Re: 650M ? [was Re: Inkscape]

[Daniel Holbach]

Hello,

Am Sonntag, den 12.02.2006, 17:31 +0100 schrieb Manu Cornet:
> Downloading 700M or 650M doesn't seem really different to me, and I
> guess the extra 50M of software we could fit in is worth the trouble (if
> any) of getting a blank 700M CD ? Would it be more expensive for
> Canonical to ship those larger CDs ?

Somebody asked this question before and IIRC 700M CDs seem to be
uncommon in the CD pressing industry (or more expensive).

Needless to say, it'd take one or two months to have the same trouble
again and ponder how expensive 800M CDs would be. :-)

Have a nice day,
 Daniel



signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

650M ? [was Re: Inkscape]

[Manu Cornet]

Hi !

> > I would also support this, but I think it should wait until Dapper+1.
> > The major issue behind shipping Inkscape is that of space. It looks
> > like Inkscape + libraries runs to about 9mb, not a small amount.

(Sorry in advance for my ignorance, I'm sure my question has a direct
answer, but I couldn't find it by just googling)

Just a small question about this problem : why does Ubuntu (and other
distros) choose to ship 650M images and not 700M ? When I buy blank CDs,
I can't even find 650M CDs anymore :)

Downloading 700M or 650M doesn't seem really different to me, and I
guess the extra 50M of software we could fit in is worth the trouble (if
any) of getting a blank 700M CD ? Would it be more expensive for
Canonical to ship those larger CDs ?

Cheers,
Manu


-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop