neoshock wrote to All <=-
I switched over to a newer version of Turnkey Linux, but now I'm
curious: what's the best distro out there for running containers? Performance-wise, resource usage, ease of management. What do you folks think?
- Archlinux: A rolling release that feels future-proof. Plus, the AUR gives me tons of flexibility.
So, what's your setup? Which distro do you swear by for containers? Drop your thoughts below!
So, what's your setup? Which distro do you swear by for containers? Drop your thoughts below!
For LXC in particular I tend to favor Devuan because it offers a
Debian-like base - so third party services you bolt on it are likely
to run - without carrying the bad babbage Debian has been
accumulating as of late.
This is news to me, as I don't read up on every distro I don't use. What bad baggage is Debian accumulating as of late?
Debian has been operating as a political institution since more or
less the systemd migration. But then I think the systemd migration
itself was very badly handled. I remember meeting some people from
the Debian ecosystem back in the day and celebrating they had kicked
those "fuckers" when some developers and packagers left over it.
You'd think they were happy they were losing manpower.
Add to this that Linux distributions in general are starting to suck
because they are starting to windowsize. Debian is not an exception.
I am not a Devuan fan, exactly, but I can use it as a drop-in
replacement for most tasks I would have used Debian in the past and
its default configuration comes with a bit less overhead. And with no systemd.
Accession wrote to Arelor <=-
Huh. I had no idea any of that was going on. However, I do remember
Debian being one of the first to switch to systemd fully, just didn't
know it became a political thing (I guess the better question is, what _doesn't_ become political these days?). Thanks for the explanation!
There's the few that have always been 'windowsized', but most have kept
a pretty basic install (netboot, non-gui, whatever you want to call
it). They leave it up to the user to add all the frill they want to it, and most users want the frill. You can argue that till your face turns blue, but that's honestly the only reason Linux has gained (albeit not very much) the traction it has over the years. Otherwise, people would still *only* be using Linux as servers, to this day.
I am not a Devuan fan, exactly, but I can use it as a drop-in
replacement for most tasks I would have used Debian in the past and
its default configuration comes with a bit less overhead. And with no systemd.
I still like having a low-end window manager to be able to have
multiple xterms running...
I thought devuan was just a non-GPL free version of Debian? Or was that Trisquel?
I still like having a low-end window manager to be able to have multiple
xterms running...
Things like screen or tmux can do the same in a Linux console (multiple sessions, even multiple sessions windowed on one screen). Heck, even nano an vi(m) editors have a 'multibuffer' option to have multiple file buffers. You just have to use a hotkey of some sort to switch between them.
I thought it's main focus was 'Debian without systemd', as in it still uses sysvinit.. but I could be wrong.
Things like screen or tmux can do the same in a Linux console
(multiple sessions, even multiple sessions windowed on one screen).
Heck, even nano an vi(m) editors have a 'multibuffer' option to have
multiple file buffers. You just have to use a hotkey of some sort to
switch between them.
I have been playing with tmux lately - I wish I'd known about it when
I was managing 130 Linux AWS instances!
I thought it's main focus was 'Debian without systemd', as in it
still uses sysvinit.. but I could be wrong.
Devuan is debian without systemd, Trisquel is the all-free Linux
distro. You were right.
Accession wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Devuan is debian without systemd, Trisquel is the all-free Linux
distro. You were right.
I'm not sure what "all-free" means these days, to be honest. I thought Debian went "all-free" a long time ago, getting rid of proprietary software and drivers and instead using free open-source stuff. That was
a while ago, though, so maybe things have changed.. or the definition
of "all-free" doesn't mean what I think it does any more. :)
I think it's mostly focused on free drivers - although for the
longest time, Ubuntu has had the option of only loading free drivers
and no proprietary blobs.
It always felt a bit performative to me, but maybe that's just my imagination. RMS was always touting it as the Free Linux.
I could swear Debian went completely open source/free like almost a decade ago or more. Either you had to enable some sort of 'non-free' repository or go out and get the stuff yourself. I'm guessing Ubuntu followed suit very soon after, if not immediately.
Nightfox wrote to Accession <=-
I seem to remember seeing that with Linux Mint (which I've been using
at home). And Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu. I wanted to install the official Nvidia graphics driver and had to enable proprietary repos in order to do that.
There's the few that have always been 'windowsized', but most have kept a pretty basic install (netboot, non-gui, whatever you want to call it). They leave it up to the user to add all the frill they want to it, and most users want the frill. You can argue that till your face turns blue, but that's honestly the only reason Linux has gained (albeit not very much) the traction it has over the years. Otherwise, people would still *only* be using Linux as servers, to this day.
I thought devuan was just a non-GPL free version of Debian? Or was that Trisquel?
I thought it's main focus was 'Debian without systemd', as in it still uses sysvinit.. but I could be wrong.
I'm not sure what "all-free" means these days, to be honest. I thought Debian went "all-free" a long time ago, getting rid of proprietary software and drivers and instead using free open-source stuff. That was a while ago, though, so maybe things have changed.. or the definition of "all-free" doesn't mean what I think it does any more. :)
I could swear Debian went completely open source/free like almost a decade ago
or more. Either you had to enable some sort of 'non-free' repository or go out
and get the stuff yourself. I'm guessing Ubuntu followed suit very soon after,
if not immediately.
but that's honestly the only reason Linux has gained (albeit not very much) the traction it has over the years. Otherwise, people would still *only* be using Linux as servers, to this day.
I would argue that the windowzification of Linux distributions is a recent trend.
When I talk about Windowzification, I am not talking about ease of use - I'd argue Windows itself is not an easy-to-use OS besides its unsommurnable software support. When I talk about Windowzification I talk about tight integration of new components with principles that are MS stuff but were rarely seen in Linux.
This would be things like binary registries, non-text based syslogd-like services, and encapsulated programs that are deployed from integrated stores with such a huge impact that they use up a whole privilege subsystem in the kernel to work.
I'm not a fan of a gui in linux; i prefer cli.
I seem to remember seeing that with Linux Mint (which I've been using
at home). And Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu. I wanted to install the official Nvidia graphics driver and had to enable proprietary repos
in order to do that.
I would argue that the windowzification of Linux distributions is a
recent trend.
Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-
I'm not a fan of a gui in linux; i prefer cli.
I've considered switching to primarly using Linux on my PC at home
rather than Windows, and for that, a GUI would be beneficial.
| Sysop: | Angel Ripoll |
|---|---|
| Location: | Madrid, Spain |
| Users: | 13 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 89:41:06 |
| Calls: | 687 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,593 |
| Messages: | 64,623 |