Ubuntu Quietly Raises Install Image Size to 2GB (omgubuntu.co.uk)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ubuntu Quietly Raises Install Image Size to 2GB (omgubuntu.co.uk)

Posted by msmash on Monday May 2, 2016 @03:00AM from the not-so-minimal-on-size-anymore dept.

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.

20 of 154 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

With 32 gig usb sticks so cheap ... by BarbaraHudson · 2016-05-02 03:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
1. Re:With 32 gig usb sticks so cheap ... by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · 2016-05-02 03:07 · Score: 2
  
  I wouldn't call 32GB USB drives "cheap" just yet, but you're right that a limit of 2GB "because of USB flash drives" is an extremely low target. I'm not even sure I'd be able to find 4GB or even 8GB drives in stores anymore.
2. Re:With 32 gig usb sticks so cheap ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-02 03:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's probably limited to 2GB to stay compatible with FAT32 max file size. I guess some people mount .iso files or something like that.
3. Re:With 32 gig usb sticks so cheap ... by LichtSpektren · 2016-05-02 03:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Ubuntu's not just for the developed world. There are many places where a 2 GB USB stick costs more than the average daily wage.
4. Re:With 32 gig usb sticks so cheap ... by Luthair · 2016-05-02 03:15 · Score: 2
  
  The flip side is downloading a bunch of cruft you'll never use. It would also be a significant extra load on mirrors.
5. Re:With 32 gig usb sticks so cheap ... by swb · 2016-05-02 03:17 · Score: 2
  
  I mean there's cheap and there's throw them out because you don't like the color cheap.
  I just bought a 128 GB SANDisk USB3 stick from Amazon for $31.
  How cheap does a 32GB drive need to be to be cheap?
  I already think they're cheap enough that I wish Microsoft would quit refusing to install and boot from USB drives as a kind of copy protection.
6. Re:With 32 gig usb sticks so cheap ... by HouseOfMisterE · 2016-05-02 03:23 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  FAT32 max file size is 4GB.
7. Re:With 32 gig usb sticks so cheap ... by justthinkit · 2016-05-02 07:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Windows:
  Overcoming the Windows 2GB Caching Limit
  
  Typically, a Windows process running in the 2003 operating system environment can access up to 2GB of address space. This memory is split between actual physical memory and virtual memory. Basically, the more processes that are running on the system, the more memory will be committed to reach the full 2GB address space.
  
  When memory consumption approaches the 2GB limit, the paging process increases and performance begins to degrade.
  
  Linux:
  2GB Filesize limit
  
  Q: Is there any way around the 2GB file-size limit in Linux? Are there any stable patches to fix it?
  A: Short answer: In a practical sense, no. The 2GB limit is deeply embedded in the versions of Linux for 32-bit CPUs:
  
  Even if most hardware and software these days do not have these concerns, why break things for some systems?
  
  --
  I come here for the love
8. Re:With 32 gig usb sticks so cheap ... by hairyfeet · 2016-05-02 09:43 · Score: 2
  
  Insightful? Really mods? Let me asking you a simple question....which do you think is more expensive in the developing world, an 8GB USB stick or 4GB+ of bandwidth to download all the stuff they didn't include in the .ISO?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
In before accusations of bloat by LichtSpektren · 2016-05-02 03:09 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
1. Re:In before accusations of bloat by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-02 03:12 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Easy solution there. Integrate Esperanto into the installer and make all other languages an available download.
2. Re:In before accusations of bloat by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-02 03:16 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Great, someone's going to approve your idea to add Esperanto (and Klingon/Sindarin/Dothraki) but they'll reject your idea to have the other languages be download-only. Now you've increased the bloat.
3. Re:In before accusations of bloat by aliquis · 2016-05-02 03:57 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Also, N.B. they still offer GUI-less installs and netinstalls.
  Which require more than one floppy I assume! BLOAT!
Multiple sizes by kreuzotter · 2016-05-02 03:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Multiple sizes by LichtSpektren · 2016-05-02 03:30 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You're in luck. Try the Ubuntu Core iso, or the netinstall.
Re:Perhaps if they didn't include... by LichtSpektren · 2016-05-02 03:28 · Score: 2

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...
Re:Why is this news? by omnichad · 2016-05-02 03:36 · Score: 2

Quietly implies that there isn't any outward announcement., but there's a relatively official statement by Canonical on this. That's about as official as you can get for something that's not all that newsworthy.
Target should be 2 or 4GB, not 4.7GB by davidwr · 2016-05-02 04:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:But, but... by inode_buddha · 2016-05-02 04:49 · Score: 2

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
Re:Yakkety Yak? by jittles · 2016-05-02 05:08 · Score: 3, Funny

Yakkety Yak.
Don't talk back.