I also feel there needs to be a server profile. This is coming from someone who personally uses Gentoo, and there is nothing better than installing a system and being able to count on both hands and feet the number of packages that were installed. I keep reading on this list that everyone uses kickstart, but I am yet to see an actual kickstart file that people are using. Is there a decent whitepaper, blogpost, or something that just delivers a basic server profile? Thanks for the info.
Jonathan On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:34 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In general I'm usually taking about standalones, but VMs are a great >> example of where this is useful. Unfortunately VMs tend to be a good place >> for using kickstarts. Actually I take that back. Since with a Virtual I >> can install and copy, not having to do a kickstart is very useful there as >> well. Thats what I don't understand. Why is there a perception that >> having a clean and small base server install from the leading Enterprise >> Linux vendor without a custom installation process via kickstart is such a >> bad concept? >> > > I think it has to do with percentages. 60% of all system admins do not > want to sit through a long graphical install just to have to sit > through it again because they biffed a screen somewhere. Having to sit > in a server room and do a click through at 2am in the morning when I > can just have the box pxe boot or use EdBrown's kickstart collection > means more time that I have to fix other problems and less likely I > will say that this system is 1.2 gigs in / when I mean 12gb. So it > becomes what fits the use case for most people. The ones who want to > do a graphical install are usually going to be adding stuff that isnt > in a default or trying to figure out what size / should be. That describes some customers but there are a whole lot of customers left out. The bottom line is that the default packages for a basic server are considered to be lame by many people as this discussion demonstrates. I can't say it hasn't always been that way and I've made my unhappiness with it known for years ... so at some point we try again, then we give up again and wait for another opening. Why in the world there is a default that *everyone* is expected to change using kickstart is just beyond my ability to comprehend. Even using kickstart my preference would be for the typical end user to not have to wade through hundreds or thousands of packages. An empty %packages section should give a sane default. > I know that on the CentOS side, its another chain that has to be qa'd > and tested every time there is a new spin or update... and they only > do a cursory run through. The RHEL side has a long set of tests for > every platform. So every combination adds more tests. Anything outside > of what is a solution for 60% gets cut out to lower costs and make > more time for other items that aren't being tested as well as > customers want. Well, this is another whole can of worms. When up2date and yum arrive broken in a new point release I'm not very likely to accept QA costs as a justification for anything. John _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list rhelv5-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
