Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu Quietly Raises Install Image Size to 2GB (omgubuntu.co.uk)
Joey-Elijah Sneddon, reporting for OMGUbuntu: You can expect to see a larger Ubuntu desktop installation image by the time the Yakkety Yak yips out. Developers are currently debating the exact size limits that official flavours will adhere to, with some favouring a 2GB hard limit while others are looking to go full-DVD size at 4.7GB+. Canonical's Steven Langasek explains the plans for Ubuntu 16.10 Yakkety Yak: "I've finally gone ahead and bumped the limit on Ubuntu desktop images to 2GB for a minimally-sized USB stick; this gives us a new limit that I think we will care about, while also leaving us headroom so we're not constantly fighting it back down to the line." The Ubuntu ISO is supposed to be around the 1GB mark but has creeped past this in recent releases. The current Ubuntu 16.04 LTS desktop .iso is 1.4GB.
With 32 gig usb sticks so cheap, there's no reason not to make it the size of a full dvd or more. This way, multiple installations would not have to individually download tons of packages. It would "just work."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
2GB?!? That's like over a hundred 20MB HDD's!
The main reason why the .ISOs have grown is because lots of language support packs have been integrated directly into the installer. The size of the rest of the system has been relatively the same since 14.04.
it's become one big blob known only as systemd. ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
What did you expect when Microsoft announce Ubuntu on Windows? Of course, the install image got bloated.
Amazon or other "partner" data collection "personalisation" "technologies" in the images, it wouldn't need to be increased.
Gnome software center sucks the sweat off of donkey balls.
There. Sorry for the interruption, but I felt it needed to be said.
Yes I feel better now, thanks for asking.
Strip back down to a real init system and X Windows and you'll be fine.
A number of sites are posting this story; and I really don't get why this is news of any interest to anyone...
A basic DVD-R is about 4GB and you'd have to be a hoarder to still have USB sticks smaller than 4GB.
I could also assume that the majority do not do offline installs anyway...
Despite all that, how is the size of some OS' install media attracting so much attention? And why Ubuntu? How about OS X or MS-Windows?
There is no reason not to have different ISO sizes. I would love to have an ISO that fits on a CD AND one that is 32GByte big.
for those of us still installing slack and gentoo to servers or BSD, the additional disk requirements are really rather simple.
soundcard support: nothing like rockin out in the datacenter to the latest skrillex mix. soundcards are critical for todays infrastructure, and drivers should be available..
bluetooth support: how else are you going to sync your contacts or hook up your wireless mouse? datacenters are prime real estate for the mingling professional on the go, so youll need bluetooth drivers to support that bluetooth headset.
art.:perfectly kerned fonts, glorious artwork, and rich icons make your desktop experience immersive when youre ssh'ing into the server at 4 AM to fix the build. youll need the full sound effects pack too if you want to make the tablet experience really pop when youre executing stack traces.
pets: whatever asinine garbage Lennart Pottering demanded 20 minutes before the CI kicked off surely has to be part of this weeks image. And dont forget the piss-ant libraries for the manbaby developer that needed his special snowflake status validated in the reimplementation of a C library in a ruby wrapped R executed python enabled SPARK ada routine to properly align the cursor! unless you include that you really arent building an OS at all...seriously...his package is a dependency everywhere...for no real reason.
Good people go to bed earlier.
If we're using the full desktop DVD .iso file for Ubuntu 16.04 (amd64), and not the Ubuntu Core, Server, or netinstall images, then it's 1.4 GB.
Slackware 14.1 is 2.4 GB (source: http://www.slackware.com/getsl... )
FreeBSD is 2.7 GB (source: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/Free... )
Solaris 11.3 is 1.4 GB for the USB (source: http://www.oracle.com/technetw... )
Devuan beta is 4.36 GB (source: https://files.devuan.org/devua... )
Fedora 23 Workstation is 1.4 GB (source: https://getfedora.org/en/works... )
The use of optical media is dwindling. If a limit is to be selected, it should be a common flash disk size minus some overhead. Using 4.7GB as the maximum will mean everyone will be buying 8GB disks instead of 4GB disks to put the images on.
How cheap does a 32GB drive need to be to be cheap?
I'd say cheaper than the overage fees to download an OS installer over a cellular or satellite data network.
Which new 10.1" laptop doesn't have "a soldered in hard drive"? At that size range, I used to see Atom laptops with a 2.5" SATA HDD. But all I see nowadays are tablets with an attachable keyboard.
Great, someone's going to approve your idea to add Esperanto (and Klingon/Sindarin/Dothraki)
Klingon? Cue the notice of claimed infringement from CBS and Paramount.
Maybe they should offer 2 flavors.
1) The "Mini"/"Slim"/"basics" version with a limit of 2GB
2) The Full version with a limit of 4GB
If 2GB is a "debatable" target, the next "step up" is a 4GB USB, not a 4.7GB DVD/ISO image.
Actually, just under 4GB if you are going to create an ISO image. You need to leave a little room on the USB stick for boot sectors, UEFI boot partitions, and other overhead so the end user can turn the ISO into a bootable USB stick. So either set the limit for the ISO image at 1.9GB or 3.9GB, but not 4.7GB.
Also, if the ISO itself is bigger than 4GB, it can't be stored on a FAT-32 formatted USB stick. Many people still use FAT-32 for cross-platform storage devices.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Optical media sizes are not a unit of measure. Nobody uses CDs or DVDs anymore. Those formats are dead. Bluray is dead, too. Most PCs that can run Ubuntu don't even come with optical drives anymore.
It's also hard to find thumb drives under 4GB anymore. Most are 8GB or bigger.
The limiting factor more and more these days is one of two things: Internet Connection Speed, and Data Cap Limit. The former is more relevant because most people have a 2-4GB data plan, so really it just boils down to "how long to download the torrent?"
I'd say come up with a flavor that is reasonably transferred over a locale's average Internet speed. For places like South Korea where everyone has gigabit, you can make the image 8GB no problem, and include all kinds of goodies.
For third world countries like the USA that have an average speed of about 2.5mbit, continuing to limit it to about 800MB would probably be a good idea.
I really can't take an OS seriously that is named Yakkety Yak. You lost me right there. What next Leprous Lemur?
oh, boy...
I don't think anyone still sells brand new 2GB sticks plus 2GB + formatting = less than 2GB. Basing it on optical storage is the only thing that makes sense as a limit that has actual logic instead of arbitrary numbers.
Windows brought Ubuntu to Windows so Ubuntu was just following suit.
On Windows, one might have a Linux distribution lying around as an .iso file. I actually have some large FAT partitions for storing data, and downloaded (X)Ubuntu on one of those. .iso is only intermediate storage before burning to DVD or maybe copying to USB. So the 2GB limitation of address space under Windows does not matter.
But I don't see me trying to run it as a Windows process:
The
The 2GB file-size limit in Linux looks slightly more relevant at first glance, but I still think it is a rare edge case. ;-)
Your link says that large filesystem support, which removes that limit, was introduced with Kernel 2.4. Kernel 2.4 was released on 4th January 2001 and EOL in December 2011, according to Wikipedia.
So in order to have a problem with it, a user that wants to install Ubuntu today would need to have a machine with an OS obsolete 4 1/2 years ago, and no access to another PC to download and burn a DVD. Which is remotely possible, but only remotely
C - the footgun of programming languages
And the computer was donated without an OS?
It was donated without a supported operating system. Windows XP is no longer supported, and Windows Vista has less than a year of extended support remaining.
It sounds like your penis has some kind of issue with apps. Did face swap put it's head on your face and vice versa? Why so angry, AC? There's some apps on the play store to help with that...
Well, well, APK. I see that whiplash has kept blocking your fucked up hosts bullshit so well that you've finally started typing in coherent English. I almost want to congratulate you, but I still know you're a shit heel.
systemd..
Smallest stick most have and my crappiest cd burned can handle a double layer.
Worked for Apple.
I don't mind giving away CDs because I have shitloads of them and they're cheap. But not too many distros fit on a CD any more. Bodhi and Puppy that I know of.
If I could find 2 GB flash drives for 25 cents I'd change my mind.