On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 09:11:20PM -0500, Nathan Davis wrote: > Well, I recently installed a Redhat system that took less than 300 MB or disk > space. > Really, if you are going to say something, you should have something to base it > on. I'll mention here, that I work on redhat boxes for a living. :) yes, you can get a minimal redhat install in under 300MB. however, by the look of the few systems that I haven't installed via kickstart, in the last few years, it takes a lot of messing around and unselecting default packages, to get it down that far. (if you just take the defaults, it goes over 1GB right away). last time I tried to build a stripped RH install, was about the 6.1 days... I think with *everything* turned off (so it would install just the "base" packages that it required), it still installed 167MB of stuff. I wouldn't doubt that figure has grown at least a little in the intervening years. I know I've built a Slack 7.1 webserver in > 190MB, which had apache, mysql, perl, python, php, ssh, and the usual lot of networking tools. that's not to say that Redhat is a bad distro. it has it's purpose in the grand scheme of things. including all those packages is helpful to newbies who don't know what's available and what they can do with it. Redhat does a marvelous job for that. <dead horse action=beat> I think the prime place for Redhat is the corporate server room, and maybe the corporate desktop as well. the tested integrity of their distribution (something debian unstable doesn't have), balanced against the recentness of their packages (something debian stable doesn't have), is a good fit for the corporate environment, where stability is valued, but we still need the latest applications to compete with other camps' offerings. (Sun, M$, Apple, Novell) </dead horse> Carl Soderstrom. -- Network Engineer Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com