daily-canary vs daily-live

[VMC]

No idea what canary is, just read about it a few weeks ago in another thread. So today reading this thread:
https://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2464651, thought I would compare canary vs dail-live. Wow! 30.1% zsync difference to start.
Normally I zsync this: "http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/daily-live/pending/impish-desktop-amd64.iso.zsync".

So where is the canary info, and why the difference? For one, its the new install program. Is there more?

[VMC]

I've tried both now, and ventoy shows the new install, but a usb stick doesn't. Don't know why.

[sudodus]

What do you mean by

I've tried both now, and ventoy shows the new install, but a usb stick doesn't. Don't know why.

?

A couple of weeks ago I cloned from the canary iso file and I saw the new installer (but it did not work all the way). Of course it might have changed, and I can test that, but I don't know yet what to look for. For example, how did you create the system in the USB stick? And how does ventoy show it?

[VMC]

The canary iso is much larger than daily-live. The canary comes up and asks for user name and location then says welcome. The installer part is exactly the same as daily-live.
One thing I did notice, is canary has a lot of errors on boot up. daily-live doesn't.

[sudodus]

If I understand correctly, the canary version is a very early testing version (maybe made for insiders / developers). We should expect that several things will not work yet.

- At first boot after installation with ubiquity I also notice that the install system comes up and asks for user name and location then says welcome. This happens also with persistent live systems created by mkusb-dus from the canary iso file.

- But there is also another installer, that was not yet fully functional when I tested it. I describe how to find that installer in the link from my previous post in this thread.

[VMC]

@sudodus, I think your right, its a work in progress. I'll keep zsync'ing daily-live.

[onflash]

The canary ISO's installer concept looks good - I was able to set the display to 1024x768 in VirtualBox. The classic installer stays in 640x480 in VirtualBox.

It looks like the partitioning tool isn't functional yet, though. I keep checking the installers of mainstream distributions to check for f2fs in one of the custom partitioning screens.

[VMC]

I gave up on Canary, once I found out it depends, uses, Snap.

[onflash]

I noticed that yesterday while checking out what was running using the newly-available terminal.

If an installer lets me set up an f2fs flash root filesystem and saves me 3-4 hours of manual effort, this kind of implementation detail is outside the scope of my work. Also, I was glad to be able to set up a good screen resolution.