# Why FreeBSD, BSD systems and other Unix (like Linux) tend to be like MS Windows



## bsaidus (May 12, 2013)

Hello.
Before I explain let me ask some questions:

Do I need a 400 MB base system to deploy a web server?
Do I need a 400 MB base system to deploy a mail server?
I think making system huge day a day make FreeBSD and other Unix-like operating systems in a way of MS Windows that take about 1.5 GB to deploy a base system. So I'm wondering if the FreeBSD team think about a way to optimize this, and I'm sure that many people agree with this.

Thanks.


----------



## fonz (May 12, 2013)

bsaidus said:
			
		

> I think making system huge day a day make FreeBSD & others Unix-like operating system in a way of MS Windows that take about 1.5 GB to deploy a base system. So I'm wondering if the FreeBSD team think about a way to optimize this, and I'm sure that many people agree with this.


Perhaps I might agree if only I could comprehend that first sentence. What on earth are you trying to say?


----------



## DutchDaemon (May 12, 2013)

How is a FreeBSD server installation (so an installation without X, command-line based) in any way 'like MS Windows'? How?


----------



## wblock@ (May 12, 2013)

Given that 400 MB is roughly one-fourth the size of 1.5 GB, and I can't remember the last time I saw a Windows system that small, 400 MB seems pretty space-efficient.

There are things you can delete manually or leave out when building the system.  Man pages, unnecessary kernel modules, compilers, and so on.  Look at src.conf(5) and nanobsd(8) for a start.

mfsBSD is a customized FreeBSD that has a great deal of functionality.  The smallest version is around 25 MB, including applications.


----------



## Savagedlight (May 12, 2013)

bsaidus said:
			
		

> Hello.
> Before I explain let me ask some questions:
> 
> Do I need a 400 MB base system to deploy a web server?
> ...



If the default base system is too "bulky" for you, you can build one from source which doesn't have the stuff you don't need. You might manage to shave off quite a bit this way. You can also take a look at mfsbsd if you want a really tight base system.

I have to wonder what makes you think that FreeBSD's <700 MB base system can compare to Windows Server's ~20 GB, though.

Edit: @wblock@ beat me to it; I was too slow typing.


----------



## bsaidus (May 12, 2013)

I am talking about the size of installation. The base system for FreeBSD (if I only choose kernel, base and man) is about 400 MB w*hich* is huge in my point of view. Let me take for example pfSense, it contain*s* many features without having this huge volume of data. I want to say that it would be better if there is some facility to reduce this size to only what we need when deploying some kind of service.


----------



## fonz (May 12, 2013)

bsaidus said:
			
		

> I am talking about the size of installation.


The more you leave out, the more specialised it becomes. At some point there has to be a reasonable compromise between leanness and versatility.


----------



## bsaidus (May 12, 2013)

Ok, ok! I*'*ll try to customize it. Thanks to all.


----------



## bsaidus (May 12, 2013)

fonz said:
			
		

> The more you leave out, the more specialised it becomes. At some point there has to be a reasonable compromise between leanness and versatility.



I agree with you.
Thanks.


----------



## zspider (May 13, 2013)

400 MB of disk space is peanuts. That's less then my first computers hard drive of 800 MB. I'm sure you could find a way to slim her down without breaking the system.


----------



## Crivens (May 13, 2013)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> How is a FreeBSD server installation (so an installation without X, command-line based) in any way 'like MS Windows'? How?



You klick away on the mouse and it does not really do what you want? </cynic>

No, the 400 MB is a base system fit for all uses, it even includes compilers. That, for one thing, is something you do not want to have on a firewall or any system which has no interactive users.

But, given that my first install of *BSD lived on a nice little 40MB disc, 400MB really seems bloated. Anyone remember the 1.44MB QNX demo disc?


----------



## kpa (May 13, 2013)

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to realise that the ancient versions of FreeBSD lacked lots and lots of feature that are now standard and taken for granted. Take IPv6 for example. There are some things that could be left out of the default installation sets like the kernel symbols (the *.symbols files) that are only useful for kernel debuggers. The GENERIC kernel also contains some really outdated stuff like IPX that nobody uses anymore (this might have changed at FreeBSD 9, I have to check).

The absolute minimum installation that you can now get using the ready made distribution sets is when you install only the base and kernel sets. Here's a summary of how much they take space when unpacked (I have the two sets extracted at ~/tmp/base).


```
firewall ~/tmp % du -ch base
...
449M	total

firewall ~/tmp % du -ch base/boot/kernel 
195M	base/boot/kernel
195M	total
firewall ~/tmp %
```

After removing the *.symbols files:

```
firewall ~/tmp % du -ch base
...
310M	total

firewall ~/tmp % du -ch base/boot/kernel         
 55M	base/boot/kernel
 55M	total
firewall ~/tmp %
```


310 megabytes should not be bloated in anyone's mind. (Unless you're still stuck in the 1990's and haven't kept up with what's been happening in the computing world during the last ten years).


----------

