and How To Ask Questions The Smart Way?
BlueHackers // fscanary // resticctl
Offline
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
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
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
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.
-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
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
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
Oh. That was easy, we all get into details for nothing
Last edited by molom (2008-10-06 11:52:34)
Offline
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
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
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'?
Are you familiar with our Forum Rules, and How To Ask Questions The Smart Way?
BlueHackers // fscanary // resticctl
Offline
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'?
Yes. It's not 3 - 4, it's 2 or 3 and usually people would install just the binary packages, just like Debian.
Offline
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'?
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.
Even a chicken can install Debian, when you put enough grain on the enter key.
Offline
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
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 . What you do see (what I saw recently) is people allotting 100 GB to their / . 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 . 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
Yes. It's not 3 - 4, it's 2 or 3...
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.
...just like Debian.
This isn't Debian
Are you familiar with our Forum Rules, and How To Ask Questions The Smart Way?
BlueHackers // fscanary // resticctl
Offline
solarwind wrote:...just like Debian.
This isn't Debian
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
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
Pages: 1
Topic closed