Is it high time for Ubuntu to switch to DVD? [Archive]

View Full Version : Is it high time for Ubuntu to switch to DVD?

PryGuy

January 17th, 2006, 05:39 AM

Hello all! Just wanted to ask your opinion about the following thing: Is it high time for the Ubuntu team to change the format of their CDs they send us and the image they have for free download to DVD? Probably the best way for Ubuntu is to start offering both the CD and DVD versions for download and mail delivery. Of course the DVD version should contain more packages. Are there many people that have DVD drives?

earobinson

January 17th, 2006, 05:41 AM

cd and dvd would be good, but just dvd would be bad, i have an old laptop that runs ubuntu, no dvd, main computer dvd. We want to as many people as we can.

EDIT: vote Both DVD or CD versions would be nice, but cds are much more important.

galgoz

January 17th, 2006, 05:47 AM

Depends, using the cd version of Fedora Core 4 was a real pain. When you choose to install packages it would go from cd 1 to cd 3 to cd 2 back to cd 1 to cd 4 back to cd 3 and so on and so on. Very annoying. If they go to a dvd version they need to keep a SINGLE cd version unless they can keep this from happening.

Adrian

January 17th, 2006, 05:50 AM

...and the image they have for free download to DVD?

There already exist downloadable DVD images. Check out the bottom of this page:
http://www.ubuntu.com/download

ardchoille

January 17th, 2006, 06:09 AM

cd and dvd would be good, but just dvd would be bad, i have an old laptop that runs ubuntu, no dvd, main computer dvd. We want to as many people as we can.
I totally agree with you :)

PryGuy

January 17th, 2006, 06:10 AM

There already exist downloadable DVD images. Check out the bottom of this page:
http://www.ubuntu.com/downloadYeah, heared about that, but are there more packages than in the CD version?:D And why don't they mail them then?

PuNGS

January 17th, 2006, 06:12 AM

I don't think there are more packages in the DVD version. As the description says, it is only a live cd + install cd.

PryGuy

January 17th, 2006, 06:19 AM

I see, and I actually meant that the DVD version will contain more packages, just like Fedora for instance. I don't really care about the LiveCD, I don't see how one can use it seriously.;) But, the DVD is about 2.9Gb and well, two CDs is just 1.4Gb not more... So it shows that there's something yet on the DVD!

briancurtin

January 17th, 2006, 06:38 AM

I don't really care about the LiveCD, I don't see how one can use it seriously.;)
why dont you see a serious use for it? it works great as a demo for if people would like to move on and install ubuntu to their drive, so it serves a great purpose there.

another serious use is as a rescue CD, as you can run it to fix things, or even adjust partitions.

as far as i know, those are pretty much the two reasons live CDs exist...

PryGuy

January 17th, 2006, 06:50 AM

Well, the rescue issue is serious of course, sorry, have forgotten about it. But frankly I doubt it's a great idea to use it as a demo thing, 'cause it's soooo slow. I just imagined myself showing it to the guy that never seen linux and thought that he can probably consider linux as a very slow thing. I know that there's a note on the CD package that the LiveCD runs slower and all, but anyway, I suppose that the newbie's first reaction will be negative in most cases.

drizek

January 17th, 2006, 07:53 AM

no, just make sure that whenever the system is running slowly to make sure to tell him that it was only because it was accessing it off the cd. focus on the features, not the speed.

Iandefor

January 17th, 2006, 08:07 AM

No. The Ubuntu CD provides enough packages to get a person's computer up and running. Why have more? DVD's right now are more expensive and the ability to burn and read them is not as ubiquitous as CD's are.

Burgundavia

January 17th, 2006, 08:34 AM

Currently a DVD by default offers no advantage, due to the fact that the vast majority of the computers in the world do not have a DVD player. Also, as others have pointed out, a DVD exists, which includes all of main and forcing it on to a cd means that the developers are forced to think small, which is a good thing.

Corey

nocturn

January 17th, 2006, 09:45 AM

CD download appr. 700 MB, I may pull in extra packages for another 500 (probably much less), which makes a 1200 MB download.

A DVD iso would take >4 GB, half of my monthly quotum while I won't use more then the 1200 MB of packages (maximum)...

My point is that if you have a connection that is good enough to pull in a DVD iso, it won't be a problem to apt-get all extra software your heart desires.

23meg

January 17th, 2006, 09:53 AM

There are plans to consolidate the live cd and the install into one cd.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuExpress

Burgundavia: what's the present total size of Main? I believe shipping anything outside Main on a DVD isn't a good idea, right?

Kvark

January 17th, 2006, 02:05 PM

No, don't include more packages in Ubuntu! One of the good things about Ubuntu is that it comes with 1 program for each task. If it would come with 5 programs for each task then everyone would have a lot of stuff laying around that they never use.

Also Ubuntu's target audiance is poor countries that can't afford Windows software (or at least I got that impression from reading some stuff Mark wrote). In those countries it is rare to have a fast enough connection to download several GB and a DVD burner.

But I bet a lot of dail up users would want a series of disks that contains all packages in main and universe so they can install additional programs on Ubuntu without downloading anything. For this it would be good with DVDs cause it would probably be way too many disks if CDs are used.

PryGuy

January 17th, 2006, 02:38 PM

I agree, the fact that you get a whole bunch of the programs you don't need and you know you'll never need always drove me crazy in many other linux distributions, but on the other hand, having the packages installed by default or having them on the DVD as packages is not the same thing.:)

I live in Russia for instance and I don't have an unlimited internet so far (my friends in Moscow have it though), in other words I pay for downloaded and uploaded megabytes so I'd love to have ability to order a DVD version with more packages on it. And I like the default Ubuntu set of programs, there's no need to change anything IMHO, but that's another question actually...;)

gord

January 17th, 2006, 02:40 PM

i personally do a server install of ubuntu so that i don't have loads of packages i don't need pre-installed for me, anything i do need i can get from synaptic relitivly quickly. if you need a dvd version you might as well just download a load of .deb files of programs you want and put them onto your own dvd.

fuscia

January 17th, 2006, 02:51 PM

switching solely to DVD would be a great way to exclude a ton of people. that doesn't seem inkeeping with the intent of ubuntu. i agree, there should be a DVD version. i don't know if it needs more packages, though. i'm kind of anti-bloat.

PryGuy

January 17th, 2006, 02:56 PM

i don't know if it needs more packages, though. i'm kind of anti-bloat.again, don't mix term "installed" with the term "present on the CD/DVD" please. :) Because the default CD version has the kernel source for instance, but it's not installed by default. But anyone knows it should be included in the distribution.

fuscia

January 17th, 2006, 03:00 PM

again, don't mix term "installed" with the term "present on the CD/DVD" please. :) Because the default CD version has the kernel source for instance, but it's not installed by default. But anyone knows it should be included in the distribution.

so, you're saying include more packages as installation options? that makes sense.

PryGuy

January 17th, 2006, 03:04 PM

yes, that's right :)

Kerberos

January 17th, 2006, 08:40 PM

If anything I think they should be reducing the size of the image, rather than increasing it. There seems to be this urge to bundle everything they possibly can with distros these days, and if you want to use it you need to download ~5 or so cd's (I'm looking at you Fedora, Suse).

I wouldn't mind the multi-cd thing that much if you could get it running with just the first one and the other disks are optional. My opinion is to take the Firefox approach and strip out everything thats not strictly speaking necessary and just make Synaptic a bit less annoying - bandwidth costs time and money and I dont see any advantage to adding another ~3gb to your download to really offset the annoyance factor.

An 'Ubuntu Packages' DVD that has loads of good software you can install after install, however, would be nice.

xequence

January 18th, 2006, 12:00 AM

A dvd version and a cd version would be good.

I dont have a DVD reader or burner, so I would need a CD version.

poofyhairguy

January 18th, 2006, 12:29 AM

No one has said it yet so I will.

There are a few reasons why Ubuntu will stick to CDs for now. Many matter. One matters more:

Shipping CDs is the biggest cost so far for Ubuntu. Mark has said more than once that the most expensive part of Ubuntu is shipping the CDs. It has personally cost him more than a million dollars so far. It costs a lot to ship packages all over the world. But the actually CDs have a cost too. Which is the main problem.

DVDs cost more to make. As anyone who wanders into a Best Buy knows, black CDs cost less than blank DVDs. Even at bulk prices- blank DVDs cost more.

Ubuntu is not a huge distro with a huge company behind it providing monetary support. Mark is what provides the support. So anything that costs more than it does now (even if its only a fraction) can equal to a big money difference in the long run.

If Ubuntu continues to increase its community at the rate it does then over the course of ten years the difference in cost between the DVDs and the CDs is almost enough to hire another lead developer. Unless someone else with millions is willing to step in to offset this cost, Ubuntu will continue to ship CDs. In fact, Ubuntu will probably move to a single CD format (aka install system from Live CD), which will make it even cheaper in the future.

Now I will make you feel better about this reality- you are not missing much. The DVD version (I'm pretty sure) is just the entire main. Basically that means you get Kubuntu and Ubuntu on a single disk. If you really want both, just order both Ubuntu and Kubuntu in their CD forms.

The DVD does NOT have all the tasty bits from the Universe on it. It does NOT have the restricted codecs and things like Java that account for most of the downloading on a new install.

If you really are on a slow connection and you want these things, you best option is not Ubuntu. I would suggest Debian instead. Why?

Because you can pay to have all the Debian CDs shipped to you- it would be the equivilent to getting a set of cds with everything in the Main and in the Universe. All 16000+ packages on CDs.

Only Debian provides that. And many places on the internet will sell and ship all these CDs to you at a fair price.

I have often said that Ubuntu is a perfect broadband OS. This is for two reasons:

1. The main problems with the other desktop OS that people use (yes I mean Windows) come out when you have broadband. Viruses, spyware, malware, etc are all worse on a Windows machine hooked up to a fat pipe. It was designed for dial up from the beginning. (I am using this as an example, not to say one is better than the other overall)

Ubuntu was designed for broadband. It tries to set up your broadband connection when you first install (and will give you error messages if it does not find a broadband Lan connection). It comes with bittorrent installed. It wants broadband.

2. The biggest benefit of Ubuntu is its Universe and Multiverse- 17000+ packages waiting for you to install them. This is far more than any other distro besides Gentoo and Sid. Its why I orginally tried Ubuntu.

But without broadband the access to these huge storehouse of free applications is difficult. At that level, a SUSE (with its applications all on five CDs) or a Debian might be better. It is true that Mark does ship the CDs partially so that those without internet access can enjoy Ubuntu, but the truth is that in those cases he assumes what comes on the CD to be enough. Since the other alternative for those sorts of people is nothing, its better than that. But its not good enough for many that want more than what the default provides....

And there is a full answer. Not an official answer, but a full one. Hope it helps someone understand.

drizek

January 18th, 2006, 01:08 AM

AFAIK, universe in ubuntu is thesame as the sid uni. so wy not just use ubuntu and order the 16k package set from the debian folks?

majikstreet

January 18th, 2006, 01:24 AM

NO!!!!

DVD and CD versions would be fine, but ONLY DVD wouldn't be.. Because I don't have a DVD drive, and many other users don't.

drizek

January 18th, 2006, 01:32 AM

more importantly, many others dont have dvd BURNER drives, which means a lot of people will be dependant on shipit cds.

Azion

January 18th, 2006, 02:05 AM

I think DVD and CD would be the perfect choice.
Most of the other major distros, are both DVD and CD now

PryGuy

January 19th, 2006, 05:23 AM

So, summing up, most people (including me) want to have a choice. as poofyhairguy said it's rather a financial problem for Canonical to ship DVDs. That's sad but let's keep our fingers crossed in hope we'll see it someday. Or, think the best solution developers could offer would be to take a snapshot of the Ubuntu Universe periodically and put it on the Ubuntu site as ISO image. That would be great!:)

neoflight

January 19th, 2006, 06:59 AM

ssam

January 19th, 2006, 10:46 AM

making it fit on a cd forces the developers to be aware of the size of thing, and decide how neccisary things are. this a good thing. its too easy to just bung everything in. does an operating system with a basic set of applications need more than 700mb?

also, how many people have dvd burners? far less people than have cd burners.

a suplimentery cd/dvd for people without broadband would be nice. this could easily be done as a stand alone project. another solution would be to get synaptic to make a list of required files when you try an install something offline, then you could take the list to another computer, download the packages and give them to synaptic.

mips

January 19th, 2006, 02:53 PM

DVD as an option would be nice. It must only install the same stuff as the CD and then allow you to manually add additional stuff on the dvd.

Azion

January 19th, 2006, 04:22 PM

ember

January 19th, 2006, 05:02 PM

Yes, but there is surely a bunch of currently used PCs that still do not have DVD-writers.

Yet I like the option of a DVD, because it will save me some download time.

Mr_J_

January 19th, 2006, 07:03 PM

Availability threw P2P would be nice!:D

rohan!

January 31st, 2006, 05:34 AM

the dvd release contains ubuntu, kubuntu, xubuntu and the live cd (i think)
hence 2.8 gig (700*4=2800)

I'm about 800 megs from finding out.

geekphreak

January 31st, 2006, 06:03 AM

I have a feeling that once Ubuntu hits us with a set of a few CDs and/or DVD that's when it is going to become a true #1. I hope it happens soon.

super

January 31st, 2006, 06:09 AM

i guess i doesn't really matter, but the 1 cd/half hour download was part of the appeal of ubuntu for me.

a choice would be nice.

3rdalbum

January 31st, 2006, 10:39 AM

Live CDs: I used one to test Ubuntu. I was interested in Linux but I didn't know if I had "what it takes" to use such a geeky operating system :-) It ran terribly slow on my computer with minimum RAM and a buggered CD-ROM drive, but it was good enough to convince me to install.

You don't run it to convince someone else to switch to Linux, you use it to convince yourself that you're ready to run a free operating system!

DVD: One of the good things about Linux is that you can use it to breathe new life into an old computer which may not be able to run the latest commercial operating systems. (That's what I use it for!). Old computers, of course, are much less likely to have DVD drives. Also, it could be used for installation onto cheap computers, and some cheap computers still don't have DVD readers.

mcduck

January 31st, 2006, 11:01 AM

The day Ubuntu is available as a DVD only (or install takes more than one CD), I'll start looking for some other distribution with less bloat.

It has now all programs I think are needed on a default install, and if I want more, I can apt-get them. I'd hate to download them all on some 4,5GB image just to get the basic system running. That wouldn't save me any download time, quite the opposite actually. I'd have to download loads of stuff I don't need/want.

linuxden

January 31st, 2006, 11:22 AM

I voted dvd + cd...

I think that CD is much more useful in certain regions of the world, where Ubuntu is most needed ie Africa, Asia...

So perhaps if sticking to cd's is more cost effective for cannonical why look any further????

I just see implementing a shippit dvd would be a unnecessary cost for them.

I did vote for cd + dvd because i think that maintaining a dvd iso is more of an option... ( iso for downloads only cost cannonical bandwidth...)

my 2cents

ps: if it aint broke dont fix it...

kewl1uk

January 31st, 2006, 11:32 AM

I think that judging from the info in the ShipIt FAQ that a DVD is to be available from 6.04 although it is hinted that the DVD might not be free. My install came from the free Ubuntu DVD with this month's Linux Magazine and is possibly the forerunner of the official Ubuntu DVD. It has the basic Gnome install which I assume is the same as on the official Ubuntu CD but with KDE packages and 2GB of packages from the Universe repository. Overall 3,800 packages plus the 2GB universe packages.

Anyway I'll go for CD and DVD: I have a CD/DVD drive but some of my friends only have a CD drive.

super

February 2nd, 2006, 05:22 PM

a slighly off-topic question, but,

does the ubuntu livecd have a point and click installer? or or do i have to go thru the usual: copy, chroot, blah, blah, blah.

Metz

February 2nd, 2006, 05:34 PM

My first encounter with Ubuntu Hoary was from a DVD....it had been packaged up on the front of some magazine I bought.

I think DVD and D releases would each serve a different audience. For someone who wants to start of small and spend the time polishing their own installation, the CD would be a fine place to start. But for someone with limited access to a broadband connection, for example...a 'bloated' release on DVD would probably appear quite attractive.

Horses for courses, I guess.

So, both :)

joflow

February 2nd, 2006, 05:38 PM

PryGuy

February 2nd, 2006, 06:07 PM

a slighly off-topic question, but,

does the ubuntu livecd have a point and click installer? or or do i have to go thru the usual: copy, chroot, blah, blah, blah.Sorry? LiveCD does not have any installer because it's not for installation!:) The LiveCD setup procedure looks similar to to the procedure during the Ubuntu installation. And I don't see where you had to use the chroot or copy terminal commands.;)

bored2k

February 2nd, 2006, 06:17 PM

For now, I vote CD-only. In my opinion, the default Ubuntu already has more than enough (of course, of the 100% free applications it can carry).

super

February 2nd, 2006, 06:42 PM

Sorry? LiveCD does not have any installer because it's not for installation!:) The LiveCD setup procedure looks similar to to the procedure during the Ubuntu installation. And I don't see where you had to use the chroot or copy terminal commands.;)

sorry, i have never used the ubuntu livecd. but you said it does have a setup procedure? that's basically what i wanted to know. thanks!

i thought i may have needed to do it the hard way.
cd cloop
cp -dvR * /xxx/xyz/ --preserve=mode,ownership
cd /xxx/xyz
mount -t proc proc proc
cp /etc/resolv.conf etc
chroot /xxx/xyz /bin/bash -l
env-update

which is how i usually install livecds

Bandit

February 2nd, 2006, 08:18 PM

I voted just the CD.
I like the single CD packaged deal.
Multiple CDs suck.
If there is anything else i want, it can be grabed from the repositories.

Keep It Simple ;)

Bandit

February 2nd, 2006, 08:22 PM

but you said it does have a setup procedure
To clear up confusion. He is saying that it has a setup procedure for getting the LiveCD running.
This is not to be confused with a INSTALLER program. The liveCD can not be used to install Ubuntu.

Cheers,
Bandit

mohapi

February 2nd, 2006, 08:33 PM

I'd like both, although I find myself relying on the CD more. I've downloaded the DVD, but I work mostly with older laptops that don't support DVD, so that format is of less use to me.

cowlip

February 2nd, 2006, 09:09 PM

I have a DVD reader but not burner., only CD burner. I'm happy enough with the current situation.

tageiru

February 2nd, 2006, 10:37 PM

sorry, i have never used the ubuntu livecd. but you said it does have a setup procedure? that's basically what i wanted to know. thanks!

i thought i may have needed to do it the hard way.
cd cloop
cp -dvR * /xxx/xyz/ --preserve=mode,ownership
cd /xxx/xyz
mount -t proc proc proc
cp /etc/resolv.conf etc
chroot /xxx/xyz /bin/bash -l
env-update

which is how i usually install livecds
This is not gentoo!

If you want to install Ubuntu use the installation disk.

isaacf

February 3rd, 2006, 06:14 AM

As a person without a DVD burner, I really can't say that I'd support DVDs install disc over a CD because I couldn't burn it myself. I know that most distros that distribute in DVD format also have a multiple CD set, but I find a single CD is so much cleaner. I'd much prefer distros with a DVD installer to offer a net-install CD as well.

linuxfanatic1024

February 3rd, 2006, 11:32 AM

Availability threw P2P would be nice!:D

It is. Look closely at this page: http://www.ubuntu.com/download

Ubuntu is available over Bittorrent P2P.

As to my response to this question, I want to have both. I don't have any DVD burners, so I can't use that format. However, in the future, I may want to try it if I get one.