GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I apologize beforehand if this is in the wrong forum.
Pretty much what it says on the tin.
Ubuntu was a lot smaller in the days of yore. Even Linux Mint 9's ISO was less than 1 gigabyte in size. Nowadays though I've been hearing of more recent Ubuntu releases being bumped up to ~2 gigabytes in size.
What happened? Remember when Windows was the operating system eater whereas Linux was usually lighter on its toes? In fact, the minimum system requirements for Windows x86 installations hasn't gone up since Windows 7 was released.
And then there's desktop environments. Even the lightweight Lubuntu is halfway to Vista-level RAM minimum requirements.
I guess I'm just a little sad that something that is as user-friendly as Ubuntu -even before it hit 1Gb- has gotten so large. It'd be nice to have something as user-friendly but not as big.
I think there the primary influence is this: DVDs and DVD burning capability are much more common and readily available than they were even a decade ago.
I remember several years ago there was a kerfuffle because some distro or other (indeed, it may have been Ubuntu) did not include the GIMP in its default *.iso, so as to keep the *.iso to CD size (there was no harm, as it was readily available in the repos).
A larger image means that distros can include more of the packages that users expect, such as the GIMP, LibreOffice, and so on.
After reading through the release notes of Ubuntu it looks like the Developers had a lot of things to add to the distribution which is one of the reasons why the size of the .iso image has increased.
A lot goes into a distribution. For example the kernel has to provide support for a lot of different types of hardware so that increases the size of drivers that come with the kernel. Than their are patches that are made and applied to the kernel as well.
Than you have all of the applications that come with the distro. Each app has an API and tons of libraries and engines that make other things work.
Developers also have to include bug fixes and tons of pkg's and other things to build and make a distro what it is so that's most likely why the size of the .iso has increased with time.
Have a look at the Development of a basic build of Ubuntu.
As many applications are included on a DVD as possible so lazy people do not need to install anything. Ubuntu's target demographic is Windows users who do not know, and do not want to learn, package mangement. The best option to attract those people is the ability to click an "install" icon, go make a cup of coffee, return to the computer, log in with a pretty display manager, and enjoy a fully functioning system without having to "waste time" installing anything else.
Disclamer
The above is the opinion of the author and does not relect the views of the site owners and operators.
Also, it's now a lot more common to put the image on a USB thumbdrive, rather than burning a DVD, and a 2+GB thumbdrive is no longer a significant expense compared to a 1GB thumbdrive (the minimum common size that would fit a 702MB CD image back in the day).
Distribution: Mainly Devuan, antiX, & Void, with Tiny Core, Fatdog, & BSD thrown in.
Posts: 5,479
Rep:
OpenBSD still has low resource requirements, a system with X, Fluxbox, Firefox, xmms, mc, mpg123, Xpat2, Xmahjongg, & mplayer still only uses 1.1GB of disk space.
I built a Icewm Ubuntu version once from one of these. I could have went with Fluxbox instead. But either Window Manager does not take up a lot of resources or storage space. Not beginner friendly though, like a whole kitchen sink release.
A distro needs to include a lot of things, especially for the benefit of installs that do not have a ready internet connection. And, there is really no cost to them being large.
Distribution: Dabble, but latest used are Fedora 13 and Ubuntu 10.4.1
Posts: 425
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus
As many applications are included on a DVD as possible so lazy people do not need to install anything.
Unless you drive a manual transmission car, only wear bespoke clothes, make your meals from scratch, butcher your own meat (that you shot), never eat packaged foods, and only program in assembler, don't call others lazy, okay?
I used to only drive manual, because I hate automatic transmissions. When I owned cars. Nowadays I walk.
Quote:
make your meals from scratch
Of course. I have been cooking since I was six years old.
Quote:
only wear bespoke clothes
Strangely enough, I do not have the equipment to make shoes. Imagine that. Although I made a beautiful hooded-cloak a few years ago with pockets in the lining. Sewed the entire thing by hand.
Quote:
butcher your own meat (that you shot)
Not many animals living in the city to shoot I am afraid.
Quote:
never eat packaged foods
Some food is only available as pre-prepaired. It is difficult for people in Canada and Siberia to grow bananas, for example.
Quote:
and only program in assembler
I cannot programme anything.
All of which is completely irrelevant and silly. What was the purpose of taking one sentence out of context and making foolish comparisons? I can take your ridiculous comparisons a step further.
Unless you build your own car, assemble your own computer, build and operate your own electricity power plant, et cetera. Although I thank you for making such an idiotic post. It was highly entertaining.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.