Perhaps Microsoft had this right?

[Adamant1988]

Normally, I know it's bad form to agree with Microsoft's stance on ANYTHING on this forum, but I'm starting to think that, maybe Microsoft had the right idea with their bare-bones install.

Now, before you break out the pitchforks and prepare to lynch me, hear me out on this. A CD has, typically, about 700 MB of space on it, right? Now, how much space could be saved if only light, minimalistic applications were installed by default? Things like Kate, etc.

Why? because space is at a premium on these disks, and the room to innovate is running thin. Constantly, users are suggesting new, and great features for Ubuntu that basically get told to shove off because the space on the disk is at a premium. Well, then I propose that if the application selection on the default installation were left bare, more room to innovate and produce great desktop features would be available.

Obviously, there are certain demographics that can greatly benefit from the creation of disks that include certain software directly on the disk, etc. Perhaps, much in the like that we have Ubuntu-studio, other more targeted distributions of Ubuntu should arise:

Ubuntu Desktop - bare bones, let the users pick what they want to stack in, leaves plenty of room on the disk for the Ubuntu devs to innovate and add new features to the stock Ubuntu install.

Ubuntu Office/Enterprise - Put in those Applications for spreadsheets, word processing, etc. Because those matter to this demographic.

Ubuntu Studio - For media creation specialists of course :)

Perhaps the distributions could be 2-disk sets as they're based on the original and the original was using more space up by default. Just a thought.

Rant Over. Flame On.

[Andrewie]

I agree with you (second time I've agreed with you today) but I think the different versions are a little much. I just want a bare bone system with out gimp or openoffice.


Rant Over. Flame On.

http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/6674/torchmr9.th.jpg (http://img462.imageshack.us/my.php?image=torchmr9.jpg)

FLAME ON!!!!!!!

[Adamant1988]

I agree with you (second time I've agreed with you today) but I think the different versions are a little much. I just want a bare bone system with out gimp or openoffice.



http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/6674/torchmr9.th.jpg (http://img462.imageshack.us/my.php?image=torchmr9.jpg)

FLAME ON!!!!!!!

Well, truth be told, I respectfully disagree concerning the alternate versions. Just the same as we see a Windows Media edition, etc. it is because different versions will appeal to a different demographic. Obviously, for office use, things like Flash, mp3 support, graphics card support, etc. are low on the list, but Office applications would be high on the priority list. Almost the exact opposite is true for home users, who care about the former but not the latter.

People question why these new versions of Ubuntu exist, when all they do is essentially add a meta-package. This is why they exist, because different demographics need different things, there is no one-size-fits-all distribution.

[ynnhoj]

another possible approach: an install disc that doesn't come with all those extra programs, and a separate (optional) packages disc for those that want it.

[Andrewie]

I guess they could provide a option in the installer like Red Hat, and Novell that lets you pick how much you want

[Adamant1988]

I agree with you (second time I've agreed with you today) but I think the different versions are a little much. I just want a bare bone system with out gimp or openoffice.



http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/6674/torchmr9.th.jpg (http://img462.imageshack.us/my.php?image=torchmr9.jpg)

FLAME ON!!!!!!!

Oh, and thank you for posting the human torch, I've always liked him ;)

[ButteBlues]

another possible approach: an install disc that doesn't come with all those extra programs, and a separate (optional) packages disc for those that want it.
Out of the question. One reason I avoid distros like SUSE and such are the sheer number of CDs they take up (I can't burn DVDs).


---

I think having a special CD that only has the ubuntu-minimal package, instead of ubuntu-desktop, is the way to go.

[Adamant1988]

I guess they could provide a option in the installer like Red Hat, and Novell that lets you pick how much you want

This is absolutely true, I can definitely agree with following Novell in that sense. Just add an option at installation "Install for Office and productivity, Home-user, etc." and let these meta packages pull down the relevant files. Perhaps this could be done directly from the internet in the event that a person cannot burn the ridiculous amount of disks needed for that to work in openSuSE.

[smoker]

Ubuntu Desktop - bare bones, let the users pick what they want to stack in, leaves plenty of room on the disk for the Ubuntu devs to innovate and add new features to the stock Ubuntu install.

personally i would like to see something like this, a basic install and a pick and mix from the repos,

[Adamant1988]

personally i would like to see something like this, a basic install and a pick and mix from the repos,

I think the greatest benefit from this will be the added space to innovate with the distribution. I mean, I installed openoffice because it was default, but honestly, I don't even use it. I prefer to use other applications to meet those needs. But I still wasted my bandwidth downloading it because it came pre-packaged.

[cody50]

The way I see it, Ubuntu is designed to have all the stuff in it, to be easy to use. If you want a more slimmed down OS then maybe a different Distro would be a better choice.

[ynnhoj]

Out of the question. One reason I avoid distros like SUSE and such are the sheer number of CDs they take up (I can't burn DVDs).
i think it could be safely limited to two discs; one smaller download for the installer, and another iso loaded up with packages. i'm sure most of us could just do a basic install, and then customize to our liking with aptitude/synaptic. and those that want all the applications out-of-the-box ('cause maybe the machine they're installing on isn't always connected to the 'net?) can make use of the other cd as well.

but really, i don't think ubuntu's livecd needs any fixing, necessarily -- this is just another idea to throw out for this discussion.

[Adamant1988]

The way I see it, Ubuntu is designed to have all the stuff in it, to be easy to use. If you want a more slimmed down OS then maybe a different Distro would be a better choice.

Yes, and I'm not questioning that a demographic might benefit from this approach. I'm suggesting that, perhaps, Ubuntu would be better able to innovate (read: Put more stuff in the actual operating system to make it more feature rich) if the installation were more 'bare-bones'.

[visionaire]

Out of the question. One reason I avoid distros like SUSE and such are the sheer number of CDs they take up (I can't burn DVDs).


---

I think having a special CD that only has the ubuntu-minimal package, instead of ubuntu-desktop, is the way to go.

I agree, connection here is slow, that's why if i want fedora or suse i buy the cd's, no way i'll have the patience to download all the cd's

[Adamant1988]

I agree, connection here is slow, that's why if i want fedora or suse i buy the cd's, no way i'll have the patience to download all the cd's

Hell, I would buy the CDs for convenience. Whenever I download a big distribution like Fedora or openSUSE I put as much of that on disk as I can. I would definitely buy a boxed set of disks and such, now that I have a credit/debit card.

[cody50]

Yes, and I'm not questioning that a demographic might benefit from this approach. I'm suggesting that, perhaps, Ubuntu would be better able to innovate (read: Put more stuff in the actual operating system to make it more feature rich) if the installation were more 'bare-bones'.

In this respect I agree with you. Its a catch-22 though. having to take stuff out to put stuff in (albeit it is trivial to add software back in, provided you have internet)

[FuturePilot]

Couple of questions
What about those that still have dial-up? By making a bare bones CD you're pretty much screwing them over since they would have to download everything else. And if they ever had to reinstall....

And what about those computers that aren't even connected to the internet? Then you're really out of luck. Unless there was extra CDs with other packages on them.

IMO this would be a bad idea.

[Adamant1988]

In this respect I agree with you. Its a catch-22 though. having to take stuff out to put stuff in (albeit it is trivial to add software back in, provided you have internet)

Which is something else that truly needs to be worked on. I personally am fine with the repo-on-disk philosophy. I need to have an easy way to pull down what I need from the web and give it to a person who is off-line with no dependency issues.

[Polygon]

I think maybe its time to have an offical ubuntu live DVD... that way lots more stuff can be put on it for people who do not have internet connections. I know there is one but it took me forever to find it as its buried in the huge download list on the site.

[Adamant1988]

Couple of questions
What about those that still have dial-up? By making a bare bones CD you're pretty much screwing them over since they would have to download everything else.

People with dial-up are effectively SOL when it comes to virtually any Linux distribution in the first place. Ubuntu's stock .iso is 700 MB. That's not counting the amount of things the dial up user probably has to install to get functionality (none of which are exactly tiny for a dial-up connection). So, I don't see the problem here.

And if they ever had to reinstall....

I think that one feature that is highly desirable in Ubuntu is a very good backup application to backup any needed files to install.

And what about those computers that aren't even connected to the internet? Then you're really out of luck. Unless there was extra CDs with other packages on them.

IMO this would be a bad idea.

Right, and for computers that are not on the internet, their only real option is to use disks anyway. Which (ideally) would be available. The slow-to-no-bandwidth issue is covered by the presence of repos-on-cd.

[a12ctic]

All thats installed by default with ubuntu is commonly used stuff, why wouldn't you want it? Its not like theres a massive amount of software on there.

[KiwiNZ]

Kiwi gets out his pitch fork and sharpens it ............


Nah seriously not everything MS does is bad and there is nothing wrong with saying it here

[FuturePilot]

People with dial-up are effectively SOL when it comes to virtually any Linux distribution in the first place. Ubuntu's stock .iso is 700 MB. That's not counting the amount of things the dial up user probably has to install to get functionality (none of which are exactly tiny for a dial-up connection). So, I don't see the problem here.

The size of the .iso doesn't really matter. That's why there's Shipit. So then you can subtract the 700 MB from the total, possibly reducing it by half if not more.

[Adamant1988]

All thats installed by default with ubuntu is commonly used stuff, why wouldn't you want it? Its not like theres a massive amount of software on there.

There is enough to plug up the CD. Open Office is by no means a small application, and honestly, a home user would do just as well with abiword by default. What I'm saying here is that when you add in all the extra software that comes default on the Ubuntu CD, it's absolutely jam-packed down to the last megabyte, leaving little room for the developers to get in the guts and innovate because of space concerns.

By going with a bare-bones install more room is produced on the CD to produce a feature-rich operating system on a single disk.

[Adamant1988]

The size of the .iso doesn't really matter. That's why there's Shipit. So then you can subtract the 700 MB from the total, possibly reducing it by half if not more.

Then there is absolutely no reason that a user should not be able to attain (read: purchase cheaply) an entire repo-on CD.

[a12ctic]

I cant disagree more strongly with you... Theyre simply trying to create a user friendly distribution that new users can find the apps they need on the install. If they develope something they can make room for it or just throw it on apt for more advanced users.

[Adamant1988]

I cant disagree more strongly with you... Theyre simply trying to create a user friendly distribution that new users can find the apps they need on the install. If they develope something they can make room for it or just throw it on apt for more advanced users.

Windows comes with almost absolutely no useful software OOTB, not even on an OEM machine. Usually the only software I receive on an OEM machine is security/hardware related (Wifi, DVD-burning, etc). Yet people consider it the status quo for ease of use, why?

Because more tools are built directly into the operating system to allow for a more feature rich system. More GUI configurations, more little tools to make your daily life a little easier. This is not really possible now, with Ubuntu, because of space concerns. Obviously eliminating the fat (unnecessary applications) from the CD will free up the room needed to innovate more with the actual feature set that the OS can offer OOTB.

[stalker145]

i don't even know if this is off-topic or not after reading everything above, but I will go with the question anyway - it does seem to follow the thread, though not the OP...

Is it possible, from a programming perspective to, basically, roll your own Ubuntu and download that from the Canonical servers? What I mean is having a web-based front-end from which you can pick and choose what software you want on your CD (Live or otherwise - X/K/Ubuntu) and once done choosing the software you want, the magical mystery gods of the interweb verify that your software is fully functional (all dependencies solved) and you download the .iso to burn.

(1) Is it possible at this point in time?

(2) Is this something that would work (server load, programming, popularity) ?

Just thinking out loud...

[Adamant1988]

i don't even know if this is off-topic or not after reading everything above, but I will go with the question anyway - it does seem to follow the thread, though not the OP...

Is it possible, from a programming perspective to, basically, roll your own Ubuntu and download that from the Canonical servers? What I mean is having a web-based front-end from which you can pick and choose what software you want on your CD (Live or otherwise - X/K/Ubuntu) and once done choosing the software you want, the magical mystery gods of the interweb verify that your software is fully functional (all dependencies solved) and you download the .iso to burn.

(1) Is it possible at this point in time?

(2) Is this something that would work (server load, programming, popularity) ?

Just thinking out loud...

Not to my knowledge. There has been companies that will do custom-created linux distributions, but they're not cheap.

[ynnhoj]

Couple of questions
What about those that still have dial-up? By making a bare bones CD you're pretty much screwing them over since they would have to download everything else. And if they ever had to reinstall....
it's too bad for dial-up users; however, there are still options: i) use shipit or purchase discs, ii) download & burn at a 'net cafe, library, friend's house, etc. it may be cliche, but: where there's a will there's a way :)

[Adamant1988]

it's too bad for dial-up users; however, there are still options: i) use shipit or purchase discs, ii) download & burn at a 'net cafe, library, friend's house, etc. it may be cliche, but: where there's a will there's a way :)

Precisely, if any single demographic has EVER consistently been given the shaft by the Linux community at large, it has been those with poor connections (or no connections) to the internet.

[FuturePilot]

Then there is absolutely no reason that a user should not be able to attain (read: purchase cheaply) an entire repo-on CD.
I guess I'm failing to see the difference between your proposal and a multi-CD distro.

[aysiu]

Off-topic: I wouldn't mind a multi-CD Ubuntu. First CD installs the same stuff. Add-on CDs let people with slow or no internet connections have access to all the great software in Universe or Multiverse.

We don't need 21 CDs like Debian, but even four or five add-on CDs would help lots of non-broadband users.

[racoq]

Windows comes with almost absolutely no useful software OOTB, not even on an OEM machine. Usually the only software I receive on an OEM machine is security/hardware related (Wifi, DVD-burning, etc). Yet people consider it the status quo for ease of use, why?

Because more tools are built directly into the operating system to allow for a more feature rich system. More GUI configurations, more little tools to make your daily life a little easier. This is not really possible now, with Ubuntu, because of space concerns. Obviously eliminating the fat (unnecessary applications) from the CD will free up the room needed to innovate more with the actual feature set that the OS can offer OOTB.

What its for you fat applications?

There are not many fat applications in Ubuntu, the only one that i can think of is, oppenoffice. And thats rubbish try to replace oppenoffice by abiword, and for instance Gnumeric, it will scare the new users out, because it doesn't is as full featured.

Were ubuntu is heavy is on the drivers and packages, that make it work, for most of the hardware, and are pre-bundled, What are u saying? prebundle drivers in a second cd, and when it is needed its requested by ubuntu? Thats nonsense.
That ruins the philosophy of having a full featured OS in one CD. Ubuntu has its own identity it is not fedora, opensuse or even debian (comparing the way that they are shipped) deal with it,

Someone referred here the possibility of a CD release being replaced by a DVD release only.

That is trully out of the question!


Why?
Go say that to the poor countries in continents like africa, that use computers that we have used 4 or 5 year ago, with no DVD drive.
Besides that, one of the points of using Ubuntu flavors, is to give a longer live to your hardware, not to imply that for running ubuntu you must have a recent pc with dvdrom drive, or for older computer u will have to buy a new dvd drive.

[steveneddy]

Off-topic: I wouldn't mind a multi-CD Ubuntu. First CD installs the same stuff. Add-on CDs let people with slow or no internet connections have access to all the great software in Universe or Multiverse.

We don't need 21 CDs like Debian, but even four or five add-on CDs would help lots of non-broadband users.

Great idea - that might take off if someone pushes this a little.

[Adamant1988]

I guess I'm failing to see the difference between your proposal and a multi-CD distro.

IA multi-cd distribution is exactly what I'm proposing. The base CD would include the base operating system, no unnecessary bloat, meaning no OpenOffice, or anything else that didn't give much needed functionality integrated directly into the OS. This would free up more space on the base-cd to integrate more things into the OS itself, causing it to be more feature rich, and thusly, more desirable.

Additional CDs would tailer the distribution to your needs, office, home, etc. and download (or install via the repos) any necessary applications to give you full functionality on your system for your needs. Anything else can be added.

I'm merely saying that I feel that Microsoft has done this properly with Windows, making it an even playing field for applications.

[steven8]

Off-topic: I wouldn't mind a multi-CD Ubuntu. First CD installs the same stuff. Add-on CDs let people with slow or no internet connections have access to all the great software in Universe or Multiverse.

We don't need 21 CDs like Debian, but even four or five add-on CDs would help lots of non-broadband users.

IA multi-cd distribution is exactly what I'm proposing. The base CD would include the base operating system, no unnecessary bloat, meaning no OpenOffice, or anything else that didn't give much needed functionality integrated directly into the OS. This would free up more space on the base-cd to integrate more things into the OS itself, causing it to be more feature rich, and thusly, more desirable.

Additional CDs would tailer the distribution to your needs, office, home, etc. and download (or install via the repos) any necessary applications to give you full functionality on your system for your needs. Anything else can be added.

I'm merely saying that I feel that Microsoft has done this properly with Windows, making it an even playing field for applications.

It won't really aid non-broadband users to have to download add-on cd's. If they could be ordered, that would be cool though.

I like the idea of a base install that allows the user to select what he desires. media, office, etc., then the installer pulls down the relevant packages during the installation.

[ButteBlues]

I agree, connection here is slow, that's why if i want fedora or suse i buy the cd's, no way i'll have the patience to download all the cd's
To Fedora's credit, with Fedora 7, even they have moved to the "1 Live CD incl. full install" philosophy. :)

[racoq]

To Fedora's credit, with Fedora 7, even they have moved to the "1 Live CD incl. full install" philosophy. :)

Agreed, i personally (and many people i know), run away from multi disks distros. The average Joe wants a base system, as full featured as possible in the least space possible. No one likes when he/she wants a feature, and has to insert a CD (the Least work the better). I always hated that games with multiple CDS (NFS for instance), when everytime i need to play a track i needed to insert one of the 3 or 5 CDs :D.

Besides that one of the things i like about ubuntu is that Openoffice is part of the base install not a option. That is one of few important details that make the difference for ubuntu, comparing it with many distros out there

[aysiu]

It won't really aid non-broadband users to have to download add-on cd's. If they could be ordered, that would be cool though.

I like the idea of a base install that allows the user to select what he desires. media, office, etc., then the installer pulls down the relevant packages during the installation.
Um, actually it will because a lot of unconnected users can download CDs at friends' houses, the university, or on their Windows partitions.

And, yes, having them available for order would be good, too.

[qamelian]

Yes, and I'm not questioning that a demographic might benefit from this approach. I'm suggesting that, perhaps, Ubuntu would be better able to innovate (read: Put more stuff in the actual operating system to make it more feature rich) if the installation were more 'bare-bones'.

This approach would definitely make Ubuntu less useful to me. As it stands now, I can have a complete work-ready system in about 20 minutes. If I need to spend an hour or two downloading additional stuf to get the bare minimum that I need, then I might as well go back to OpenSuSE with it's hour and a half to two hour install. One of the "features" that drew me to Ubuntu, and keeps it my favourite distro, is that I get exactly one of everything I need out of the box. No searching package repositories for that one critical app to get me through the day. No need to waste time cherry-picking apps during the install.

[init1]

I really like the fedora style installer because it allows one to only select the needed applications. That would mean that one could make there system as minimal as they want. Of course, this would mean that you would have to download the 700mb iso even if you only wanted a 500mb installation. This is where the caos style installer comes in. It is minimal by default, but the installer can install packages on their server for more options. But that would mean that you would need to have internet for a complete install.
But, one can also just uninstall if they want. Many of the installed packages can simply be removed with synaptic.

[visionaire]

To Fedora's credit, with Fedora 7, even they have moved to the "1 Live CD incl. full install" philosophy. :)

Nice to know! I will take a look to fedora again then :)

[Adamant1988]

This approach would definitely make Ubuntu less useful to me. As it stands now, I can have a complete work-ready system in about 20 minutes. If I need to spend an hour or two downloading additional stuf to get the bare minimum that I need, then I might as well go back to OpenSuSE with it's hour and a half to two hour install. One of the "features" that drew me to Ubuntu, and keeps it my favourite distro, is that I get exactly one of everything I need out of the box. No searching package repositories for that one critical app to get me through the day. No need to waste time cherry-picking apps during the install.

Then why not get the Ubuntu system that's more dedicated to office use? (which would probably be almost exactly like the current Ubuntu install)

[igknighted]

I'll throw my 2 cents in here:

I agree with you adamant (as I often have recently). Ubuntu could very easily become a multiCD distro. For example GIMP has no business taking up space on the iso, 90% will never use it. What he is proposing (so far as I understand it) is a one CD install with basic software (close, but not quite to what we have now). Then you have the option of apt-get'ing the rest of the software, or downloading extra CDs and installing from them. Heck, you could make scripts with icons that say "install GIMP" or whatever the app was so it would be just like a windows install but run through apt if it made it easier for people. The fact is (especially with 64bit software) 700mb just isn't always enough. Trim the install, give out some extra CDs (or an optional DVD with it all), and please get a real installer that doesn't dump everything on the HD. It's way more work to get Ubuntu (minus GIMP and a few other things) then it is on Fedora or Suse, and that is a major issue for me. And no, using the server install is not an option compared to the Anaconda (and whatever suse calls their installer).

Nice to know! I will take a look to fedora again then :)

There is a KDE and a Gnome liveCD now. It pains me to say this (I am a KDE guy), but the Gnome implementation by Fedora is top notch, I love it.

[Adamant1988]

I'll throw my 2 cents in here:

I agree with you adamant (as I often have recently). Ubuntu could very easily become a multiCD distro. For example GIMP has no business taking up space on the iso, 90% will never use it. What he is proposing (so far as I understand it) is a one CD install with basic software (close, but not quite to what we have now). Then you have the option of apt-get'ing the rest of the software, or downloading extra CDs and installing from them. Heck, you could make scripts with icons that say "install GIMP" or whatever the app was so it would be just like a windows install but run through apt if it made it easier for people. The fact is (especially with 64bit software) 700mb just isn't always enough. Trim the install, give out some extra CDs (or an optional DVD with it all), and please get a real installer that doesn't dump everything on the HD. It's way more work to get Ubuntu (minus GIMP and a few other things) then it is on Fedora or Suse, and that is a major issue for me. And no, using the server install is not an option compared to the Anaconda (and whatever suse calls their installer).



There is a KDE and a Gnome liveCD now. It pains me to say this (I am a KDE guy), but the Gnome implementation by Fedora is top notch, I love it.

Yeah, I know how you feel about KDE. I'm just in love with it anymore, after some mild edits. It feels like a very refined DE once you get used to it.

Also, yeah, you get it pretty much. What I'm saying is to trim down the install to basic functionality and let the user build on top of that, for the home or base CD. Multi-CD install would be preferable, but it seems like the world is going the opposite direction of that.

[Somenoob]

What about just choices at the first stage of the installation, of having the common desktop apps or not.

[Compucore]

Or make it in such a way that you have the single live cd to start the installation for it. And before it goes any further ask the end user who is installing it on his or her computer. Then give the options of specialty that you can pull it from the intnernet if you have high speed available. Myself since I only do programming and databasing over here in other kinds of distros.

igknighted wasn't Suse using ast at one point for their installer? I remember vaguely seeing that on their 7.1 that I have over here.

Compucore

[igknighted]

igknighted wasn't Suse using ast at one point for their installer? I remember vaguely seeing that on their 7.1 that I have over here.

Compucore

I think so. I am actually typing this from Suse right now, and yes, the installer looks like Yast, I just wasn't 100% sure thats what they called it so I didn't specify :). Yast is nice, but Anaconda in my mind is the best out there. Sure there are things that can be improved (more precise package selection, an easier way to install KDE instead of gnome, etc.), but its decently quick and has great options.

[lazyart]

"Feature-rich" is just as vague and subjective as "user-friendly".

OOo, GIMP, Totem, Evolution, a dictionary, CD/DVD burning, customization.... are those not "features"? And since the disk is full of features, does that not make it "feature rich"?

Or since it's not the features that you desire, does it make it any less "feature-rich"?

Be specific. Since it's marketed as "Linux for human beings" it's got a pretty broad set of tools out of the box. It kinda seems like what you want is a vanilla Debian install.

And please don't take this as a personal attack... your posts are pretty vague and I just want to see them cleared up.

[blackspyder]

My personal opinion is that there should be another CD (rather DVD) for a Full on install with as many programs as it can handle. Then the desktop and alternate CD. Followed by a Miniamalist version that would fit on a 512 MB Flash Drive. Thus giving the user as many forms of the OS.

[Adamant1988]

"Feature-rich" is just as vague and subjective as "user-friendly".

OOo, GIMP, Totem, Evolution, a dictionary, CD/DVD burning, customization.... are those not "features"? And since the disk is full of features, does that not make it "feature rich"?

Or since it's not the features that you desire, does it make it any less "feature-rich"?

Be specific. Since it's marketed as "Linux for human beings" it's got a pretty broad set of tools out of the box. It kinda seems like what you want is a vanilla Debian install.

And please don't take this as a personal attack... your posts are pretty vague and I just want to see them cleared up.
Oh, gladly. Before the release of edgy there were a LOT of suggestions about great things that could be done with the operating system. A new GUI for this, a new integrated application for that (Easy-codec-installation, for example), but a response to every one of those ideas was: "This sounds great, but disk-space is at a premium, so I doubt it'll happen".

What I mean by feature rich, in that case, is functionality that is integrated directly into the operating system. The GIMP, OOo, etc. do not make an operating feature rich, they make it rich with applications. Modifications to the user interface, improvements to things like file-browsers, look and feel, usability, polish, etc. Perhaps integrated control-center tools like YaST, or an integrated security suite, etc. What I mean, when I say feature, is an improvement that is integrated directly into the operating system. (Or, in otherwords, is not an application like OOo.)

What I feel is impeding this potential improvement for the user experience is the strict adherence to the 1-cd philosophy. Which is why I began this discussion.

[FuturePilot]

I still don't understand this. If your ultimate goal is to make a multi-CD distro, then why bother making the first CD a bare bones CD? If you have multiple CDs then it wouldn't matter about having a CD that has only the very basics. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Adamant1988]

I still don't understand this. If your ultimate goal is to make a multi-CD distro, then why bother making the first CD a bare bones CD? If you have multiple CDs then it wouldn't matter about having a CD that has only the very basics. Maybe I'm missing something.

The ultimate goal is to leave more room free to add features to the core operating system. If this need be done by creating Ubuntu Office, Ubuntu Studio, and Ubuntu home to meet the needs of different demographics, then my opinion is 'so be it'. But multi-CD is optimal here.

[FuturePilot]

Ok, I think I'm starting to get this. Thanks for explaining;)

[Iandefor]

How about axing just Evolution and OpenOffice in favor of lighter alternatives? Those are freaking massive.

[Adamant1988]

How about axing just Evolution and OpenOffice in favor of lighter alternatives? Those are freaking massive.

I'm in favor of ditching those two, and the GIMP. The GIMP is just not necessary on the default install.

[knopper67]

Keep it Simple. Keep it down to ONE Simple CD.

...But Ubuntu Office Sounds Good :D :D :D

[Iandefor]

I'm in favor of ditching those two, and the GIMP. The GIMP is just not necessary on the default install. Agreed. Something like GNU Paint might be more appropriate.

[jpmrblood]

Is this thread means to create an option to install bare system where everything is stripped down and then later let the user decide which to install? If that's the case, then the inclusion of the later packages is still a problem. What packages that should be installed? You may not need OOo, but many use it. I personally use Gimp very often.

Besides, there is something that Ubuntu wants to achieve, which is "ease of use". I think it would be problematic to new users if they find their system is stripped. I think, Ubuntu's target is people that new to GNU/Linux system and have bug #1 on their systems.

Bare system could be achieved by using ubuntu-server CD. But, I agree that it could be better if Ubuntu could provide multi CD packages that not in the main CD so we can have more FOSS in our machine without internet considering internet costs a lot in many countries (including mine).

[karellen]

you got me too in this idea, Adamant1988. I like the many cd's approach, it's good when the home user doesn't have a good internet connection (not my case, though)

[Adamant1988]

Is this thread means to create an option to install bare system where everything is stripped down and then later let the user decide which to install? If that's the case, then the inclusion of the later packages is still a problem. What packages that should be installed? You may not need OOo, but many use it. I personally use Gimp very often.

Besides, there is something that Ubuntu wants to achieve, which is "ease of use". I think it would be problematic to new users if they find their system is stripped. I think, Ubuntu's target is people that new to GNU/Linux system and have bug #1 on their systems.

Bare system could be achieved by using ubuntu-server CD. But, I agree that it could be better if Ubuntu could provide multi CD packages that not in the main CD so we can have more FOSS in our machine without internet considering internet costs a lot in many countries (including mine).

Yet, for some reason Windows is considered the golden standard of ease-of-use, and it has absolutely no real software installed by default.

My point is not that I would like a bone-dry version of Ubuntu. My point is that excessive inclusion of gigantic applications in the name of being 'easy to use out of the box' is restricting the Ubuntu developers' ability to innovate and include new technology that does, truly, allow for ease of use. So, if you strip the excess fat (unnecessary applications) from Ubuntu, and then actually use the space to increase the feature set of the core operating system, you'll make things easier to use overall.

[steven8]

I gravitated to Ubuntu because it had the one disc liveCD that I could install from. I don't think I am alone in this. It is a very attractive feature in itself. That is why I prefer, if any devs were to lean in the OP's direction, to a one cd, with option to select the type of installation idea. I don't want users to see that we have a suse 5 disc thing going on.

[Lucifiel]

Whoa, dude. This is a good thread and I really like your idea. Keep them coming, kid, you're pretty smart for your age. :)

An example of bloat would be mono(full name? I don't recall.) which is used for what? Installing some tiny wiki that not everyone uses.

Furthermore, I highly suspect that in addition to Gnome, some of this bloatware actually slows Ubuntu by a lot. If we could take some of this bloat away and make it not integrated into Ubuntu, wouldn't that speed it up?

Instead of integrating the bloatware, all these extras could be shoved into different cds (organised by category so that people can just pick the basic cd + additional cd like say, edutainment or say, graphics editing).

The idea of a slim cd where only the absolute essential is included interests and excites me! :D


Lucifiel
P.S. Still reading through this thread. :)

[lilito_yellow]

That 's it.I had the same chance as you ,you know
http://www.fox333.com/

[bailout]

I would definitely agree with being able to deselect apps from being installed. The problem is having a suite of apps included in the os meta package. I am a long time Opera user for browsing and email and it annoyed me when I tried ubuntu and xubuntu to have to install firefox/thunderbird when I had no use for them. I use koffice instead of OOo so that is another waste.

As to the objections about slow internet connections, they don't really make sense. Multi-CD distros developed during the dialup era when the idea of using a system like apt to dl packages over the net was impossible so you needed everything on disc that you bought or copied from someone else. Ubuntu needs broadband for most people to install codecs etc. I am sure that most people have lots of non-standard apps installed which they got through apt over a bb connection. I have had problems with my connection recently and have just had to update my desktop using packages downloaded on another pc and it took ages to figure out how to do it. This is something that needs an easier gui way.

My ideal would be one OS install cd with only minimal selectable apps, browser,etc. Then a second cd with a selection or standard apps such as OOo, gimp,etc that people can use or they can just use apt if they have a bb connection.

[mips]

I agree as well.

Why ? Well I'm a Sabayon user but I find the DVD to bloated and use the CD version. On the cd version they omit Java, Flash, kde4 icons and a few other things which I like about the DVD.

Personally I would prefer them to drop some of the apps like say KOffice and rather include the above stuff which enhances the desktop experience.

Or I will settle for another option, give me a 1-1.5 GB DVD instead of the the 3.5GB one. I will only take the DVD when it offers selective application package installs, for the system it can install everything though.

[Adamant1988]

Whoa, dude. This is a good thread and I really like your idea. Keep them coming, kid, you're pretty smart for your age. :)

An example of bloat would be mono(full name? I don't recall.) which is used for what? Installing some tiny wiki that not everyone uses.

Furthermore, I highly suspect that in addition to Gnome, some of this bloatware actually slows Ubuntu by a lot. If we could take some of this bloat away and make it not integrated into Ubuntu, wouldn't that speed it up?

Instead of integrating the bloatware, all these extras could be shoved into different cds (organised by category so that people can just pick the basic cd + additional cd like say, edutainment or say, graphics editing).

The idea of a slim cd where only the absolute essential is included interests and excites me! :D


Lucifiel
P.S. Still reading through this thread. :)

Mono, is actually something I would leave in. I would leave in mono, and integrate beagle, TBH. Beagle is one of those things that should be in a default install. And when I say things that == features, I'm referring to things like GLScubed, which would be a huge step forward for the distribution. The trick is to Integreat!

[Lucifiel]

Mono, is actually something I would leave in. I would leave in mono, and integrate beagle, TBH. Beagle is one of those things that should be in a default install. And when I say things that == features, I'm referring to things like GLScubed, which would be a huge step forward for the distribution. The trick is to Integreat!

Okay but why leave mono in? What are the advantages of doing that?

And sorry, what's GLScubed ? I did a google search but came up with only 1 hit.

And also, Intergreat? Huh? I did come up with something to Ian Murdock's blog but... mmm... huh? Sorry you got me totally lost with your reply. :D

[mech7]

yeah i agree i don't even use cd's anymore only dvd'rws and even those rarely :) Space is not an issue

[racoq]

Mono, is actually something I would leave in. I would leave in mono, and integrate beagle, TBH. Beagle is one of those things that should be in a default install. And when I say things that == features, I'm referring to things like GLScubed, which would be a huge step forward for the distribution. The trick is to Integreat!

Well something we had to agree :D

I don't find mono a critical inclusion in Ubuntu. For the versions previous to Edgy i suppose, there was no mono. And we lived all happy.

I think that Evolution now depends of the mono libraries,but this application could easily be replaced by Thunderbird. Tomboy and other mono based applications could be replaced by equivalent apps.

Although talking about OpenOffice, i don't agree and i suspect that you won't convince the developers about this.

I think that additionally maybe some games or small applications could be removed, if few space was needed to implement something important to ease the user experience.

However having a full featured CD for me and many users is having oppenoffice on the base installation CD. The philosophy of Ubuntu is to do what pretty much can be done with one CD.

[Obor]

On one hand I like the idea of leaving more space for the core OS and new features etc. but
on the other hand I wouldn't like that if the core OS becomes 700MB, by the time I'll add all the applications I want, it will be too big for my old PCs. I guess Ubuntu is not targeted at old spec PCs but still don't wanna end up with a OS that will fill half of my hard drive.
;)

[Adamant1988]

Well something we had to agree :D

I don't find mono a critical inclusion in Ubuntu. For the versions previous to Edgy i suppose, there was no mono. And we lived all happy.

I think that Evolution now depends of the mono libraries,but this application could easily be replaced by Thunderbird. Tomboy and other mono based applications could be replaced by equivalent apps.

Although talking about OpenOffice, i don't agree and i suspect that you won't convince the developers about this.

I think that additionally maybe some games or small applications could be removed, if few space was needed to implement something important to ease the user experience.

However having a full featured CD for me and many users is having oppenoffice on the base installation CD. The philosophy of Ubuntu is to do what pretty much can be done with one CD.

I think of desktop search as a wonderful feature. I would like to see beagle or something like it in the default install, truth be told.

[celticbhoy]

Does the whole problem not stem from the fact that the OS, plus selected software HAS to fit on a live CD in order to help bring other uses on-line. I know from my own introduction to Linux, and Ubuntu in january, that I only tried it out because the iso image came on a magazine cover DVD, and promised that it would run from a single CD and not interfear with my hard disk in any way, but would still give me a chance to have a look a broad spectrum of linux software running on my PC.

[justin whitaker]

XP is fairly stripped by default...but it does provide a basis for everything else you want to install, so in that sense, everything that will make updating your applications easier, should be in a size optimized version of XP.

So, in the same way that XP includes .Net, you would want to have Mono, Java, and build-essential on that disk.

Similarly, you would want a decent text editor, a basic graphics program, the codecs you need, mplayer (?), etc. so you could match feature for feature.

That brings up the question, however: does Ubuntu, or any Linux distribution, need to meet XP feature for feature, or does it need to surpass it?

I think that Linux, as a whole, needs to show, right out of the box, that you really do not need anything else to install to get the 70-80% of daily computer usage done: writing a document, manipulating a spreadsheet, taking care of home banking, listening to some tunes, watching a DVD or video.

XP does not do all of this, but they do not have to, because they are installed by default on every PC.

[mech7]

I think a comparison with Vista would be more fair as XP is very very old.

XP is fairly stripped by default...but it does provide a basis for everything else you want to install, so in that sense, everything that will make updating your applications easier, should be in a size optimized version of XP.

So, in the same way that XP includes .Net, you would want to have Mono, Java, and build-essential on that disk.

Similarly, you would want a decent text editor, a basic graphics program, the codecs you need, mplayer (?), etc. so you could match feature for feature.

That brings up the question, however: does Ubuntu, or any Linux distribution, need to meet XP feature for feature, or does it need to surpass it?

I think that Linux, as a whole, needs to show, right out of the box, that you really do not need anything else to install to get the 70-80% of daily computer usage done: writing a document, manipulating a spreadsheet, taking care of home banking, listening to some tunes, watching a DVD or video.

XP does not do all of this, but they do not have to, because they are installed by default on every PC.

[salsafyren]

So what does this have to do with Microsoft?

Because you have different editions?

I don't see the point in your wording of the subject other than to get people to post replys.

[celticbhoy]

I agree, the live CD has to convert an often sceptical user to change from an operating system they already have to a new OS which runs in a completely different way. The only way it can do this is by showing a little of what can be achieved in as large a number of ways as possible. That must mean by allowing the user to try as many different kinds of software as possible.

[justin whitaker]

I think a comparison with Vista would be more fair as XP is very very old.

Well, isn't the opportunity those who do not want to upgrade to Vista, or those who cannot get Vista to run?

[jgrabham]

the codecs you need, mplayer (?),C.

Yes, but then comes being sued, not being able to release in US etc.

[EdThaSlayer]

Adding more complexity to the choice of home desktop version of ubuntu will only drive potential users away. Just think of when that person downloads the wrong version by accident and gets nothing out of the box. That person might not even know what a repository is, and will obviously not use Ubuntu linux anymore. Also, I prefer having all these applications out of the box, it saves me a lot of time(I wouldn't want to search for every one of those applications by myself in the repository). But if you want to make a bare-bone Ubuntu based distro, why don't you? Kubuntu can replace GNOME with KDE, so it should be much easier to get rid of a few programs and create a new iso file.

[koenn]

maybe I missed something, but imo, what you're looking for already exists.
If you want a bare OS and at to it as you see fit, you can use the mini iso. It installs a 250 MB OS on your disk and you can add whatever you please, from nothing but a window manager + firefox to a fullfeatured ubuntu desktop. (you may have to choose a 'server' install and select the 'expert' option to have more control over what gets installed - i forgot the details).

If you want to go with the idea of metapackages to pull in certain software combinations, I think you can select certain "tasks".
Other than that, making your own meta-packages is dead simple. It's essentially nothing more than listing the packages you want in a text file, wrap that text file in an archive, and save the archive with a file name that ends on .deb.

So, it's all there, go ahead. I'm sure that what you propose can be put together from the existing building blocks in a week. 2 weeks tops.

At the same time, I'm afraid that these versions/editions could be confusing for new users : they'd go from "which distro should I pick ?' to "what version of which distro should I pick ?". frying pan --> fire.
And one thing like very much about ubuntu, was the "1 CD for a complete system with 1 application for each job" approach. That, combined with the alternatives (text mode install, expert mode, mini install) for customized systems is all you need. Or at least, it's all I need.

[justin whitaker]

Yes, but then comes being sued, not being able to release in US etc.

Heh. Well, there is always that.

[mech7]

Well, isn't the opportunity those who do not want to upgrade to Vista, or those who cannot get Vista to run?

Well for a part but i rather see it take on features of current technology and beat it on that ;) I thought there was a specific Ubuntu for older machines don't know the name again..

[macogw]

Yes, and I'm not questioning that a demographic might benefit from this approach. I'm suggesting that, perhaps, Ubuntu would be better able to innovate (read: Put more stuff in the actual operating system to make it more feature rich) if the installation were more 'bare-bones'.

All the stuff's still available, it's just in the repos. I do agree on scaling down Ubuntu a bit though. I'd like to see the installer only install stuff for what's on your computer (hardware-wise), and then if you change hardware, it will apt-get the drivers for the new hardware automagically.

Multi-disc is OUT though. I don't like having to load multiple cds for one distro. Maybe if the first had all you need and the second was just stuff you could get from the repos for people who don't want to worry about bandwidth or download-times or who have dial-up. That's how Debian is. The first disk is a fully-working install with GNOME, the second has more stuff, including KDE, etc. up to 21 disks to get the entire repositories.

mech7, the lightweight *buntu is Xubuntu, which uses XFCE.

[justin whitaker]

Well for a part but i rather see it take on features of current technology and beat it on that ;) I thought there was a specific Ubuntu for older machines don't know the name again..

Ah, but doesn't that beat the purpose of keeping it lean? For example, if Beryl is enabled by default, then you need redistributable video drivers included on the disc...Vista gets away with it by being proprietary and being partners with the hardware manufacturers...and shipping on a DVD. That doesn't sound like what AA has in mind.

Oh, and while I am at it, configuring Beryl/Compiz is still outside the realm of the "grandma" user. Maybe if it were reconfigured to be one configuration like Aero is on Vista...

Could you get down to <700mb with Beryl, the drivers, and a basic desktop?

[qamelian]

Then why not get the Ubuntu system that's more dedicated to office use? (which would probably be almost exactly like the current Ubuntu install)

I guess I'm just not seeing the point. Everyone I've helped switch to Ubuntu whether it was from Windows or some other OS has been impressed by the fact the the existing Ubuntu install contains essentially everything they want to fill their basic wants/needs. They are are usually surprised as heck that all this stuff comes on the default install and when they compare it to what you get with a default install of Windows. I've switched maybe 30 people at this point, mostly home users, and I doubt that any of them would want less than what they get with the default install.

I guess I just don't see what this would accomplish except to create yet another flavour of Ubuntu. I'm not against additional variety in the Ubuntu-verse, but only if it genuinely fills a need. This just doesn't fill any need I can see. All the existing flavours have a purpose I can understand. This one just doesn't make sense to me. Of course, it doesn't need to!:)

[Adamant1988]

So what does this have to do with Microsoft?

Because you have different editions?

I don't see the point in your wording of the subject other than to get people to post replys.

The wording is because Microsoft's OS is typically very very bare-bones by default. No applications by default. I feel that this approach may be beneficial for Ubuntu.

[Adamant1988]

maybe I missed something, but imo, what you're looking for already exists.
If you want a bare OS and at to it as you see fit, you can use the mini iso. It installs a 250 MB OS on your disk and you can add whatever you please, from nothing but a window manager + firefox to a fullfeatured ubuntu desktop. (you may have to choose a 'server' install and select the 'expert' option to have more control over what gets installed - i forgot the details).

If you want to go with the idea of metapackages to pull in certain software combinations, I think you can select certain "tasks".
Other than that, making your own meta-packages is dead simple. It's essentially nothing more than listing the packages you want in a text file, wrap that text file in an archive, and save the archive with a file name that ends on .deb.

So, it's all there, go ahead. I'm sure that what you propose can be put together from the existing building blocks in a week. 2 weeks tops.

At the same time, I'm afraid that these versions/editions could be confusing for new users : they'd go from "which distro should I pick ?' to "what version of which distro should I pick ?". frying pan --> fire.
And one thing like very much about ubuntu, was the "1 CD for a complete system with 1 application for each job" approach. That, combined with the alternatives (text mode install, expert mode, mini install) for customized systems is all you need. Or at least, it's all I need.

I think the point is being missed, by a lot of people, somehow.

Ok, let me go over this (again).

Ubuntu's one-cd approach limits the size of the .iso to 700 megabytes. Ok, good, now that we've cleared that up, let's introduce another fact: The .iso is crammed, space is extremely limited because of the presence of applications on the CD.

Ok, good, we've cleared that up. Now, why is this a problem? It limits the ability to add more features, etc. into the Ubuntu operating system itself. What does this mean for users? That we will, over time, be seeing less additions to the OS because the size of applications like OpenOffice are getting larger, not smaller.

That space could be used for a lot of enhancements to make the OS more user friendly, even it's a multi-media introduction to the system. Personally, I'd rather hand someone a disk with Ubuntu on it that gives them a tour of the OS, tells them how to use it, and has loads of extra functionality. If that means that the user needs to install software, then it's no more inconvenient then any other OS.

[bobbybobington]

Basically this issue isn't about apps vs functionality, it's about the limitation of the media. As time goes on 700mb gives you less and less, as far as keeping with the times. The first option is to simply switch to DVD. The drawbacks being of course need for hardware, and increased expense -- for shipit and those burning at home--. This will be less and less of an issue as DVD becomes more universal. Another option is a network install. This could work quite well from the live cd environment and would be more universal than DVD as networks are more universal. However installing on many machines would be a burden on the network , and in some countries downloading a gig+ could be more expensive than a disc in the first place. Or you could have all of them, and give people the choice. But then that would simply overcomplicate things for newbies, and go against the simplicity of installation that ubuntu is known for. My take? Stick to what we have right now, maybe allow exclusion of a few trivial apps (maybe a few games) and ride things out for several years until a switch to DVD makes sense.

[Adamant1988]

Basically this issue isn't about apps vs functionality, it's about the limitation of the media. As time goes on 700mb gives you less and less, as far as keeping with the times. The first option is to simply switch to DVD. The drawbacks being of course need for hardware, and increased expense -- for shipit and those burning at home--. This will be less and less of an issue as DVD becomes more universal. Another option is a network install. This could work quite well from the live cd environment and would be more universal than DVD as networks are more universal. However installing on many machines would be a burden on the network , and in some countries downloading a gig+ could be more expensive than a disc in the first place. Or you could have all of them, and give people the choice. But then that would simply overcomplicate things for newbies, and go against the simplicity of installation that ubuntu is known for. My take? Stick to what we have right now, maybe allow exclusion of a few trivial apps (maybe a few games) and ride things out for several years until a switch to DVD makes sense.

Sort of, yes. I'm proposing that when it comes down to building a strong operating system, or a system that's jam-packed with every application you need to start, that the former should be the more important of the two. Obviously the physical media limitation is limiting the ability of the Ubuntu developers to truly innovate, and increase the base functionality of Ubuntu.

[B0rsuk]

Sounds like you need Debian. Netinstall cd is only 159 MB. You can still install everything via apt-get, of course.

Microsoft doesn't install just minimal system out of kindness of heart. They do it because they want to make you pay for the rest.

[Adamant1988]

Sounds like you need Debian. Netinstall cd is only 159 MB. You can still install everything via apt-get, of course.

Microsoft doesn't install just minimal system out of kindness of heart. They do it because they want to make you pay for the rest.

Actually, there are probably a lot of reasons that they don't automatically add any software. Anti-competitive practices, etc. The point is that I think innovation in the OS, and a more feature rich OS, is more important than having OpenOffice, Gimp, and other bloated unnecessary applications installed on the default disk.

also, Yes, Debian is a real thought at this point, as is openSuSE, for me.