Article idea, "Getting Small"?

Sorry for the long (6 week!) delay on this. For background,
here's the
original thread:

    http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jsp
a?threadID=7047&tstart=0

I'm also cross-posting this message to appliances-discuss
and sysadmin-discuss.

So I did my first draft on Saturday and put it on the
Genunix Wiki.
Anyone is welcome to log in and changes/additions, no matter
how big or small:

    http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/User:Ericb/Ge
ttingSmall

Note, Because I think this document should leverage reuse as
much as is
reasonable, it will likely be a lot shorter than people
(including me)
may have originally expected. Q: Do really short documents
that use
make heavy use of external links still qualify as candidates
for the
Content Project?

Eric
_______________________________________________
appliances-discuss mailing list
appliances-discussopensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/appl
iances-discuss

> Note, Because I think this document should leverage
reuse as much as is
> reasonable, it will likely be a lot shorter than people
(including me)
> may have originally expected. Q: Do really short
documents that use
> make heavy use of external links still qualify as
candidates for the
> Content Project?
as long as the external links are stable, I think it's ok

nacho
_______________________________________________
appliances-discuss mailing list
appliances-discussopensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/appl
iances-discuss

On May 8 2006, I wrote:

>... For background, here's the original thread:
>
>    http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jsp
a?threadID=7047&tstart=0
>
>...
>  
>
>So I did my first draft on Saturday and put it on the
Genunix Wiki.
>Anyone is welcome to log in and changes/additions, no
matter how big or small:
>
>    http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/User:Ericb/Ge
ttingSmall
>
>...
>  
>

Over the weekend I was playing with this some more...

To recap, the idea of this document is twofold:

a.) To make it easy to conceive custom, light-weight desktop
    implementations such as Xfce and Fluxbox.

b.) In the process, test and document how to build stripped
    down, custom Solaris Express implementations such as
    dedicated server appliances.

What hit me is that in order to be viable these days, any
desktop implementation needs Firefox, and that Firefox
is based on GNOME (GTK+) libraries, Glib, Pango, ATK,
et al. So what does this have to do with this document?
Well, in addition to the set of packages needed to get
X running[1], all the packages that Firefox needs (lots of
them) are also required. So here's a copy of that set. In
specific, this set is intended to comprise the additional
packages that Firefox depends on, but not to include
any superfluous packages:

http://blogs.sun.com/roller/resources/er
ic_boutilier/neededbyFirefox.txt

The Firefox build that I used to come up with this set is
this one here (the GTK2 build):

http://releases.mo
zilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/1.5.0.3/contrib/s
olaris_tar_ball/

--Eric


[1] This set is documented, here:
    http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/Use
r:Ericb/GettingSmall#Procedure

_______________________________________________
appliances-discuss mailing list
appliances-discussopensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/appl
iances-discuss

Eric Boutilier wrote:
> 
> What hit me is that in order to be viable these days,
any
> desktop implementation needs Firefox, and that Firefox
> is based on GNOME (GTK+) libraries, Glib, Pango, ATK,
> et al. So what does this have to do with this document?
> Well, in addition to the set of packages needed to get
> X running[1], all the packages that Firefox needs (lots
of
> them) are also required. So here's a copy of that set.
In
> specific, this set is intended to comprise the
additional
> packages that Firefox depends on, but not to include
> any superfluous packages:

I'll assert w/o proof that any desktop that needs firefox
&
gnome isn't small, and the utility of stripping things out
of
a end-user desktop is minimal at best.

I just installed Solaris 10 build 39 (all + oem) on a little
via box.  I could have used a 4G microdrive and had
500 M left over.

It has staroffice, java, etc, compilers (gcc), everything
that might be needed.

The fact that this box has a 40G laptop drive means I have
lots of space left over.... and this is a _tiny_ drive.

Why minimize?

-= Bart

-- 
Bart Smaalders			Solaris Kernel Performance
bartscyber.eng.sun.com		http://blogs.sun.com/barts

_______________________________________________
appliances-discuss mailing list
appliances-discussopensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/appl
iances-discuss

Bart Smaalders wrote:

> Eric Boutilier wrote:
>
>>
>> What hit me is that in order to be viable these
days, any
>> desktop implementation needs Firefox, and that
Firefox
>> is based on GNOME (GTK+) libraries, Glib, Pango,
ATK,
>> et al. So what does this have to do with this
document?
>> Well, in addition to the set of packages needed to
get
>> X running[1], all the packages that Firefox needs
(lots of
>> them) are also required. So here's a copy of that
set. In
>> specific, this set is intended to comprise the
additional
>> packages that Firefox depends on, but not to
include
>> any superfluous packages:
>
>
> I'll assert w/o proof that any desktop that needs
firefox &
> gnome isn't small...


Yes, but I meant not GNOME, but rather a subset of the same
GUI 
libraries that GNOME happens to also use. E.g. if viewed in
the context 
of the JDS consolidation, a small subset of it.

Eric

_______________________________________________
appliances-discuss mailing list
appliances-discussopensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/appl
iances-discuss

Eric Boutilier wrote:
> Bart Smaalders wrote:
> 
>> Eric Boutilier wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What hit me is that in order to be viable these
days, any
>>> desktop implementation needs Firefox, and that
Firefox
>>> is based on GNOME (GTK+) libraries, Glib,
Pango, ATK,
>>> et al. So what does this have to do with this
document?
>>> Well, in addition to the set of packages needed
to get
>>> X running[1], all the packages that Firefox
needs (lots of
>>> them) are also required. So here's a copy of
that set. In
>>> specific, this set is intended to comprise the
additional
>>> packages that Firefox depends on, but not to
include
>>> any superfluous packages:
>>
>>
>> I'll assert w/o proof that any desktop that needs
firefox &
>> gnome isn't small...
> 
> 
> Yes, but I meant not GNOME, but rather a subset of the
same GUI 
> libraries that GNOME happens to also use. E.g. if
viewed in the context 
> of the JDS consolidation, a small subset of it.
> 
> Eric
> 

Ok, but seriously, why minimize a user desktop?

I understand if you're building a network appliance w/
limited
memory or some sort of embedded controller, but desktops
tend
to grow... and there's nothing more irritating than hunting
up
and installing software you could have put there to begin
with....


- Bart



-- 
Bart Smaalders			Solaris Kernel Performance
bartscyber.eng.sun.com		http://blogs.sun.com/barts

_______________________________________________
appliances-discuss mailing list
appliances-discussopensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/appl
iances-discuss

Bart Smaalders wrote:

> Eric Boutilier wrote:
>
>> Bart Smaalders wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Boutilier wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What hit me is that in order to be viable
these days, any
>>>> desktop implementation needs Firefox, and
that Firefox
>>>> is based on GNOME (GTK+) libraries, Glib,
Pango, ATK,
>>>> et al. So what does this have to do with
this document?
>>>> Well, in addition to the set of packages
needed to get
>>>> X running[1], all the packages that Firefox
needs (lots of
>>>> them) are also required. So here's a copy
of that set. In
>>>> specific, this set is intended to comprise
the additional
>>>> packages that Firefox depends on, but not
to include
>>>> any superfluous packages:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll assert w/o proof that any desktop that
needs firefox &
>>> gnome isn't small...
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, but I meant not GNOME, but rather a subset of
the same GUI 
>> libraries that GNOME happens to also use. E.g. if
viewed in the 
>> context of the JDS consolidation, a small subset of
it.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>
> Ok, but seriously, why minimize a user desktop?
>
> I understand if you're building a network appliance w/
limited
> memory or some sort of embedded controller, but
desktops tend
> to grow... and there's nothing more irritating than
hunting up
> and installing software you could have put there to
begin
> with....
>
>

My view is that I'm pretty sure that the _extent_ to which
it could be 
smaller is significant enough, and that, done properly, the
hunting 
would be no worse; therefore, I think it's worth it. The
target audience 
are the same type of users who have made the Damn Small
Linux desktop 
distro so popular.

Eric
_______________________________________________
appliances-discuss mailing list
appliances-discussopensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/appl
iances-discuss

On Tue, 16 May 2006, Bart Smaalders wrote:

>
> It has staroffice, java, etc, compilers (gcc),
everything
> that might be needed.
>
> The fact that this box has a 40G laptop drive means I
have
> lots of space left over.... and this is a _tiny_ drive.
>
> Why minimize?
>
> -= Bart

I can think of a few reasons to minimize, and it is not just
space.  All 
of that extra software can be a liability, in the sense of
security.  For 
a standard developer desktop it might not matter (I actually
agree with 
you there) but for secure servers or kiosks it is a big deal
to minimize. 
Why have all software that someone potetially take advantage
of?  The more 
software you have on the system the more likely one of those
things has a 
vulnerabilty.

Bill
rushmores.net
_______________________________________________
appliances-discuss mailing list
appliances-discussopensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/appl
iances-discuss

The openwin desktop environment is a nice/small/lightweight
desktop environment 
to work in.  And the Linux people even used this environment
for a while.

Jerry K


Eric Boutilier wrote:

>> Lots of stuff deleted here
>>
> 
> My view is that I'm pretty sure that the _extent_ to
which it could be 
> smaller is significant enough, and that, done properly,
the hunting 
> would be no worse; therefore, I think it's worth it.
The target audience 
> are the same type of users who have made the Damn Small
Linux desktop 
> distro so popular.
> 
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-discuss mailing list
> desktop-discussopensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
appliances-discuss mailing list
appliances-discussopensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/appl
iances-discuss

Bart Smaalders wrote:
> I just installed Solaris 10 build 39 (all + oem) on a
little
> via box.  I could have used a 4G microdrive and had
> 500 M left over.
> 
> It has staroffice, java, etc, compilers (gcc),
everything
> that might be needed.
> 
> The fact that this box has a 40G laptop drive means I
have
> lots of space left over.... and this is a _tiny_ drive.
> 
> Why minimize?

Because 'might be needed' is far from 'what i need right
now'. It also 
saves you having to download 3 or 4 CDs, or 1 large DVD when
you want to 
install Solaris.

I think there's definite merit in getting the best bits of
a 
distribution onto a single CD - look at Ubuntu, and the
consequences of 
that for http://shipit.ubuntu.com. Solaris definitely has lessons to 
learn in this regard.


Glynn
_______________________________________________
appliances-discuss mailing list
appliances-discussopensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/appl
iances-discuss