Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Won't Fit On a CD

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the or-on-a-floppy-disk dept.

Media 488

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."

cancel ×

488 comments

BLOOAATT (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955262)

This is proof positive that Ubuntu is officially BLOATWARE.

Re:BLOOAATT (-1, Offtopic)

ani23 (899493) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955320)

No. you are bloatware

Re:BLOOAATT (2)

drwho (4190) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955506)

I agree. To big, needs to diet. But it doesn't matter, I've switch back to Debian.

Re:BLOOAATT (2)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955868)

Last time I installed Debian from disc, it was many CDs that I had purchased, it was a long time ago though.

Good thing Linux Mint exists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955264)

You cock smoking teabaggers

Why? (1)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955274)

Ubuntu doesn't need to ship with everything including the kitchen sink. Then again I'm posting this from Lion which was a 3.53GB download.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955298)

Because Fuck You, thats why. But then, that was pretty much always been the attitude of Linux developers when it comes to listening to users.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955344)

You only wish that was a troll.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955336)

Ubuntu doesn't need to ship with everything including the kitchen sink. Then again I'm posting this from Lion which was a 3.53GB download.

Lion Lynx :D

Re:Why? (-1, Flamebait)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955684)

yes thanks douche for quoting a sentence three times as long as your fucktard response, the world is better now.

CD? (4, Insightful)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955276)

what in the world is a CD? some old tech that is not pontless anymore like an 8track or VHS tape?

Re:CD? (2, Informative)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955302)

No. CDs are an old tech that happen to work in DVD players.

Re:CD? (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955648)

My son was born after we stopped using our VHS tapes and he thinks they must have stored thousands of movies, given their size. And yeah, blank DVDs are now easier top buy and I usually netboot the ubuntu livecd anyway,

I haven't burned a CD in years... (1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955282)

The last time I burned a CD was years and years ago. With a USB key drive (4 GB) going for $5 now, who would?

Re:I haven't burned a CD in years... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955310)

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.

Re:I haven't burned a CD in years... (5, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955694)

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.

Re:I haven't burned a CD in years... (4, Insightful)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955750)

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.

Re:I haven't burned a CD in years... (2)

DarkTempes (822722) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955788)

Umm, you have a choice? You can use an old release, go to a different distro (that different distro could be better targeted at old hardware even), or package up your own release (or take the released image and remove some packages to trim it down for your own needs).

In this case I don't see it making a lot of sense to make it not CD size just for 50 megabytes worth of data but I also don't think the user is entitled to ubuntu on a CD or that it's a project requirement for ubuntu.

It's not like the project is called Damn Small Linux and it suddenly requires a 32GB flash drive to install or something...

Re:I haven't burned a CD in years... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955830)

Your problem is simple : Ubuntu.
There are much nicer communities around, that of pc linux os for starters, debian for another etc... Ubuntu is tailored along the "one true way" designed for os x zealots and microsoft windows users.
Stop thinking that Ubuntu=linux and you'll be alright.

Re:I haven't burned a CD in years... (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955720)

Older hardware which (surprisingly!) still does well with Linux

But with Ubuntu?

Re:I haven't burned a CD in years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955328)

The last time I burned a CD was years and years ago. With a USB key drive (4 GB) going for $5 now, who would?

I'm not quite sure why, but sometimes creating usb key boot images for linux doesn't always work for me, one way or another. I haven't really spent much time on it. CD/DVD creation always does though, as does the portable usb cd/dvd drive I picked up cheap awhile back. So, in short its easier to just burn the cd/dvd than bother trying to figure out why there is a problem creating usb key boot disks. It is not as if the cost is significant either way...

Re:I haven't burned a CD in years... (4, Insightful)

RightwingNutjob (1302813) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955504)

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...

Re:I haven't burned a CD in years... (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955646)

You know, you *CAN* get a flash drive with a physical write-protect switch [pqi.com.tw] .

Re:I haven't burned a CD in years... (5, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955770)

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.

4GB USB drives are $2.48, who cares? (0)

SexyKellyOsbourne (606860) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955730)

Here you go, 4GB USB drive. A whopping $2.48 worth of pocket change.

http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Cruzer-Flash-Drive-SDCZ36-004G-A11/dp/B001T9EYFI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320472244&sr=8-1 [amazon.com]

If you're that concerned, take it out of the package, put Ubuntu Linux on it, and then throw it away immediately like it's a message to Inspector Gadget.

Re:4GB USB drives are $2.48, who cares? (2)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955842)

That one "$2.48 for new" price you're latching on to doesn't include the $5 in shipping. View those offers taking that into account (most other sellers are free shipping) and you get $7.48, the real "street value" online.

Re:I haven't burned a CD in years... (2)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955548)

My Vaio Z doesn't boot from USB. That's incredibly weird, since it's a "premium" high-spec machine, but it makes using Linux a pain in the ass. (So does their disregard of TRIM in favor of a custom SSD garbage-collection system, and their proprietary switchable graphics, and their out-of-the-box RAID 0'd SSD's, and...) It's like Sony had a serious case of NIH syndrome.

Re:I haven't burned a CD in years... (3, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955774)

It's Sony. Are you really surprised? They seem to have some kind of fetish for making their own proprietary "solutions" when better open solutions are already available. Hardly a new phenomena.

Re:I haven't burned a CD in years... (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955690)

cause a 50 pack of cd's is 5 bucks and I dont have to dick around with ubuntu not wanting to format it, and I can stick it in a stack of other cd's for when they royally fuck it up (looking at you mint, which now crashes constantly on my laptop, and every time I reboot my desktop it bombs a taskbar item, fucking POS garbage)

Good. Why be limited by outdated media? (5, Insightful)

rsborg (111459) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955294)

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).

Re:Good. Why be limited by outdated media? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955346)

Linux isn't relevant on the desktop period.

Re:Good. Why be limited by outdated media? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955354)

your life isn't relevant on the planet. go crawl into a hole and die you troll.

Re:Good. Why be limited by outdated media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955564)

Ubuntu is not the only Linux distribution out there.

Re:Good. Why be limited by outdated media? (0)

red crab (1044734) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955602)

Are you saying that 5 year old machines don't have DVD drives..which world do you come from?

Mirroring network will go boom (2, Insightful)

ramereth (752738) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955296)

If the plan to use a 1.5GB default image goes through that will wreck havoc on the mirroring network. That's essentially doubling the size of the default ISO and will likely cause for some annoyed users waiting for the download. They're doing it wrong if they can't fit it on a CD.

Re:Mirroring network will go boom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955348)

Actually you will just have twice the time to download from torrent seeds. "Free broadband market" will take care of this.

Re:Mirroring network will go boom (1)

ramereth (752738) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955442)

Actually you will just have twice the time to download from torrent seeds. "Free broadband market" will take care of this.

That's not how it generally works in the real world in my experience. Whenever an Ubuntu release happens it almost always puts our netwok links to the max. I can't imagine doubling that. A lot of people still download directly and don't bother with torrents.

Re:Mirroring network will go boom (1)

Sylak (1611137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955546)

Actually you will just have twice the time to download from torrent seeds. "Free broadband market" will take care of this.

That's not how it generally works in the real world in my experience. Whenever an Ubuntu release happens it almost always puts our netwok links to the max. I can't imagine doubling that. A lot of people still download directly and don't bother with torrents.

Don't forget those of us with University connections that don't let us torrent

Re:Mirroring network will go boom (1)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955446)

Does that really matter that much? I can't recall the last time I didn't opt for the torrent download. It's always been the fastest way for me to get it, and I suspect the same is true in most situations.

Mint (3, Insightful)

Squiddie (1942230) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955304)

This is one of the many reasons why Mint is now more popular than Ubuntu.

Re:Mint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955526)

Citation needed

Re:Mint (3, Informative)

jrumney (197329) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955574)

Last I looked, Mint comes in at slightly larger than a similar aged Ubuntu release with a similar feature set. The current release is a DVD image for the full version already, only cut down versions are available on CD.

Re:Mint (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955706)

takes 3 times as long to boot as well

Re:Mint (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955702)

Mint 11 cant even load the window taskbar widget on my desktop now unless I manually do it on reboot, sometimes forgets there is a clock widget on the taskbar, and on my laptop it crashes gnome when I run filezilla in full screen.

but it sure gives me a fuckton of error messages, its funny because 10 was running flawless, goes back to "if it aint broke, dont fucking fix it you dumbshits"

Re:Mint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955812)

This is one of the many reasons why Mint is now more popular than Ubuntu.

By what measure... total downloads? total installs? total users?

I am gonna start my own ask slashdot thread (1, Interesting)

ani23 (899493) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955314)

Practically speaking and forgetting every small petty argument. What would it take to make ubuntu (Or any other linux Distro) a mainstream desktop OS. (Highlight DESKTOP) If you were in charge of it or could give it direction what would you do to make it work, accepted and profitable. I am hoping this will be an interesting exercise.

Re:I am gonna start my own ask slashdot thread (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955404)

... nothing.
The users will just retreat whenever they learn about their games, adobe-whatever, geeky toy's driver... just won't work.
There are alternatives, but they won't try. Even there is WINE, they won't try.
They will just stick with ms which just run their program. (at least, usually)

Re:I am gonna start my own ask slashdot thread (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955410)

I'm using ubuntu since version 6, now 10.04 - it took some time to get audio right on my machine (fujitsu siemens Xi2428, older laptop), but one of the things I like most about linux is that once it's configured properly, it will stay that way. It will not get slower over time, or suddenly change behavior, like windows (although the last version of windows I used is XP, and still do, in Virtualbox).

I think Ubuntu 10.04 is a very nice looking desktop OS, it just works, everytime, no surprises. It's ideal for running XP in virtualbox (where it's more at home, XP is more of an application than OS, imho), and rock stable. I honestly don't know what else should be added to it.

Re:I am gonna start my own ask slashdot thread (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955502)

Mainstream? As in, used by a majority of worldwide users? It would take a couple decades being pushed by a leading technology company. It's a moot question, though, because the desktop is no longer the primary platform on which users use software. Today that platform is the web, and so far we have managed not to fork or otherwise divide the web, which is a real possibility.

Re:I am gonna start my own ask slashdot thread (1)

jonahbron (2278074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955516)

Ship with Gnome Shell by default, and give it a real settings application. Other than that, in my experience, we're there.

Re:I am gonna start my own ask slashdot thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955532)

For windows users, a mac like easy to use and attractive desktop, good driver support for video cards and games.

The latter two being more important. I love linux, felt ubuntu was dumbed down quite a bit and it works great for everything else (except the odd driver that wont work). I have had a linux box since the mid-late 90s as a webserver/fileserver.

Gaming is 100% of the reason I haven't gone off windows on my main PC (that and I got windows7/xp free through MSDN student stuff). Yes, I could probably get it working somehow in linux, but I am not going to spend time configuring that, especially if it results in a loss of fps. It needs to just work and it needs to work better then windows.

Re:I am gonna start my own ask slashdot thread (1)

EricX2 (670266) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955534)

It needs to be preinstalled on their computer when they buy it... I would guess 75% of the people who have computers use whatever comes preinstalled because that is what they think their computer is. The concept of 'operating system' is still foreign to most people.

If Linux can be preinstalled with a desktop that looks as nice as the competing Windows and OS X systems, it will start to be mainstream. When they only way to buy a linux baed system is through the business page on Dell or some random Linux Laptop page, most people wont even know it is an option.

As far as it's current state, it should be good for most people. The fact that most documentation online is designed for geeks would hurt the average noob trying to figure stuff out though. The second a person realizes their $15 wal-mart webcam or off brand scanner wont work with it, they will be upset. Not the fault of Linux... but as far as most people are concerned, the stuff should just work by plugging it in and putting the CD in the drive.

Re:I am gonna start my own ask slashdot thread (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955616)

Honestly, it needs to be dumbed down, seriously it does. If you're talking mainstream then you need to play to the common denominator, not the highly knowledgeable admins, nor the lowest grunt, but somewhere in the middle where a reasonable person who knows something about computer but not too much (e.g. how to partition a disk) can install it with confidence. Secondly it needs more application support. Regardless of what you think about Microsoft, Windows is damn simple and easy to use for 80% of the people. Windows 95 took off because Microsoft realized that as computers got into more an more hands, they needed to simplify the product. They spent millions of dollars in engineering effort to write thousands of drivers to make plug-n-play work. Once it became the de facto OS for business, the applications came soon thereafter. The 10-15% of us who really get software hate Windoze for all the well known reasons, but do you believe that the legal secretary or their lawyer boss cares about the OS? What about the doctor, school teacher, accountant, etc? They don't they care about the OS, they only care about their applications, the OS is just a means to the end. Once a Linux distro becomes as simple and easy to use along with support for the applications people use everyday, it will could become mainstream.

To touch in Macs for a second, while they are easy to use, they are too expensive for corporations and they don't have enough application support.

Re:I am gonna start my own ask slashdot thread (1)

grizzifus (2021406) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955660)

I've been using linux mint for a couple of years now, and in that time have also moved my Grandpa, Dad, Dad's partner, and 1 family friend over (in every case because their xp was stuffed and they needed help). All of them are still using mint and now prefer it to xp.

Anyway, to answer the question.
1!!!!!. Most users cannot install an OS, windows comes pre-installed on almost all computers.
Lesser issues:
2. Linux sucks for games.
3. Linux sucks for running windows programs.
Honestly I don't even consider 2+3 to be big issues because most users I know only really use the web browser anyway. The ones who do play PC games, or use specialized software are generally capable of dual-booting (should they want to).

Re:I am gonna start my own ask slashdot thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955760)

A WHOLE LOTTA LSD

pocket version of Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955322)

If they could just keep it to 1.4 gigs it could at least fit on an 8 cm DVD and we'd have a nice little shirt pocket version that could load even on machines that don't have USB boot capability. Yeah, I've still got some old hardware here in the basement and deal with more people that have the same.

With a name like Precise Pangolin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955338)

You'd think they'd find a way to make it fit precisely onto one CD. The previous distributions have all hovered around 650MB, why can't this one?

I'm really sick of every Linux distribution hovering suspiciously around the space of one CD or DVD. That just means it takes me even longer to try out anything new. We don't all have super-fast broadband or internet without download caps, you know. And I'm too lazy to ask for a pre-burned CD. Am I the only person who wants a Debian distribution with XFCE and almost nothing else on it (no gedit, no Totem, no Evolution, no Firefox) so I can download specifically the stuff I want after the fact?

Re:With a name like Precise Pangolin... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955386)

There are about half a fucking million Linux distros of all sizes, retard. Google. Learn it. Use it. Wear it out. Shut the fuck up.

Re:With a name like Precise Pangolin... (1)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955742)

You'd think they'd find a way to make it fit precisely onto one CD. The previous distributions have all hovered around 650MB, why can't this one?

It's precise, not accurate.

Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955360)

I'm upset that they went with Pangolin instead of something with Penguin in the title.

Re:Hmm (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955696)

Yeah thats weird.

Re:Hmm (1)

grim4593 (947789) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955744)

I bet it because it is trademarked.

Seems Too Soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955362)

Sure most computers can boot from a USB thumbdrive now, but if the size is ~750, why not just cut a little and fit it onto a regular CD one more time? On the next LTS, when it's 1050 and not close to a CD, then let it go.

Re:Seems Too Soon (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955666)

Someone already suggest for example to trim Mono.

Insert Disc Number ... (1)

mangamuscle (706696) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955368)

Maybe I am too old or the idea is too old school, but is it really that hard to separate the install into two CDs? At some point the user would *gasp* insert the next disc. Back in the day of 16 bit operative systems you inserted several to make a full disc install and it was not a big deal.

Re:Insert Disc Number ... (1)

kvvbassboy (2010962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955420)

Debian still does this, but I am guessing that Ubuntu wants to fit everything into one standardized package with the "one size fits all" mentality. At the same time they keep it as low as possible because not everyone has unlimited broadband internet.

This is not however strictly true, because Canonical *does* provide a minimal ISO ( here [ubuntu.com] ) which contains the kernel, userland and ethernet related stuff, after which you can do a netinstall of whatever you want.

I honestly can't remember the last time... (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955374)

...I actually used a CD to burn a Linux image... it's been DVD for at least six years...

Re:I honestly can't remember the last time... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955680)

I've found that to be rather hit or miss. The utilities don't work reliably and often times I end up having to redo it several times before it works. At least for the utility that they used to use for booting Ubuntu off a USB stick.

Re:I honestly can't remember the last time... (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955708)

why?

most decent linuxes will let you download a tiny net installer, why waste a entire DVD containing software that was outdated a year or more before it was shoved into an ISO, just to update on the net anyway?

Which means it won't be used for old hardware, (1, Interesting)

lpt1 (46613) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955380)

And thus, one of the most common entry points into Linux is lost to Ubuntu.

How many of us actually installed Linux, for the first time, onto a Factory Fresh machine?

Better yet, how many of us then reinstalled windows _just_ long enough to get online and figure out why Linux wouldn't partition/install/boot?

So, keep on about "CD's are soooo last decade", but please keep in mind just how many Linux users saw the light on old hardware of the kind that might only have a CD-ROM.

Meh (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955426)

If your hardware is so old it doesn't have USB booting, I really doubt Ubuntu would be a good distro choice anyway.

Re:Meh (1)

erice (13380) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955672)

If your hardware is so old it doesn't have USB booting, I really doubt Ubuntu would be a good distro choice anyway.

Why? My 2004 vintage desktop, which does not support USB booting, is quite a bit faster then my EEEPC 1005HA which does support USB booting and actually runs Ubuntu.

Re:Which means it won't be used for old hardware, (1)

kvvbassboy (2010962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955438)

Ehh, but the thing is the latest Ubuntu is unlikely to work on the kind of old hardware that only has a CD-ROM device or can't boot from an external harddisk. AFAIK, Lubuntu and Xubuntu do fit everything in a CD.

Re:Which means it won't be used for old hardware, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955460)

I think the question you meant to ask was How long can you tolerate windows on a new machine before you'll install GNU/Linux {REHL/Fedora}. For my self it was about 45 seconds, once i noticed that in Windows 7 professional that it defaults to the administrative account and it would not let me use gpedit. I realized Microsoft is up to their old tricks again causing most user to use an insecure machine.

Re:Which means it won't be used for old hardware, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955818)

@ 2001 ... about 5 sec in to the boot of win (what_ever) ... just to press power button about 7 sec to enable boot from Linux CD (add your favorite distro here)
=> problem solved!

Re:Which means it won't be used for old hardware, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955510)

probably not many. especially when a dvd drive is $20 and a writer is $30.

when was the last year a computer came standard with a cdrom instead of dvd?

Re:Which means it won't be used for old hardware, (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955688)

It's been a while, but these days it's fairly common for laptops to come without an optical disc. I'll probably get my desktops without as well as my Samsung USB drive is more than enough on the rare occasions where I really need an optical disc.

I rip all my discs to disk and load them from there, leaving my optical drive to pretty much just take up space.

Re:Which means it won't be used for old hardware, (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955736)

I have a nice little PXE netboot environment on my home server. Currently it supports:

  • ubuntu-11.04-desktop-i386
  • ubuntu-11.10-desktop-i386
  • systemrescuecd-x86-2.2.0
  • debian
  • GParted Live

Every time a new release comes out, or I find a new distro which supports PXE, I unpack it in /var/lib/tftpboot and add it to the menu. The debian installer loads first and includes a neat menu system which makes it easy to install different distributions. When I bought my new netbook I naturally checked that it supports PXE.

Ubuntu doesn't run on pre-USB boot systems anyways (3, Insightful)

SexyKellyOsbourne (606860) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955670)

Any system that has been made since circa 2001 (i.e. the past 10 years) has been able to boot from USB.

Ubuntu 11's system requirements are as such:

* 1 GHz CPU (x86 processor (Pentium 4 or better))
* 1 GiB RAM (system memory)
* 15 GB of hard-drive space

By Pentium 4 or better, that likely means it requires SSE2 instructions, which means Athlon 64 is the minimum on the AMD side. 1GB of RAM is hard to find or get on 2001-2002 P4's as well due to the use of RDRAM. So you're basically looking at 2003-era systems as a minimum to run Ubuntu.

But finding an 8 year old or better system as a hand-me-down, at a yard sale, or even by dumpster diving isn't difficult at all. Never really has been. Most systems like that will actually still work once the typical spyware-infested XP install is removed.

Considering a brand new 4GB USB flash drive is a whopping $2.47 on Amazon (or $5 at Walgreen's) it's not that big of a deal to get one of those either.

http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Cruzer-Flash-Drive-SDCZ36-004G/dp/B001XURP7W/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1320470296&sr=1-3 [amazon.com]

Ubuntu made the right choice by dumping what is now an arbitrary 700MB limit. I'm sure plenty of people also "saw the light" of Linux on 1.44MB floppies in the late 90's as well, but it's almost 2012, and both eras are over now.

TLDR Ubuntu requires 2003-era systems to begin with. 4GB USB drives are $2.47 these days. No big deal.

Re:Ubuntu doesn't run on pre-USB boot systems anyw (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955728)

debian (you know the thing that ubuntu is based on) runs on a pentium with 48 megs of ram, gnome 2 requires like 4 megs of video memory, ubuntu minus BLOAT will run just fine on a 8 year old machine with the memory, and if you trim off all of its pre installed pure garbage runs quite well.

but its honestly less effort to su apt-get install debian where you want it, than hope and pray that you can boot ubuntu on such a machine and apt-get remove AOL, compaq utilities and MS HOME, which is what it boils down to

most people will never in their life use 90% of what ubuntu comes bloated with, nevermind the dumb shit like jello windows and the cube desktop switcher

Re:Ubuntu doesn't run on pre-USB boot systems anyw (3, Insightful)

SexyKellyOsbourne (606860) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955824)

Then use Debian, use Puppy Linux, use BasicLinux, use whatever. It's your choice, whether you're running an 8-core AMD Bulldozer, a $250 netbook that leaves any 2003-era system in the dust, or something from the 1990s that belongs in a museum (or landfill).

I only wish you luck on getting any modern software, such as an ACID2-compliant browser like Iceweasel or Chromium, to run on a Pentium 1 with 48MB of RAM. Such things do not constitute Windows 98 era junkware. If you're reading this with lynx, more power to you!

Re:Ubuntu doesn't run on pre-USB boot systems anyw (-1, Troll)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955864)

does your penis feel larger now for stating all those spec's?

and um dumbfuck? Iceweasel and chromium runs fine on the current debian, which requires a 48 meg pentium, yes its dog slow but fine if you dont have a 96 core backhoe wolf clusterfuck rack system in your mom's basement.

On my workshop bench machine, which is a 300mhz powermac with 256 megs of ram, as long as I dont run into javabloat, the speed difference is really not noticable, as I am not running a fucking benchmark 24/7 to prove how big my dick is on slashdot.

Re:Which means it won't be used for old hardware, (2)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955724)

Better yet, how many of us then reinstalled windows _just_ long enough to get online and figure out why Linux wouldn't partition/install/boot?

None.

overburn! (1)

Time_Ngler (564671) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955392)

From cdrecord man page:

-overburn
                            Allow wodim to write more than the official size of a medium. This feature is usually
                            called overburning and depends on the fact that most blank media may hold more space than
                            the official size. As the official size of the lead-out area on the disk is 90 seconds
                            (6750 sectors) and a disk usually works if there are at least 150 sectors of lead out,
                            all media may be overburned by at least 88 seconds (6600 sectors). Most CD recorders
                            only do overburning in SAO or RAW mode. Known exceptions are TEAC CD-R50S, TEAC CD-R55S
                            and the Panasonic CW-7502. Some drives do not allow to overburn as much as you might
                            like and limit the size of a CD to e.g. 76 minutes. This problem may be circumvented by
                            writing the CD in RAW mode because this way the drive has no chance to find the size
                            before starting to burn. There is no guarantee that your drive supports overburning at
                            all. Make a test to check if your drive implements the feature.

Ok (1)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955412)

Ok, use a DVD, now you have space for whatever Unity/Gnome3... AND Gnome 2.

Re:Ok (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955712)

Problem is that gnome3 seems to need a version of gtk which will not work with gnome2. Clever, eh?

Get with the Times Linux (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955464)

This is ridiculous, CDs cost the same as DVDs and if your computer has a optical drive and is new enough that you should be using normal Ubuntu instead of one of its builds designed for low spec systems then you have a DVD drive (and a few gigs is nothing for a USB stick).
I have been burning CD images to DVDs for like 5+ years now, because unless you want compatibility with really old systems there is no reason not to and lets face it Ubuntu is not really even compatible with these systems in the first place.

So I cannot even imagine one person being inconvenience by this.

Now significantly increasing the size will effect download time, but once it is on a HD 700MB or 1.5G are both so insignificant that it does not really matter.

Re:Get with the Times Linux (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955494)

it's not whether it fits on a cd or not it's about size creep.

Re:Get with the Times Linux (1)

RightwingNutjob (1302813) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955530)

I remember back when DOS 3.3 came on three (3) high density 3.5" floppy disks...and all computers did back then was compute and all they do now is compute...

Re:Get with the Times Linux (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955700)

I don't mind if software grows in size, but these days it just seems to grow out of control while keeping roughly the same feature sets.

Re:Get with the Times Linux (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955614)

Size creep in inevitable. The current 700MB image has already undergone about a 700 times size creep from early operating systems and it will continue.
Ubuntu is designed for running on the common everyday computer and as time goes on that gets more powerful. And not to mention there are still tons of hardware specs it does not function perfectly on and more being created every day so if nothing else adding more drivers to the image will creep the size.

Or do you actually think that "Nobody will ever need more than [700MB] RAM! [for an OS image]” – Bill Gates, 1981

Re:Get with the Times Linux (0)

luther349 (645380) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955514)

would say legacy systems but Ubuntu has not been friendly for those systems for some time. theirs many other reason i no longer use Ubuntu. unity slow ass builds and bugs are some of them. rolling arch is more stable then a released ubuntu.

Bloated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955498)

WTF what a bloated shitstack!
May as well run Vista.

How about net-install? (4, Interesting)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955540)

I like Debian's net-install to get the latest packages since stable ISOs are usually outdated. :( Obviously, if you have fast Internet connection.

How is this an issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955566)

I only still burn CD isos to actual CDRs because I buy them to occasionally burn new music for my car stereo which plays mp3 off CDRs and it's a bit more efficient, and I rarely use them for the car. If it weren't for that, I'd only have blank DVDs. I have an ancient clamshell ibook (11 years old) that I play around with that is perfectly happy booting from DVD. Granted, they had DVD-ROM drives a bit earlier than most of that era, but who has a computer that can run the normal Ubuntu install and not boot from USB or DVD anymore?

No copying Tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955590)

At least there's no Canadian "Copying Tax" on DVD's as there is with CD's.

But then again... (2)

deimios666 (1040904) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955634)

I always burned the CD ISO to DVD because it would install faster and with less noise.

Owesome!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37955652)

Finally they figure that the old pc or notebook that preinstalled with cd only will not be able to run ubuntu nicely.

They'll find a way around it. (1)

lvxferre (2470098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37955754)

Sadly, this way will be throwing away useful software that should come pre-installed and almost everyone uses until the ISO fits in a regular CD.
But the Canonical stuff we never use will still be there.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...