Talking Point: Should Distros Stick to CDR Size?
It's starting to look like the end of an era for Ubuntu users as Canonical mull the creation of an ISO that won't fit onto a CDR. The question is, does it matter?
Canonical owes at least part of its success with Ubuntu Linux to the unique way that it has been distributed. From the start it has been available as a downloadable ISO image and a free CD, posted at no cost to the user. This was great news for people who wanted to install Linux but did not have the luxury of a decent Internet connection. In a sense, installing via a CDR image has always been like a kind of cache, in that you're moving part of the content that you need onto permanent storage rather than pulling it through the network connection.
Things have changed since Ubuntu made its debut in 2004, and far more people now have a decent Internet connection. In addition, the CDR format itself is beginning to fall out of favor. The majority of computers that are suitable for use as an Ubuntu-powered desktop are capable of booting from a flashdrive, a more flexible and higher capacity medium.
So, should Canonical (and other creators of Linux distros) make an extra effort to squeeze Ubuntu 12.04 onto a CDR?
Some have argued that attempting to adhere to the size limit for a CDR forces the developers into a disciplined approach to resisting bloat. Once the 700MB limit for the basic install is breached, what should the limit be, and does it matter? Within reason, a large percentage of the potential install base for distros like Ubuntu can fetch a boot medium of almost any size. The next convenient milestone would be around 4GB as it's a common size for smaller flashdrives and close to the limit for a single layer DVD-R.
As for the people who still have a slow connection, there are solutions that are better than the traditional one of downloading an ISO and then burning it to a CD, such as arranging to have the installation medium sent through the mail or arranging an organization-wide cache for a network-based installation.
As Shawn pointed out recently, a smaller, but incomplete, installation medium such as an Ubuntu or Debian Netinstall carries with it a few advantages such as allowing you to begin with an up to date set of packages. It’s possible that such a way of working may involve a lower amount of network traffic than booting from a full CD and then updating to replace some of the packages.
Another option would be for Canonical to offer an Ubuntu Lite version with a minimal desktop and few major applications. Although, this approach probably clashes with the overall Ubuntu ethos to ship with a complete, standardized desktop.
In conclusion, I wonder if a few of the major distros will soon drop the familiar 700MB ISO entirely. The number of people who want to install standard Ubuntu but can't manage a download any bigger than the normal ISO, or who can't boot of any medium other than CDR is going to be pretty small these days.
UK based freelance writer Michael Reed writes about technology, retro computing, geek culture and gender politics.
Practical Task Scheduling Deployment
July 20, 2016 12:00 pm CDT
One of the best things about the UNIX environment (aside from being stable and efficient) is the vast array of software tools available to help you do your job. Traditionally, a UNIX tool does only one thing, but does that one thing very well. For example, grep is very easy to use and can search vast amounts of data quickly. The find tool can find a particular file or files based on all kinds of criteria. It's pretty easy to string these tools together to build even more powerful tools, such as a tool that finds all of the .log files in the /home directory and searches each one for a particular entry. This erector-set mentality allows UNIX system administrators to seem to always have the right tool for the job.
Cron traditionally has been considered another such a tool for job scheduling, but is it enough? This webinar considers that very question. The first part builds on a previous Geek Guide, Beyond Cron, and briefly describes how to know when it might be time to consider upgrading your job scheduling infrastructure. The second part presents an actual planning and implementation framework.
Join Linux Journal's Mike Diehl and Pat Cameron of Help Systems.
Free to Linux Journal readers.Register Now!
- SUSE LLC's SUSE Manager
- My +1 Sword of Productivity
- Managing Linux Using Puppet
- Non-Linux FOSS: Caffeine!
- Murat Yener and Onur Dundar's Expert Android Studio (Wrox)
- SuperTuxKart 0.9.2 Released
- Doing for User Space What We Did for Kernel Space
- Google's SwiftShader Released
- SourceClear Open
- Parsing an RSS News Feed with a Bash Script
With all the industry talk about the benefits of Linux on Power and all the performance advantages offered by its open architecture, you may be considering a move in that direction. If you are thinking about analytics, big data and cloud computing, you would be right to evaluate Power. The idea of using commodity x86 hardware and replacing it every three years is an outdated cost model. It doesn’t consider the total cost of ownership, and it doesn’t consider the advantage of real processing power, high-availability and multithreading like a demon.
This ebook takes a look at some of the practical applications of the Linux on Power platform and ways you might bring all the performance power of this open architecture to bear for your organization. There are no smoke and mirrors here—just hard, cold, empirical evidence provided by independent sources. I also consider some innovative ways Linux on Power will be used in the future.Get the Guide