Dear M8s

I'm triying to understand why i.e. Mandriva's distribution keeps on delivery a nice ISO, so called Mandriva Mini a reduced installable system fitting on a CD ROM, while other distributions are not.

Let's do a preface: with such Mandriva Mini, you are able to install a quite small linux system (obviously not as with LFS) but, anyway, you get it up and running with all the hardware support, recent kernel, internet packages manager and so on. All of this with less than 400MB of occupied hdd space and without you to be oblidged (in case of an old pc with only CD ROM driver) to install a DVD ROM

First of all I'm wondering why doing something similar but with Fedora 7 (I tried the text installation, from the DVD, deselecting every kind of selectable package. Removed X, desktops: really everything) it is resulting in over 1.6GB of installed files.


I'd like to know your opinion about what said and what follow.

Linux is freedom and we all agree on this. Basing on this, distributions developers are free to do what they want and we also agree on this.
(personally I don't agree on directories anarchy that spreads around distributions... but this is another story, maybe object and subject for another poll)

About my opinion Linux has got two cores: the new generation core is about Desktops and 3Ds and so on... but the second and original one, is the Server Side. And last but not least, pull to a new life the old hardware... that usually it is not equipped with a DVD ROM.

Well, I think that when it is time to install a server for services, the goal is to have it light, stable and secure... and for many purposes it could and would be installed on an old fashion pc with few ram and just a cdrom drive.

Are the most popular (except but Mandriva, I see) distribution forgetting this?

Thank you for your opinions.

Regards

Robert

.

Mini size distros may be intended for pen drives!

You will find their limitations after using it for a while to find out the missing components.

This is not intended as mini-size but as minimal.

Minimal, means full-but-"empty", that is why I mentioned the "packets managers".

full-but-"empty" means that, through official distributions repositories I'm later able to install every kind of needed program/service.

Thanks

R.

.

If we use Linux we want its functionalities, thus the more the merrier.

We can get all of them in a fully populated Live CD or DVD without installing into a hard disk.

We can also boot such iso images directly from a hard disk. Live CD image can run as a full Linux but has a footprint 1/3 to 1/5 of an installed Linux.

I would say 99% of Linux would be comfortable of being installed into a 5Gb partition. The cost of hard disk storage space at 2007 price can't even buy a soft drink or a beer in UK.

It doesn't appear to me Mini iso have much technical, practical or economic justifications, relative to a full blown Linux.

Like I said previously it is desirable to reduce a distro footprint if it were to be installed into a pen drive because of its very low operating speed.

I tend to agree with Saikee.

Though I noticed Gentoo has both a Live CD and a Live DVD. The Live CD is ok if you have a broadband connection and can install most of the software over the net when the basic system from the CD is installed. This will also give you the latest versions, while the software on a DVD will be outdated quickly.

Not much of a justification though. With a resent DVD the updates won't be that extensive, so will in the end be quicker.

Let's say you are talking about a CD media, and this is similar to what I mean above.
Either if, for local services, this mean I may have NO internet connection available, nor to want to use one.

About HDD prices, I fully agree with you... but as said above, if I don't like to open an aged pc to mount in it a DVD ROM... I nor want to open it for an HDD mounting expecially for HDD/BIOS issues.
I agree with you about what you'll next say about nonsenses for this approach. I say this because of the concept. I'm happy to discover that gentoo still have a CD media for a basic system installation

Thank you again for your opinion, I'd like to ear something about the server approach that I talk about in the first post of this thread.

R.

I really did not think there is any thing nonsense in this thread. The OP's intention is good. I am just injecting my own view on the subject and try to relate the mini iso to my own experience. It is just my own experience finding more more freedom with distros already self-sufficiently packaged.

As far as I am aware Debian is another major distro that does mini iso too but I suppose many distributions will have the similar facilities (sometimes call boot disks) designed for the network install, thereby avoiding excessive time to downloading packages in the first instance. I have a reasonable broadband connection and tend to download the all iso files needed and use the network only for updates.

In these days I approaced ubuntu.

With my big surprise, I see that this entire thread makes some sense.

@ ubuntu, They mean ISOs distribution exactly as I poll/said/ask for: they subdivide ISOs in Desktop and Server. About server, to be precise, they call it "Ubuntu Server Edition" ... 490MB ISO cd...

Interesting (to me) has been reading that @ ubuntu they explain the concept exactly as I was writing above. Nice...

Regards

Robert

.

P.S. a very nice idea in the Server Edition is a packed function to automatically build (if selected) a LAMP or a DNS or both servers.
Tried it... works fine. In 10 minutes, starting from the scratch, you get a full working LAMP system.

.

As far as I understand it, the point of the mandriva mini is that it was released to be loaded into RAM. Similar functionality can be had from other Linux distros but many of them have become too "fat" to fit into 512MB of RAM.

Debian, reference for linux too,has all these possibilities:
No X, clean install, fast and on 1 cd... look that:
http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/dist...s/gtk-miniiso/ 8mb
mini iso
--
Debian is really far better
--
btw, ubuntu is c**p

the senses are that with fedora you need two disks, and do not have lot of choice for any way you would like to install linux... or not easy
ubuntu it takes one day to install sthg with they graphical stuff
(and it is non X version, is not nice, and ubuntu is buggiest distro you can find)

Debian has largest repositories, fans, highly trusted by companies, and politics that rocks ! So, ...

I'm not qualified to answer but I'm going to jump in with my opinion anyway. Why design something there's not much demand for? Almost everything built in the last seven years or longer has enough muscle to handle the larger version iso. From what I have read most of the older (smaller) servers have a backup system and don't need the new installs anyway. The "live" cds are good for me for recovering data on a broken system or boot problems. I would much rather see the programmers concentrate on building new drivers for the new hardware such as printers and scanners.

I don't think it took me for than 20 minutes to install a working Ubuntu. The update of packages is different and dependent on the download speed.

A few distros can be installed in as quick as 6 minutes off a CD, starting from clicking the "hard disk install" icon or in the menu to "Finished - please reboot".

I think you are not uptodate with ubuntu, I tried it for the first time this last week (version 7.04)...
please read what follow and I remember you that ubuntu is a debian derivative

Infact ubuntu server edition and mandriva mini (which is not ment for RAM, but for servers) installation speed is depending on HW speed, but I can say that both of them can be really up and running in 6 minutes. And really, if you need a LAMP system, with ubuntu those 6 minutes are including the both system + LAMP.

Ciao

R.

.