On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 18:35 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Tim wrote:
> > Gordon Messmer:
> >
> >>>>What's htdig got to do with pie charts?
> >
> >
> > Tim:
> >
> >>>Nothing, it was part of another conversation: A minimal, headless,
> >>>X-less, server installation installing graphical library files.
> >
> >
> > Gordon Messmer:
> >
> >>Oh. Sorry, I missed some connection. To address that, then:
> >>
> >># rpm -q --whatrequires `rpm -q --provides libpng` | grep -v '^no '
> >>cups-libs-1.1.22-0.rc1.9.11
> >># rpm -q --whatrequires `rpm -q --provides cups-libs` | grep -v '^no '
> >>cups-1.1.22-0.rc1.9.11
> >># rpm -q --whatrequires `rpm -q --provides cups` | grep -v '^no '
> >>redhat-lsb-3.0-8.EL
> >>
> >>So, there you go. "libpng" is needed by cups. "cups" is needed for
> >>LSB conformance. That's why you have graphics libraries on a headless
> >>server.
> >
> >
> > But CUPS isn't *needed* on a PC. Sure, you might want it if you're
> > printing. But there's going to be a plethora of boxes that don't need
> > to print. A headless HTTP server, or mail server, or new server, etc.,
> > just being some of them. They won't need to print, or be printed to.
>
> CUPS isn't necessary to print, either. It is a convenient solution,
> but others exist.
>
> > Requiring CUPS is a bogus requirement. Maybe CUPS should be a
> > requirement if you're including printing support, but it shouldn't be,
> > otherwise.
>
> Possibly. Other print solutions exist.
>
> > CUPS, being just one example of this mentality. We could "require"
> > BIND, because Linux does need to resolve hostnames, but we don't (don't
> > require *it* as the solution).
>
> Exactly. OTOH, trying to make everything work with every possible print
> driver is not necessarily a good goal.
>
> > Some people, and I don't mean you, but those putting together what they
> > think is a minimal install list, have a strange idea about what minimal
> > and required actually mean.
>
> I suppose a "minimal required system" would be the kernel, the init
> RAM disc, and tmpfs for /tmp. Not a very usable system. But when
> you go beyond this, then you get into "minimal required to do <x>"
> where <x> is some desired function. Everyone seems to have a different
> set of <x> to put into there. I don't know of any objective means
> to ascertain what <x> must contain.
>
> > But disregarding minimalism, there's still plenty of situations where a
> > rather extensive installation won't need various things considered to be
> > "required", but actually aren't. And that bloats out installations to
> > the point that we needlessly have to get multi-gigabyte hard drives to
> > do moderately basic installations.
>
> I was amazed when I installed FC2. I didn't think I selected
> all that much to install. It was about 7 Gig.
>
> All systems seem enormously bloated to me these days. But I
> started with computers when 4K of RAM was considered a lot.
>
> Mike
> --
> p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
> This message made from 100% recycled bits.
> You have found the bank of Larn.
> I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
> I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
>
If you can't do it with 12bits and 4K what's the point.
If you haven't used paper tape, how do you realize what a program really
is?
