Hacker News Reader

Comment by hhw | Hacker News Reader

From the op: "I enjoyed its minimal install to create a light environment, intuitive installation process, and it’s package manager."

CentOS is neither minimal nor light. Ubuntu also isn't either of these things. Both of these distributions are more targeted towards convenience and ease of use, which means a lot of features/services that are generally unnecessary are enabled by default. The main reasons to use CentOS is compatibility with proprietary software made for RHEL, Ubuntu for people already familiar with its desktop version, or if needing to buy enterprise support for either.

If the op is primarily looking for minimal and light, he should look at pretty much any other major popular Linux distribution like Debian proper, Slackware, or Gentoo before CentOS or Ubuntu.

View on HN

The minimal CentOS install is pretty lightweight. It's not a tiny distro by any means, but for keeping w/in the RHEL/CentOS realm, it's really pretty good. It's the only version that I install on servers, just to keep the excess cruft out (no X, no Gnome, no extra services, etc...).

There's still a whack of services that should be disabled on a server like rpc/nfs, bluetooth, avahi, etc (depending on 5.x/6.x/7.x) even if you go with a minimal install. Bloat aside, they can be security risks.

I just did an install of CentOS with the minimal setting, and I am amazed by the crap that is loaded up vs not loaded. Don't need sound, don't need IPv6, don't need wireless. The base install is missing stuff like nano, wget, network related tools like traceroute, and several other packages. Thankfully, bluetooth or CUPs wasn't in the list this time.

Ubuntu has "Ubuntu server" which is Ubuntu without X, GNOME and other desktop services.

In addition, there is Ubuntu Minimal (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD) which is the most minimal you can get in Ubuntu.

Yeah, this surprised me too, given the stated interest in a light-weight, server (no GUI) platform.

But we see this a lot - people jump onto Ubuntu despite not having an interest in running Unity, Mir, upstart, etc, or having a slightly fancier installer, or different schedule on release of stable / long term support versions.

I suspect it's simply that for many people unfamiliar with the various GNU/Linux distros, Ubuntu is the one they've heard of more often. And while most people marvel at the sophisticated package management system, few ponder why the package files don't have a .ubu suffix.

He installed Ubuntu Server, which does not have a graphical interface. Being "heard of more often" translates into the most up-to-date package manager, a well-known and long-term supported system, and wider software compatibility than any other distro, all great qualities for a server.

Yup!

Yes, you're right wrt the GUI. I'd kind of tangentially gone off about the 'I need a better GNU/Linux distro - I'll use a derivative of Debian' angle. I had a look for a package list for current Ubuntu Server LTS (now 20 months old) but couldn't find one. I expect it includes upstart, given the vintage. Nonetheless.

Could you please explain this reasoning:

  > Being "heard of more often" translates into the most up-to-date package manager

I think you're agreeing with me when I say Ubuntu is heard of more often, and you say it's well-known.

Support -- have you compared the length of support for Debian stable and Ubuntu LTS releases? Did you conclude that Ubuntu has long-term support and Debian does not?

Can you also explain what you mean by:

  > [Ubuntu has] wider software compatibility than any other distro

I'd be curious what software runs on Ubuntu that doesn't run on, Debian, CentOS/RHEL, etc.

The real package manager itself comes upstream from Debian; Ubuntu just normally puts fragile GUIs around it. Most of the positives for Ubuntu come from Debian. The Ubuntu specific stuff on the other hand sometimes breaks core functionality like booting off software RAID being broken in 12.x, which has worked fine in Debian for at least a decade.

Generally speaking, a server environment is not the right place to run bleeding edge software. Debian's conservatism is quite sensible when it comes to production server environments, and traditionally (before the whole systemd debacle) they were pretty good at prioritizing stability over the feature of the week demanded by more desktop-centric folks. There's Ubuntu and other derivatives that can cater to their specific needs without compromising the integrity of the distribution in general. And if you have a specific application that requires a more recent version, you can always make use of a 3rd party repository (that you'd of course have carefully vetted first), a binary package, or just rolling your own from source. It makes much more sense to take those extra steps for specific applications than take a blanket approach to rolling out new code all over your production environment.

I had a different takeaway from that particular line. Maybe I'm understanding it wrong.

For many years I would craft a system from the Ubuntu minimal install. It appears CentOS has a similar installer.[0] With Ubuntu's one could create a pretty good minimal install.

[0] https://www.centos.org/download/

That was my intention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com