I've seen various conversations about what Linux people use to run Synchronet. While I'm happy with Ubuntu and it just "works", there are some things that do bug me.
1. The large memory footprint
2. apparmor crap all over the place
3. Snaps. Hate them and they take up a lot of room
What Linux is everyone using to run their Synchronet and more importantly, give me overwhelming evidence as to why I should try it...In other words, Ubuntu is the best OS for sbbs, change my mind.
I've been using Linux Mint, and I've found that it also tends to just work, but I feel like I probably don't have overwhelming evidence to convince anyone it's better than Ubuntu. However, regarding snaps, snaps are disabled by default in Linux Mint (so you'd have to manually install the Snap Store if you want to). Also, I tend to prefer the default desktop environments available with Linux Mint and I don't like the recent versions of Gnome which are included with Ubuntu (but yes, I know you can install a different desktop environment).
Linux Mint is based partly on Ubuntu, which is probably a reason it tends to just work, but might also have some things about Ubuntu you don't like..
I've seen various conversations about what Linux people use to run Synchronet. While I'm happy with Ubuntu and it just "works", there are some things that do bug me.
1. The large memory footprint
2. apparmor crap all over the place
3. Snaps. Hate them and they take up a lot of room
What Linux is everyone using to run their Synchronet and more importantly, give me overwhelming evidence as to why I should try it...In other words, Ubuntu is the best OS for sbbs, change my mind.
---
� Synchronet � End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
nelgin wrote to All <=-
I've seen various conversations about what Linux people use to run Synchronet. While I'm happy with Ubuntu and it just "works", there are some things that do bug me.
1. The large memory footprint
2. apparmor crap all over the place
3. Snaps. Hate them and they take up a lot of room
What Linux is everyone using to run their Synchronet and more
importantly, give me overwhelming evidence as to why I should try
it...In other words, Ubuntu is the best OS for sbbs, change my mind.
I've seen various conversations about what Linux people use to run Synchronet. While I'm happy with Ubuntu and it just "works", there are some things that do bug me.
1. The large memory footprint
2. apparmor crap all over the place
3. Snaps. Hate them and they take up a lot of room
What Linux is everyone using to run their Synchronet and more importantly, give me overwhelming evidence as to why I should try it...In other words, Ubuntu is the best OS for sbbs, change my mind.
4. No systemd. Simple init system.
7. Other distro users are envious of you for running Slackware.
nelgin wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Which Linux?
By: Gamgee to nelgin on Mon Aug 26 2024 20:00:00
4. No systemd. Simple init system.
Actually, I do make a lot of use of the systemd features for handling
my modems that would be much more difficult to do with systemd and also running each part of synchronet separately (terminal, ftp, web, mail, services) which also has a controlling start/stop module.
I didn't like systemd either until I started to see how powerful it
was, so that may be a requirement.
7. Other distro users are envious of you for running Slackware.
I will never be jealous of anyone for any reason.
7. Other distro users are envious of you for running Slackware.
That was an attempt at humor, which may have failed.
I've seen various conversations about what Linux people use to run Synchronet.
While I'm happy with Ubuntu and it just "works", there are some things that do
bug me.
1. The large memory footprint
2. apparmor crap all over the place
3. Snaps. Hate them and they take up a lot of room
What Linux is everyone using to run their Synchronet and more importantly, giv
me overwhelming evidence as to why I should try it...In other words, Ubuntu is
the best OS for sbbs, change my mind.
That was an attempt at humor, which may have failed.
I thought it was funny. ;)
Debian
1) Ubuntu is based on Debian, so you can probably get most packages you are
using, and you are already familiar with apt.
2) Debian doesn't force you to use snaps
3) Debian seems to have a smaller memory footprint here vs. when I was running ubuntu
4) For me personally, I have been able to sucessfully apt dist-upgrade with
debian, something I could never do with ubuntu (unless I wanted the result to be a system that stopped working).
Downside is that Debian stable is not going to be as bleeding edge as Ubuntu, but you can run testing or even unstable (or a mix) to stay as bleeding edge as you wish.
Now, if you want your distro to break more than your BBS does, give Gentoo a try! :D
I use Slackware.
1. Small memory footprint.
2. I don't even know what apparmor is, but it's not in Slackware. 3. Snaps (and flatpak) is not part of Slackware. 4. No systemd. Simple init system.
5. Very stable, with frequent security updates. 6. Boots to CLI by default. If you want X, type "startx". 7. Other distro users are envious of you for running Slackware.
You should use Slackware.
DaiTengu wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Which Linux?
By: Gamgee to nelgin on Mon Aug 26 2024 08:00 pm
I use Slackware.
1. Small memory footprint.
2. I don't even know what apparmor is, but it's not in Slackware. 3. Snaps (and flatpak) is not part of Slackware. 4. No systemd. Simple init system.
5. Very stable, with frequent security updates. 6. Boots to CLI by default. If you want X, type "startx". 7. Other distro users are envious of you for running Slackware.
You should use Slackware.
Slackware was my first distro. I distinctly remember running 0.99 kernels, so it must have been part of the 1.0 release. (I also remember the transition from a.out to ELF binaries)
At one point I remember stealing a Slackware CD-ROM out of the back of
one of the "Learn Linux" books at a local national-chain bookstore. Wikipedia says says the first Slackware release on CD was in late 1995, but I know it was at least a year or more before that. Maybe the
Wikipedia entry is for an "official" CD-ROM. :shrug:
My NAS machine runs "unRAID", which is Slackware based, so I guess I
still run a version of Slackware today. :) Along with Gentoo, a few Red-Hat based VMs, a Kali VM, a NetBSD box, and some Debian-based
systems on raspberry pis here at home)
And then the thousands of RHEL-based systems I "own" at work, too. :)
I have just setup a Raspberry Pi 4 with Synchronet. It has been almost 30 year
and boy have things changed. It was pretty simple, and a lot of stuff has been
automated. I am too new to have an opinion at this point, but I am sure I will
develop some soon. :-) Fun to be back in the BBS world!
Downside is that Debian stable is not going to be as bleeding edge as Ubuntu, but you can run testing or even unstable (or a mix) to stay as bleeding edge as you wish.
While testing and unstable Debian aren't even very close to bleeding edge, the
'stable' branch is /way/ off. Debian has definitely made a name for itself as being stable, though, that's for sure!
Slackware was my first distro. I distinctly remember running 0.99 kernels, so it must have been part of the 1.0 release. (I also remember the transition from a.out to ELF binaries)
I might be wrong, but my assumption is that using testing and unstable would keep you as bleeding edge as using Ubuntu would. My impression was that Ubuntu didn't get more bleeding edge than those branches.
I agree that Debian is not for you if you must have the very bleeding edge. ;)
I remember my dad trying out Slackware Linux around 1995 or 1996. I think I got a copy too, on floppy disks, and at the time I had a 386 PC, though I don't remember if I had fully installed Linux; I remember it had a mode where you could boot/start into Linux from DOS, which I may have been doing. And I remember trying out the game Doom for Linux at some point around that time..
| Sysop: | altere |
|---|---|
| Location: | Houston, TX |
| Users: | 68 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 18:24:43 |
| Calls: | 1,038 |
| Files: | 8,041 |
| Messages: | 298,366 |