Tails

#5 Updated by Rover11 2018-06-11 05:56:53

Removing these packages from the original Tails live reduces it’s size by 465 MB without any impact on daily usage:

1) Inkscape (133 MB) (probably used by a minority of Tails users)
2) libpyzy (63 MB) (If The tails-light only supports English, all fonts can be removed)
3) Gimp (46+ MB) (EOG already provides the means to view photos, editing photos usually is used by fewer people)
4) Scribus (37+ MB) (probably used by a minority of Tails users)
5) Fonts-arphic-* (40 MB)
6) Fonts-unfonts-core & Fonts-wgy-zenhei (50 MB)

I am hesitant to add Gnome-user guide to this list, however, there can be an optimization of usability vs final ISO size. Also, there can be a poll to get an stat for the usage of standalone packages like audacity and pitivi to decide a cut-off for including apps in the Tails-light.

#6 Updated by Rover11 2018-06-11 06:07:15

mercedes508 wrote:
> Do you think it could be worth mentioning in the FAQ the reasons why we don’t provide such a light Tails version?

If this tread concludes that there shouldn’t be, it is good to know why Tails in it’s current state, has so many packages pre-installed.
essentially: how the first decision was made to prioritize packages for editing multimedia over applications like VeraCrypt, Gnu Social, Gnu Ring, and it’s likes.

#7 Updated by Gaff 2018-06-11 08:27:09

Presumably once the [url=https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/additional_software_packages/]Additional Software feature[/url] is working there will be a very compelling case for stripping all the multimedia packages from tails default?

#8 Updated by Gaff 2018-06-11 08:52:16

Presumably once the Additional Software feature is working there will be a very compelling case for stripping all the multimedia packages from tails default?

#10 Updated by intrigeri 2018-06-11 08:58:13

> Presumably once the Additional Software
> feature is working
> there will be a very compelling case for stripping all the multimedia packages from
> tails default?

Yes, we’re considering removing at least some: Feature #15291.

#12 Updated by intrigeri 2018-07-03 10:58:19

Rover11 wrote:
> essentially: how the first decision was made to prioritize packages for editing multimedia

Three things:

• Start with our design doc (e.g. “2.6.3.3 Document production applications”).
• Until recently, additional software packages did not work while offline, so the apps needed to support this use case had to be included by default.
• Until Tails 3.9, additional software packages are unusable for most of our target userbase.

> over applications like VeraCrypt, Gnu Social, Gnu Ring, and it’s likes.

Last time I checked, VeraCrypt and GNU Social are not in Debian, and Ring did not work over Tor.

#13 Updated by intrigeri 2018-07-03 11:07:11

Rover11 wrote:
> Removing these packages from the original Tails live reduces it’s size by 465 MB

Does this really reduce the size of the ISO by 465MB? Or merely the size of the data on the root filesystem (uncompressed)?

Anyway, reading this ticket again, even if reducing the ISO size by 50% was easily feasible, and even without thinking about what part of our limited resources would need to be diverted towards this project to make it work, I’m not convinced:

• wrt. initial installation: I guess that the set of locations where dividing download time by two is a game-changer is small and it won’t help the people who currently are impacted the most by the “Tails ISO is too big” problem as it’ll still be too big for them (I would expect that either downloading hundreds of MBs is doable, or it’s not)
• wrt. upgrading: we have automatic (incremental) upgrades so “downloading Tails ISO for every release” should not be a thing; granted, we’ve messed this up a couple times this year, but we’re actively working on what’s needed to avoid breaking automatic upgrades again in the future; note that the size of automatic upgrades would not be impacted much by removing multimedia package (most of their size is caused by Tor Browser, Thunderbird and kernel upgrades)

#14 Updated by sajolida 2018-07-19 15:51:52

I fully agree with intrigeri here. As an experiment, I’m trying to even more apps in f4c21628f4 (Feature #15291#note-15).

#20 Updated by Anonymous 2018-08-17 09:49:17

Ack :)

#21 Updated by letthemeatpie 2018-09-11 03:16:15

IMO, this feature is a must have. Many of us don’t need all of the fat.

In fact, every time I launch Tails I run a list of packages for removal through Synaptic so I don’t have to see them on my system. What remains is bare bones. If I could easily re-master a small image myself for private use I’d do it. I’d even go so far as to replace Gnome with something much lighter. (Yes, I’m aware of the ‘heads’ project, but choose not to use it) If I could I’d even remove the ‘Cheese’ packages and many others, but they want to take out the Gnome Control Center. And others, well they want to remove vital Gnome components, but I really remove as much of the software as I can. It’s not a solution by any means, but it works for me.

#23 Updated by intrigeri 2018-09-12 20:42:07

> I don’t think 25% of 1200 MB will make a real different in terms of adoption for new users.

> I understand the point of removing some of the “fat” now that we have a better Additional Software, that’s Feature #15291 and I want to work on it. But I want to do that for everybody, not in an alternative image.

> So, my experiment reenforced my position of thinking that it’s really not worth it distributing 2 different images. In other words, we could do so many more things with the little ressources that we have to make Tails useful for more people.

Fully agreed.

#24 Updated by letthemeatpie 2018-09-13 06:41:57

>So stripping down Tails that much (English only, browser and mail only) would gain 25% of image size. That still wouldn’t fit on a CD.

Well one could blame that on Gnome. :P

If one really stripped Tails down, including the removal of Gnome and replacement of a simple WM, it would likely fit on a CD. My concern for shipping a slim version wasn’t exactly for size, but to reduce the amount of packages for which many users of a slim version would never use. (and they could install additional as they wish) It also reduces the attack surface in reducing the amount of bugs to be exploited in many packages. Many programs, especially larger ones dealing with audio/video access/use of any kind, weren’t designed for such an environment. There are just too many unknowns. There are other benefits to ‘trimming the fat’ too but I’ll stop here. This idea is probably best left for someone else for their pet project, rather than Tails dev.

Thanks for reading, for the reply and the report of your experiments!

#25 Updated by sajolida 2018-09-13 17:24:37

> Well one could blame that on Gnome. :P

We could blame GNOME for being fat… or praise it for being the most
usable Linux desktop environment. The two facts are probably related but
Tails won’t ever use anything else than GNOME until there is a better
alternative in terms of UX (usability, integration, aesthetics, etc.)

> My concern for shipping a slim version wasn’t exactly for size, but to reduce the amount of packages for which many users of a slim version would never use. (and they could install additional as they wish) It also reduces the attack surface in reducing the amount of bugs to be exploited in many packages.

We agree on that and that’s what Feature #15291 is about.

> Thanks for reading, for the reply and the report of your experiments!

You’re welcome :)