<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Mike McGrath <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mmcgrath@redhat.com">mmcgrath@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Sun, 28 Feb 2010, Jeremy Katz wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Peter Robinson <<a href="mailto:pbrobinson@gmail.com">pbrobinson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > I agree with most of the above but I don't really see that this, AOS or a<br>
> > minimal (minimum?) install should be any different, and even the Amazon<br>
> > image should only add EC2 stuff on top of that so should be able to include<br>
> > this .ks and add a few pacakges and what ever scripting is needed for the<br>
> > ec2 images.<br>
><br>
> The problem with the whole AOS/jeos/minimal OS idea is that it's a<br>
> race to the bottom. There's this whole sub-culture of "let's see just<br>
> how tiny we can make it because *clearly* it's easier to add things<br>
> than remove them" when the end result of that is just a kernel and a<br>
> shell.<br>
><br>
> I don't know, I just don't find that interesting or useful[1]. I'd<br>
> rather actually have utilities and the things I'd expect to find on a<br>
> Fedora system and not have to play games downloading packages for ages<br>
> and paying the bandwidth charges to do so as well.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>I'm kind of with you on that. I don't think the smallest / tiniest<br>
footprint is as important as a known starting point. The funny thing is<br>
that anything beyond that is more subjective. The example I'd give is<br>
what editor to include, vim/emacs or joe.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Definately pico ..... just joking!</div><div><br></div><div>I agree with that you don't want it too small. It needs to be usable. But I also don't see the point in installing say a 'http' service where it could easily be used as a db node or whatever. All the other base utils for IP, networking, editing, package mangement, NAS drives etc should be there but someone wanting to use it as a DB server shouldn't have to remove something. Once that bit is worked out the only difference between the base 'virtual server' image and say that of a EC2 image should be the tools that EC2 need.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Peter</div></div>