Couldn't antiX be much leaner with option to not install unneeded software?

THX1138 · posted: 2017-09-20 01:34

I feel like antiX installs a lot of stuff that I don't need and would be a lot better if it gave an option during installation to abstain from most of the productivity software, multimedia software and games.

figosdev · posted: 2017-09-20 01:53

you can probably use remastering to create that option.

i dont like that remastering is manual, and so i do it using my own script. but that script is designed for refracta, it just happens to work (no warranty, and very probably unsuitable for 99.9% of antix users) on antix. i havent even tried it in a while, i would love to try it on antix 17 when its ready.

as for not installing, thats not too difficult an option to provide (someone would have to write it as a feature.) a *much* easier and *more likely* feature would be for someone to work on a script to remove that stuff after installation. a few lines featuring"apt-get remove" and that sort of thing-- you could probably put all the needed lines in a forum post. that doesnt mean im saying"do it yourself." just talking about what options are most practical and quickest to get to first.

skidoo · posted: 2017-09-20 03:50

For starters, you might liveboot the"base" iso instead of"full" version iso.
During liveboot, you're free to remove whatever pre-installed programs you wish. Afterward, when you're ready to install, the installer faithfully transfers what is (still) installed. Setting up"tickboxes" or a list or whatever would just be unnecessary extra work for the devs.

To get your bearings, launch synaptic during liveboot and (I'm suggesting) sort by"installed size column".
Scroll down the list, looking for stuff like foreign dictionaries (myspell_xx) that you'll never need.
One-by-one (I'm suggesting)"mark for complete removal", click apply... and unless you're prompted that removal of the package will cause removal of other (dependant) packages, it is probably safe to proceed with its removal. Operative term here is"probably" ~~ a few (may be dozens, by that's comparatively few considering the 900 or so preinstalled packages total) may list no dependants yet lead to ill consequences if removed. Use the"status" filter in synaptic to view"local/obsolete" packages; think twice, and maybe post to forum to ask, before removing anything listed there.

Bearings. Which end is up? Which installed packages consume LOTS of storage space?
Get curious ~~ if you're unfamiliar with a particular package name (especially if its installeSize is large) read the description displayed in the synaptic GUI. Read the packages "properties/dedendants".

Considering the degree of granular control synaptic provides, and the immense range of details it conveys for each package (and the relationships between various packages)... what more / further / extra / additional would be provided by your proposed"option to not install unneeded software"?

THX1138 · posted: 2017-09-20 04:06

The concept of removing packages during the Live boot so that they are not included during the install is not presented at any stage during the installation procedure or else I'd have tried that, although it's much more time consuming considering that I want to get rid of everything in the Office folder and everything in the Music and Video (my system doesn't even have speakers) folder and also Games. It's quite a slow process when I have to open up the menu each time to find another apps odd name (they'd be easier to remember if they were called something I could pronounced instead of stuff like"GtpSib2k". It would be nice if more app names hinted at what the heck they do as well!

I wouldn't use the base ISO because that doesn't even include the Synaptic package manager and know knows what other important things I'd then have to install in the console.

It would be more work for the devs, but, on the bright side, less work for me!

figosdev · posted: 2017-09-20 04:31

in communities like this, things happen a lot more often when everyone that wants something contributes at least a little.

"id like you to make it possible to remove all apps by category-- as a convenient feature, before theyre even installed (simply by reorganizing the entire distro that youve been working every kink out of for the past few months) however id rather not even help and tell you the names of the items in question" is a nice suggestion.

there are people that are willing to do far more than just suggest a feature, and still cant get it into the distro. there are people willing to waste time explaining how what you want could be possible-- but cmon, thats not what you really wanted is it? out of curiosity, is there a number or email we can reach you at when everythings ready?

THX1138 · posted: 2017-09-20 04:55

figosdev wrote: ↑
20 Sep 2017, 04:31
in communities like this, things happen a lot more often when everyone that wants something contributes at least a little.

"id like you to make it possible to remove all apps by category-- as a convenient feature, before theyre even installed (simply by reorganizing the entire distro that youve been working every kink out of for the past few months) however id rather not even help and tell you the names of the items in question" is a nice suggestion.

there are people that are willing to do far more than just suggest a feature, and still cant get it into the distro. there are people willing to waste time explaining how what you want could be possible-- but cmon, thats not what you really wanted is it? out of curiosity, is there a number or email we can reach you at when everythings ready?

What would be the point of me listing the names of the items in question? How on earth would that help devs produce a feature to allow everyone to customise their own installation, given that their interests may differ from mine? There's nothing I can do to make it easier to make this a feature and as already suggested, it's probably not going to happen anyway.

Also, by the time this feature was included, I'll have no interest in using it because I'm just setting up a telepronpter which won't even be connected to the Internet and will never need updating. I just suggested it so future users will have a better experience. When I said"less work for me", obviously that was tongue-in-cheek and actually means less work for the user; any user.

figosdev · posted: 2017-09-20 04:58

What would be the point of me listing the names of the items in question?

whats the point of making things easier for the user? devs are made of know-how and spare time. assisting them is almost as useless as helping users, or?

Also, by the time this feature was included, I'll have no interest in using it

that certainly sweetens the deal.

on the other hand, finding someone that is actually going to use the feature after someone adds it would at least mean its work that will please a non-hypothetical user. i already said its a good suggestion. although in terms of lean, most people (over 50%) are probably using heavier distros already. so while your suggestion is good in and of itself, *is it* really a good use of a devs time? (i dont know either, thats why its a suggestion i guess.)

BitJam · posted: 2017-09-20 05:20

Couldn't antiX be much leaner with option to not install unneeded software?

That option is the base and core flavours of antiX. They go one better than simply not installing, they also make the download and live-usb creation smaller and faster.

Protip: it is easier to add the packages you want rather than remove the packages you don't want.   So start with base, then install Synaptic and whatever else you know you want that is lacking.    It should be very easy to install from the dreaded command line using the new cli-aptiX package manager.   It will show up in the GUI Control Centre when Synaptic is not available.   It is also available in the antiX-cli-cc (Command Line Control Centre) which is automatically added to your Bash history so you can get to it with <up-arrow>.   You may even end up preferring it over Synaptic.

It is impossible for us to customize antiX to suit everyone. That's why we tried to make it very easy for anyone to customize the distro to suit their own needs and desires.    The live system with persistence and remastering makes it very easy for you to play around without committing yourself to anything, not even an install.    Think of core, base, and full as three starting points we offer you.   You should start with the one that involves the least amount of uninstalling to create your ideal system. In your case that sounds like base.    It is small so it should download quickly and you should be able to make a live-usb from the iso file quickly.    If you really can't stand it then you've lost very little. You can always go back to the hard way which is deleting the things you don't want from full.

If your sweet spot is somewhere between base and full, that's great!   Start from one end point or the other and delete or add packages to make the system exactly what you want. If your are running live (which I highly recommend for this kind of development) then use live-remaster to lock your changes in place. You can also use iso-snapshot to make an iso file you can easily distribute to others.

If you like your selection of packages and want to make your own mini-distro then after you've made a one-off customized system with remaster and snapshot, you can graduate to using build-iso to make your own respin of antiX. This is the tool we use for building all the flavours of antiX as well as the MX distro.

THX1138 · posted: 2017-09-20 05:23

figosdev wrote:
What would be the point of me listing the names of the items in question?
whats the point of making things easier for the user? devs are made of know-how and spare time. assisting them is almost as useless as helping users, or?

Whilst the is possibly something I could reasonably do to help implement this feature (I've no idea what), me listing the applications that I don't happen to want is not it.

THX1138 · posted: 2017-09-20 05:35

BitJam wrote:
Couldn't antiX be much leaner with option to not install unneeded software?
That option is the base and core flavours of antiX. They go one better than simply not installing, they also make the download and live-usb creation smaller and faster.

Protip: it is easier to add the packages you want rather than remove the packages you don't want.   So start with base, then install Synaptic and whatever else you know you want that is lacking.    It should be very easy to install from the dreaded command line using the new cli-aptiX package manager.   It will show up in the GUI Control Centre when Synaptic is not available.   It is also available in the antiX-cli-cc (Command Line Control Centre) which is automatically added to your Bash history so you can get to it with <up-arrow>.   You may even end up preferring it over Synaptic.

It is impossible for us to customize antiX to suit everyone. That's why we tried to make it very easy for anyone to customize the distro to suit their own needs and desires.    The live system with persistence and remastering makes it very easy for you to play around without committing yourself to anything, not even an install.    Think of core, base, and full as three starting points we offer you.   You should start with the one that involves the least amount of uninstalling to create your ideal system. In your case that sounds like base.    It is small so it should download quickly and you should be able to make a live-usb from the iso file quickly.    If you really can't stand it then you've lost very little. You can always go back to the hard way which is deleting the things you don't want from full.

If your sweet spot is somewhere between base and full, that's great!   Start from one end point or the other and delete or add packages to make the system exactly what you want. If your are running live (which I highly recommend for this kind of development) then use live-remaster to lock your changes in place. You can also use iso-snapshot to make an iso file you can easily distribute to others.

If you like your selection of packages and want to make your own mini-distro then after you've made a one-off customized system with remaster and snapshot, you can graduate to using build-iso to make your own respin of antiX. This is the tool we use for building all the flavours of antiX as well as the MX distro.

Thanks Bitjam, it would be great if this information was available on main antiX wiki page or presented during the boot (like loading hints) or installation procedure. I guess it would need to be summarized for most people.

Is there a table of the differences between core, base and full antiX? I was afraid to try base because I don't know what it's missing and I don't want it to cause extra problems with setting up Bluetooth.

figosdev · posted: 2017-09-20 05:40

as long as its on-topic, base is probably the best version of antix for me as well. (for one, i prefer a libre kernel, and i dont need any blobs from adobe either.)

echoing what i think thx is saying-- i (as someone with his own"distro" already) am concerned primarily that if i find a way to add/install xwindows atop base (which is the only version with the libre kernel, correct?) then a hypothetical user other than myself may have trouble getting x to load, for example.

the concern is that if i"simply install x" it wont be"set up" for the first use, with things like magic cookies-- my concerns here could be unfounded and if anyone with experience with"base" wants to have a go at them, theyre welcome to do so. if its as simple as a two-line"howto" on how to configure first use, that also works. p.s. of course i could just"try it out" but my preferred methods of doing (in order) are: 1. research 2. producing a bootable iso to try it from the users perspective, which takes 10-20 minutes per try. (because squashfs.) and so i like to ask around.

THX1138 · posted: 2017-09-20 05:49

figosdev wrote: as long as its on-topic, base is probably the best version of antix for me as well. (for one, i prefer a libre kernel, and i dont need any blobs from adobe either.)

echoing what i think thx is saying-- i (as someone with his own"distro" already) am concerned primarily that if i find a way to add/install xwindows atop base (which is the only version with the libre kernel, correct?) then a hypothetical user other than myself may have trouble getting x to load, for example.

the concern is that if i"simply install x" it wont be"set up" for the first use, with things like magic cookies-- my concerns here could be unfounded and if anyone with experience with"base" wants to have a go at them, theyre welcome to do so. if its as simple as a two-line"howto" on how to configure first use, that also works. p.s. of course i could just"try it out" but my preferred methods of doing (in order) are: 1. research 2. producing a bootable iso to try it from the users perspective, which takes 10-20 minutes per try. (because squashfs.) and so i like to ask around.

Base doesn't include xwindows? That's the kind of thing I was afraid of! It does sound like it might be easier for someone of my limited ability to remove packages from the full installation than to set up the desktop environment from scratch with base.

figosdev · posted: 2017-09-20 06:22

if im wrong and base does include xwindows, then base is pretty amazing.

however, last i checked (we are both fairly new to antix) there is base, full and one in between-- its probably that one you want. antix 17 is in beta, until it goes through rc you might have to settle for just base and full. antix 16 has the"medium" version, in the event they dont bring it back for 17.

edit: i was confusing base with core-libre. therefore i bet you base DOES include xwindows, but you should also replace"base" with"core-libre" in the other stuff i said.

THX1138 · posted: 2017-09-20 06:26

I read there was a core version and thought it was even more stripped down than base.

figosdev · posted: 2017-09-20 06:30

i believe you are correct, and thats the one i was referring to as"base." base is actually the one in the middle.