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.
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.
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.
I'm assuming you were joking because of the smiley, but I'd just like to point out that the Slackware 14.1 iso (uses BSD init) is 2.4 GB. Devuan beta (uses sysvinit) is 4.36 GB. So Ubuntu 16.04's (with systemd) piddling 1.4 GB seems not so bad in comparison!
The package for webbrowser-app (which is where the Amazon search lens comes from; BTW it's off by default in 16.04) is 765.9 kB. See: http://packages.ubuntu.com/xen...
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.
X is still the default in 16.04. I'd just like to point out that the Slackware 14.1 iso (uses BSD init) is 2.4 GB. Devuan beta (uses sysvinit) is 4.36 GB. So Ubuntu 16.04's (with systemd) piddling 1.4 GB seems not so bad in comparison!
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... )
That's almost 1500 1.44 MB 3.5" floppies.
Somewhere north of 5000 360K 5.25" floppies if you're going real old-school.
Since we're talking Linux distros here, can we cut this off at IBM PC Compatible formats, or do we have to dig down to really archaic formats?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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.
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.
ISTR my first linux install (1997) was around 150 megs. It grew to 450 megs with XFree86 downloaded from tsx-11@MIT. FWIW my HDD was 500 megs and RAM was 128 megs on a 486DX.
The size and sheer waste of the newer stuff tends to aggravate me; particularly on websites that could easily do the same job with HTML and instead choose to use a wall of javascript by monkeys on crack. Newer distros remind me of that.
C|N>K
Yakkety Yak.
Don't talk back.
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.
Yeah it's a little too close to Yakety Sax and the first association that evokes in my mind is Benny Hill chasing scantily clad ladies about. "Hard to take seriously" is a bit of an understatement.
Ziggedy Zebra!
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
Or maybe even Zealous Zebu. It could happen.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
I'm glad we're setting a cut-off point, otherwise I was going to bring up that my C=64 5.25s were only 170K ;)
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.
FTFY
I have just upgraded to 16.04 of Ubuntu-Gnome. I use "Gnome Classic", mostly because Mint never seems to work for me.
I now find the stupid workspace selection option on Window title bars not longer allows you to choose which workspace you want - you can go up or down, but not move strait to 6! WTF?
And you don't get to see a thumbnail of the workspaces on the panel at the bottom! WTF?
Why can we not have features that work LEFT THE FUCK ALONE.
Why is it not an arrestable offense to fuck with people's UIs without asking?
Can someone please stop Gnome from "developing", and leave it alone!
Come on - people have been moaning forever about Gnome developers ripping the arms and legs of productivity. When is it going to stop?
Will I have to revert to FVWM95?
Will this ranting never stop? Well, It will for now, as I need a very strong alcoholic drink before I continue.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
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.