Minimal installation for TeX (pdflatex/pdftex)?


Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 280
Messages: 319

I would really appreciate it if you stopped spreading FUD, and actually tried to listen to what other people write.

Is there so far a solution to install less than 1.5 GB for only pdftex and pdflatex?
“Butter bei die Fische”, as we say in Germany …
These are the sizes of the TeX-related packages on my machine (stable/12, amd64), sorted by size in MB:
texlive-full-20150521             0.000
tex-ptexenc-1.3.3_2               0.088
tex-synctex-1.17.0_1              0.239
tex-libtexlua-5.2.4               0.653
tex-kpathsea-6.2.1_1              0.743
tex-xdvik-22.87_4                 1.060
tex-libtexluajit-2.0.3            1.400
tex-dvipdfmx-20150315_1           1.660
tex-aleph-          2.520
tex-basic-engines-20150521        3.600
tex-web2c-20150521_2              4.890
tex-xmltex-1.9_2                  7.920
texlive-tlmgr-20150523_2         10.300
tex-jadetex-3.13_3               11.200
texlive-base-20150521_28         11.800
tex-dvipsk-5.995_1               21.500
tex-formats-20150521_2           34.300
tex-xetex-0.99992_18             37.000
tex-luatex-0.80.0_9              47.000
texlive-texmf-20150523_4       1350.000
texlive-docs-20150523          1580.000
As you can see, the largest packages by far are docs and texmf (mainly font data). If you think you don't need the docs installed locally (many of them are available online), you can just remove them and save about 1.5 GB. As far as the texmf package goes – Well, if you want to use a type setting system, you're going to need fonts.

All the other TeX packages together are just 200 MB. For comparison: Chromium is 250 MB, Gimp is 130 MB, Scribus is 130 MB, InkScape is 125 MB. It's all the same order of magnitude.

Forget to compile it with clang, you need GNU GCC (Linux).
[…] You need gmake (Linux).
GNU is not Linux. You are allowing your hatred of Linux to cloud your mind.



Reaction score: 1,135
Messages: 1,801

Olli: I completely agree with the overall gist of your message. Just one detail:

Well, if you want to use a type setting system, you're going to need fonts.
True. But you can run (La-) TeX without using any MF (MetaFont) fonts. Instead you can use Postscript fonts exclusively. To do that, you need the font metric files (the .tfm) files for Postscript fonts, but those are (a) available, and (b) included in one of the smaller packages above. This requires using the correct setup files in your document, but then you can delete the texmf package.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, when dvips was already fully formed, but Postscript laser printers had really slow rendering engines and little memory, we used to do that, and print documents using only PS fonts. Why? For a printer to render a page with native Postscript fonts (which are stored inside the printer, in optimized form) is pretty fast. But when using MF fonts, it takes a long time to send the large font bitmap files in the various sizes to the printer over slow links (I still have a LaserJet 5MP at home, which uses a parallel port, at probably less than 100KB/second), and then it takes a long time for the tiny little CPU in the printer to put all the bitmap characters on the page.

One can argue whether using PS or MF fonts gives better quality output. Personally, I like the MetaFont "computer modern" serifed fonts better than the standard Times Roman fonts that one gets commonly in Postscript. For scientific papers (which I still read and write), it seems to be the only thing that looks right. The MF math symbols are leagues better than anything else, since they were designed by a person who had spent decades reading and writing papers full of mathematical symbols. But when it comes to sans-serif fonts, MetaFont just doesn't look right; there the standard has been set by the the Selectric's Gothic font, and by Helvetica.

You are allowing your hatred of Linux to cloud your mind.
This is a common problem, particularly here on the forum. There are unfortunately a lot of people here who are motivated by emotion (hating Windows, hating Linux, ...) or unreflected dogma (only open source is good, only the BSD license is good, ...). Those people too frequently then take their beliefs and create fake technical arguments from that, by being selective in their cognition: "my windows machine crashed twice last year, therefore Microsoft is an evil company that creates low-quality software just to suck our blood out, but we knew that beforehand". There is a lot of confirmation bias.