Slimming down Slackware - Slackware

This is a discussion on Slimming down Slackware - Slackware ; On Jun 19, 3:53 pm, Robby Workman wrote: > whoami(1) will advise the name of the dependency resolver in Slackware. OK I don't mind working with him. > You might find ldd(1) useful as well. Thanks, I've already run ldd ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: Slimming down Slackware

  1. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    On Jun 19, 3:53 pm, Robby Workman wrote:

    > whoami(1) will advise the name of the dependency resolver in Slackware.

    OK I don't mind working with him.

    > You might find ldd(1) useful as well.

    Thanks, I've already run ldd against all the executables in the path
    to gather a dependancy
    list to compare to the output of 'ldconfig -p' but was thinking,
    'Surely there's an easier way.'
    I appreciate your input,
    Mike




  2. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    On Jun 20, 5:32 am, "Martha Adams" wrote:
    > "Damn Small Linux" and "Puppy Linux". To find these,


    Thanks Martha, I have a 'DSL' CD but can't get it to install and have
    no use for a CD only
    distro. I'll take a look at 'Puppy'.
    Don't let the few ill mannered posters here get to you.
    As in the rest of the world, the jerks are still in the minority.
    Enjoy,
    Mike


  3. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    On 2007-06-20, Martha Adams wrote:
    > I think Mike at this thread's top, has a very good point.
    > There is just too much *stuff* out there. But working down
    > this thread I see responses signaling an unfortunate
    > and careless lack of concern by several responders to
    > effect that if you don't think like they do, if you don't want
    > or have skills and time to weed through a regular jungle of
    > stuff, then you're beneath contempt (and they are
    > certainly far superior to stupid *you*.)



    I don't know if you're referring to me, but if so, you're
    wrong. I certainly don't think the OP is stupid or "beneath
    contempt" or anything along those lines. He may or may not
    be either and/or both of those, but I have no evidence to
    support a conclusion one way or the other. I do know this:
    my advice was correct. It might not have been what you or
    he or anyone else wanted to hear, but it was nonetheless
    correct. The other alternatives (assuming the OP plans to
    continue to use Slackware) are for him to either find some
    third-party project that claims to bolt-on some sort of
    dependency checking (even though there are no bolt holes)
    and take that risk, or for him to experiment on his own and
    figure it all out. There's no way that anyone here or
    elsewhere can tell him what his system does and does not need.


    > I think this attitude helps nobody and that it hurts the
    > general adoption of Linux, a badly-needed alternative to
    > Microsoft's monopoly.



    I think you're wrong. I think this prevailing mentality of
    "let's make linux easy for new users" is hurting the overall
    state of linux. Instead of attracting users who actually
    enjoy learning and problem solving and such (users who will
    later be able to *actually* help linux development), we're
    attracting the lowest common denominator.


    > However, not mentioned in this thread, is the existence
    > today of a variety of *small* Linuxes...



    No, the OP asked about Slackware, so we didn't mention any
    other distributions in alt.os.linux.slackware.


    > SNIP It doesn't seem as helpful as I'd hope for
    > those who do not want massive distributions to mention
    > their need here: it gives some responders a (needed)
    > opportunity to flash their superiority.



    It seems that superiority wasn't the only thing flashed...

    RW

  4. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:23:06 -0700, Mike
    wrote:

    >Slackware installed lots of things I have no use for such as sound,
    >CDrecord, several editors I don't use, etc. Even though I tried for a
    >minimul install I've removed more than 100 unneeded packages but
    >when it comes to the libs things get a little complicated.
    >If there's any dependancy info available on the system I've yet to
    >find it.
    >Pointers?
    >
    >Debian has a utility called deborphan that searches the system and
    >tells me what libs are installed that no packages depend on.
    >Is there such a utility for Slackware?
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Mike


    If you have some disk space left (about 200MB will do), you could
    install ZIP-Slack. It's not complete but cannot be complete as it only
    takes about 100MB. But you can start it and can see what is installed.
    Then you install the same packages in your main computer and if you
    miss something, simply install it. That way you don't end up with tons
    of things you never use and you don't have an overflowding lib
    directory.

    greatings,
    Charles Collette


  5. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    Hi, Mike. Actually, you may have use for a CD-only Linux,
    but you haven't needed it yet. An example would be at
    the Defcon in Las Vegas, which is said to feature the
    world's most hostile network.

    I've a couple of DSLs here which I have not tried to
    install. I have never tried Puppy Linux but some people
    I've seen on my screen, have spoken highly of it. If
    I download an iso image, I check my copy vs the
    reported md5 checksum. It usually passes, but even
    so that does not mean my copy will run in my machine
    here.

    My work is text work: fiction, nonfiction. I need a basic
    command-line OS with a good editor (emacs preferrred)
    and a formatter (nroff does all I need). The amazing
    elaborations since are useless for me, and worse,
    because they almost always appear in such a context
    that you *must* use them. It is a terrible time waste
    for me, and I suspect, for very many other people. It
    remains true, that people still think principally in their
    heads not in their machines; and so the modern
    elaboration returns no improvement, but rather, a
    loss.

    Cheers -- Martha Adams [alt.os.linux.slackware
    2007 Jun 21]


    "Mike" wrote in message
    news:1182388352.813335.179240@z28g2000prd.googlegr oups.com...
    > On Jun 20, 5:32 am, "Martha Adams" wrote:
    >> "Damn Small Linux" and "Puppy Linux". To find these,

    >
    > Thanks Martha, I have a 'DSL' CD but can't get it to install and have
    > no use for a CD only
    > distro. I'll take a look at 'Puppy'.
    > Don't let the few ill mannered posters here get to you.
    > As in the rest of the world, the jerks are still in the minority.
    > Enjoy,
    > Mike
    >



  6. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    Charles Collette (collette@no-spam-xs4all.nl) writes:
    > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:23:06 -0700, Mike
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Slackware installed lots of things I have no use for such as sound,
    >>CDrecord, several editors I don't use, etc. Even though I tried for a
    >>minimul install I've removed more than 100 unneeded packages but
    >>when it comes to the libs things get a little complicated.
    >>If there's any dependancy info available on the system I've yet to
    >>find it.
    >>Pointers?
    >>
    >>Debian has a utility called deborphan that searches the system and
    >>tells me what libs are installed that no packages depend on.
    >>Is there such a utility for Slackware?
    >>
    >>Thanks,
    >>Mike

    >
    > If you have some disk space left (about 200MB will do), you could
    > install ZIP-Slack. It's not complete but cannot be complete as it only
    > takes about 100MB. But you can start it and can see what is installed.
    > Then you install the same packages in your main computer and if you
    > miss something, simply install it. That way you don't end up with tons
    > of things you never use and you don't have an overflowding lib
    > directory.
    >

    That's another way of approaching it. The original poster didn't like
    the choices of what Slackware installed, even when he told it to do a less
    than full install. I suspect, he chose the wrong install "mode", I admit
    that when I recently installed Slack 11 it wasn't so obvious about what
    was what. So when you hand over to the installer all control, then you're
    stuck with what it puts on the hard drive, and what to remove is not so
    obvious.

    I suspect, like a lot of things, going in can be daunting, and instead
    of tracking down what's what, or making some false installs to see what's
    what, ie learning through experience, it is easier to check the box and
    let Slackware decide. Installation doesn't take very long, yet to try
    the other "modes" of install are just so much clutter when you do have
    the space. I sure can't name the different "modes", let alone offer up
    which one would allow for the most minimal install.

    Michael


  7. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    I sure can't name the different "modes", let alone
    > offer up which one would allow for the most minimal install.
    >
    > Michael


    'Expert' install is what I usually choose, it gives you a certain degree
    of control and is sufficient for me to slim it down to more or less what
    I want. Of course some more programs are removed and others installed
    later on. libs? Don't bother with that. I just don't install KDE to have
    a slim(ish) system.


    --
    B.Hoffmann

  8. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:25:03 -0500, Charles Collette wrote:

    > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:23:06 -0700, Mike
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Slackware installed lots of things I have no use for such as sound,
    >>CDrecord, several editors I don't use, etc. Even though I tried for a
    >>minimul install I've removed more than 100 unneeded packages but when it
    >>comes to the libs things get a little complicated. If there's any
    >>dependancy info available on the system I've yet to find it.
    >>Pointers?
    >>
    >>Debian has a utility called deborphan that searches the system and tells
    >>me what libs are installed that no packages depend on. Is there such a
    >>utility for Slackware?
    >>
    >>Thanks,
    >>Mike

    >
    > If you have some disk space left (about 200MB will do), you could
    > install ZIP-Slack. It's not complete but cannot be complete as it only
    > takes about 100MB. But you can start it and can see what is installed.
    > Then you install the same packages in your main computer and if you miss
    > something, simply install it. That way you don't end up with tons of
    > things you never use and you don't have an overflowding lib directory.
    >
    > greatings,
    > Charles Collette



    How about 'Slax'? Great Slackware based live-cd. One could start with
    that, remove KDE and add other stuff needed. That should be sufficiently
    small? Of course if you want the K...

    --
    B.Hoffmann

  9. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    "B.Hoffmann" (claptrap@notpersonal.org) writes:
    > I sure can't name the different "modes", let alone
    >> offer up which one would allow for the most minimal install.
    >>
    >> Michael

    >
    > 'Expert' install is what I usually choose, it gives you a certain degree
    > of control and is sufficient for me to slim it down to more or less what
    > I want. Of course some more programs are removed and others installed
    > later on. libs? Don't bother with that. I just don't install KDE to have
    > a slim(ish) system.
    >

    But in this case, my point was that you've started the installer, and
    you're wondering "what if I check that box instead of that box" and then
    you think "wait, maybe that will require too much of me, I'll just
    check the 'install everything'". It's one of those things that are
    obvious once you've crossed the barrier, but until you try it, you're
    hesitant, so you back off.

    If I took the time, carve out a partition and just try the different
    modes for the sake of trying them, the differences would be far
    mroe apparent than before I did that. Because then it would not
    be an unknown, it would be somewhat familiar.

    This is one of the keys to moving into a different space, realizing
    that something looks like a big cliff when first approaching it, but
    then when you've gotten up there and look down, it's a much lower
    height.

    Michael


  10. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:14:40 +0000, Michael Black wrote:

    > "B.Hoffmann" (claptrap@notpersonal.org) babbled:


    >> 'Expert' install is what I usually choose,

    ..
    >>

    > But in this case, my point was that you've started the installer, and
    > you're wondering "what if I check that box instead of that box" and then
    > you think "wait, maybe that will require too much of me, I'll just check
    > the 'install everything'". It's one of those things that are obvious
    > once you've crossed the barrier, but until you try it, you're hesitant,
    > so you back off.
    >
    > Michael


    Ah right. Don't be afraid to learn though, it's fun.


    --
    B.Hoffmann

  11. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:38:00 +0000, B.Hoffmann wrote:

    > How about 'Slax'? Great Slackware based live-cd. One could start with
    > that, remove KDE and add other stuff needed. That should be sufficiently
    > small? Of course if you want the K...


    Slax Frodo Edition already leaves out KDE and X too. About 50 MB.

    You can find it at

    http://www.slax.org/download.php

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2