Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Won't Fit On a CD 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."
BLOOAATT (Score:2, Insightful)
This is proof positive that Ubuntu is officially BLOATWARE.
CD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good. Why be limited by outdated media? (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Mirroring network will go boom (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Mint (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I haven't burned a CD in years... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
You only wish that was a troll.
Re:I haven't burned a CD in years... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ubuntu doesn't run on pre-USB boot systems anyways (Score:4, Insightful)
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:I haven't burned a CD in years... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I haven't burned a CD in years... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Ubuntu doesn't run on pre-USB boot systems anyw (Score:4, Insightful)
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:BLOOAATT (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:CD? (Score:3, Insightful)
I still have CD's not used, and they're still cheaper, and more likely to just work on older computers.
Re:Mint (Score:1, Insightful)
Even ignoring the lack of evidence for your claim, your statement is truly bizarre. You genuinely believe that an upcoming version of a live distribution that doesn't fit on a CD is why one distro is more popular than another right now?
Re:BLOOAATT (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bloatware (Score:4, Insightful)