Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Won't Fit On a CD
gbl08ma writes "According to various sources, the ISO image size for the upcoming Long-Term Support Ubuntu version 'Precise Pangolin' will not fit on a regular CD, since the image size is expected to weigh around 750MB instead of the usual ~700MB. The idea is that users should either flash the image to a USB flash drive or burn it to a DVD. The extra room on the disc image could allow for integration of more GNOME3 components and Canonical applications. There was also a proposal to use a 1.5GB DVD image as the default download for Ubuntu 12.04."
what in the world is a CD? some old tech that is not pontless anymore like an 8track or VHS tape?
This might get me downrated, but honestly, I don't think Ubuntu is for everyone. I do think that Canonical wants to stay relevant with those folks who have 5 year old or younger machines.
If you need a Linux distro that fits on a CD drive, there are other options, but just about every machine in the past 5-6 years boots off a USB key or DVD drive. Some newer machines like netbooks and macbook airs don't (and have never) come optical drives (hell I have a toshiba portege from 2001 without optical media).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Older hardware which (surprisingly!) still does well with Linux, but doesn't have the capability to boot from USB - that's why you would need a CD. A DVD is probably a good-enough alternative as well since DVD drives have been pretty standard for many, many years.
People who need/want read-only media that can't have malware inserted into it by the CVS photo printer and other people's computers...
I like Debian's net-install to get the latest packages since stable ISOs are usually outdated. :( Obviously, if you have fast Internet connection.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Yeah but the problem with that is this: what's the first thing to go out on a DVD/CDRW or a DVD burner? the ability to read DVDs. I don't know how many machines I'd had through the shop that would read and burn CDs just fine but the DVD would be crapped out.
So what is wrong with giving folks choice, isn't that is what FOSS is supposed to be out, choice? Why not have a 2 CD set AND a DVD with everything but the kitchen sink, why not that?
Of course I'll probably get hate for daring to even say the user should have choice, I don't know what happened to the community but it just don't seem like a nice place anymore. Now it seems to be too many have this "You'll take this and do it our way and damned well LIKE it or STFU and go back to windblowz luser" attitude, like FOSS is an exclusive club and they're the gatekeepers or something.
I used to love keeping up with what's new and thought back in 03 that by this time we'd see Linux boxes in every store, but somewhere along the ways the ground turned sour and the community seems to me to be more about being in a club than helping FOSS spread to the masses.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
You have a choice. You can implement it yourself ( or wait until someone does it for you )
Really, i have been burning the Ubuntu iso's on DVD since a long time : they boot up faster than CD's .
The problem with FOSS is that everyone wants the benefits, but no one wants to be part of it. And then you complain when they don't do it the way you like it.
Slipping shoelaces ?
I've yet to see any of those do anything but set a flag the OS can (and will, if infection is your concern) ignore.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
no, ubuntu has been turning into a bastardized bloated piece of shit distro
Let me break that up:
Bloated - You could call it that but it's also the closest to what the average desktop user would want right out of the box. The fact is I can install it for someone and they immediately have office, music players, etc. and a few toys. For that kind of user it's nice.
Turning into shit - The progression from 9.04 (stable, solid) -> 9.10 (compatibility issues out the ass) -> 10.04 (ok, a little more together, some issues but more shiny) -> 10.11 (why do I feel like this is the last stop?) -> 11.04 (wow, Unity is terrible, they should at least still have GNOME installed by default?) -> 11.10 (Unity still sucks and GNOME 3 isn't near functional, shit is broken left and right, installing binary drivers all the sudden breaks things, tons of functionality missing, strangely broken packages left and right, WTF!?). So yeah, turning into shit.
and now this is the final nail in the coffin.
The thing is Ubuntu still works and it does have a lot of polish when compared to vanilla Debian. For a lot of people it's that polish that makes the difference.
ubuntu kiddies need to use a real linux distro and stop trying to use "windows lite", it's slow, memory leaks all over the place and overall just a poor distro
ubuntu is an embarrassment to the linux community
I'm not really sure you could call it "windows lite", especially since Shuttleworth seems to be bent on making it look and feel like some sort of artistic deconstruction of OSX. Not really sure on the memory leaks thing either but perhaps that's a Unity thing and I don't use Unity so I just don't know. If you are a classic Linux user I'd say it's fair to call it an "emberrassment" as Ubuntu has continually chosen to discard functionality and replace it with their own brand of flashy/popular/easy - but that's also decreased the entry level and attracted a lot of new users. The fact is I can say "Linux" and now people don't look at me funny, now they get an image of an orange or purple desktop with a bunch of widgets and compositing effects.
Why won't ubuntu just do as fedora has done? use xz compression on the squashfs image. The live image for fedora is now 565 MB, but would have been more than 700MB if using gzip compression as ubuntu does. Reading from cd/dvd or even flash drives and harddrives (except ssds) are so slow compared to the cpu today anyway, so it would probably be faster in most cases.
Actually you're thinking of the SD card. The SD card is a simple flash memory with a toggle switch that relies on a controller a) recognises that the card has the switch flipped to read only and b) sends a signal to the OS.
USB on the other hand is not a direct link to the storage medium, and has hardware flash controllers onboard. The more expensive ones implement this properly, the cheaper ones actually hard limit the R/W line going to the chip. The cheap solution is robust but also easily visible because the OS doesn't know it's read-only. When you try writing to the drive you end up with a weird failed message.