Re: Single CD for Server & Desktop?
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 04:17:53PM +0100, Eoin Rogers wrote: > Maybe this could be done by compressing the data on the disc and including > something to auto-decompress it on the fly, like what happens with Knoppix. > Or is so much extra software required that even this is impossible? We already do this. Last I checked the unpacked LiveCD filesystem were a couple of gigabytes and it's squashed onto a 700MB CD. -- Soren Hansen Ubuntu Server Team http://www.ubuntu.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Updates post-release/freeze
> > > This all takes more resources. In Universe and Backports both we do not > have > sufficient communicty involvement to support the current demand. IMO any > proposal for more $STUFF that isn't paid for should also have some > thoughts > about where the labor to do the work is going to come from. > > The idea would be to have the stable universe updated in much the same way as the unstable universe is. I.e. instead of building new updates against just gutsy, they would built against Feisty and Gutsy, with the Feisty updates going to "universe-updates". There could be an "RC bug delay" in having them built for the stable release - think the Debian "testing" strategy. I understand why you suggest this can't be done, though. Anyway, I don't mean to sound rude in any respect. I will admit, I tend to sometimes think up ideas without truly thinking over the logistics. I do intend to get involved somehow - possibly in SRU or Backports (if not for Ubuntu, then for Debian). I appreciate what has been done so far, and I know you developers are doing a lot as-is. Thank you... Tim -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Updates post-release/freeze
On Monday 30 July 2007 12:16, Tim Hull wrote: > 2) For unsupported components, Universe (and multiverse) could be updated > on a rolling basis after release. This could be for mere feature updates - > though they would still have to not require new versions of "main" > components. Components in main could have unsupported updates in universe, > though these would have to install alongside the main packages (firefox3, > for instance, could be a Firefox 3 package). A universe freeze could be > maintained, though updates after the fact would merely go in > "universe-updates" instead of "universe". This would supplant the existing > backports system, and would actually parallel what FreeBSD does with its > "ports". This all takes more resources. In Universe and Backports both we do not have sufficient communicty involvement to support the current demand. IMO any proposal for more $STUFF that isn't paid for should also have some thoughts about where the labor to do the work is going to come from. Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Updates post-release/freeze
I know my last thread was confusing to some developers with regards to my desire for a greater availability of updates post-release. I thought I'd clarify - I'm not primarily thinking of LTS releases, and I'm not suggesting that a large number of supported components be version-updated between releases. However, I do see the desire for some updates to be available between releases, to a greater extent than "backports" currently handles (for instance, backports currently has no interest in making any new kernels available, and only has a limited number of packages). In many cases, users who need something that is not in the stable release but which is available (for instance, kernel fixes which came after the stable release, or a bugfix for a universe application) are having to compile from source. 1) For supported components, Stable Release Updates could be expanded to incorporate all significant bugfixes that can be done in a sane and safe way (i.e. without major version bumps). This could include supporting new hardware (like new revs of a wireless chipset) as well as fixing miscellaneous issues like suspend-to-RAM breakage. If a major version rev is necessary, this could be included but not installed by default. 2) For unsupported components, Universe (and multiverse) could be updated on a rolling basis after release. This could be for mere feature updates - though they would still have to not require new versions of "main" components. Components in main could have unsupported updates in universe, though these would have to install alongside the main packages (firefox3, for instance, could be a Firefox 3 package). A universe freeze could be maintained, though updates after the fact would merely go in "universe-updates" instead of "universe". This would supplant the existing backports system, and would actually parallel what FreeBSD does with its "ports". Devs, I'm curious to hear your thoughts. Is there anything I can do as a user to help bring about anything like this? Once again, thanks for the nice distro... Tim -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Single CD for Server & Desktop?
Maybe this could be done by compressing the data on the disc and including something to auto-decompress it on the fly, like what happens with Knoppix. Or is so much extra software required that even this is impossible? However, even if it could be done I'm sure it's a good idea. What about a computer illiterate trying to install it, and not knowing what a server is? Coming across a menu option like that during the install would completely stump them. Eoin On 28/07/07, Bryan Haskins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yea, server isn't just a subset of desktop, as it installs minimal and a > LAMP setup, so it would significantly bump up the size. We're pushing > close to 700mb now. Plus most users would have no use in this. It would > only be convenient enough for the people who could handle a server and > downloading a new ISO... plus a liveCD for a server install would just be > silly =D > > On 7/28/07, Christofer C. Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm curious why there are 2 CDs, one for Server and one for Desktop. > > Is it not possible to have a check box at installation time that says: > > > > * I would like to install an Ubuntu Desktop [ ] > > * I would like to install an Ubuntu Server [ ] > > > > Just idly curious. ;-) > > > > -- > > Chris > > > > "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, right > > or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally > > treasonable to the American public," said President Theodore > > Roosevelt. > > > > -- > > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > Bryan > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > > -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Single CD for Server & Desktop?
On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 18:34 -0400, Bryan Haskins wrote: > Yea, server isn't just a subset of desktop, as it installs minimal and > a LAMP setup, so it would significantly bump up the size. We're > pushing close to 700mb now. Plus most users would have no use in > this. It would only be convenient enough for the people who could > handle a server and downloading a new ISO... plus a liveCD for a > server install would just be silly =D In the single case you are correct. But in CORPORATE you could not be more wrong! A single CD would actually be preferable. Actually, what would be ideal in the corporate or business environments would be a very minimal install with all updates coming from a central repository (i.e. not from the CD). Something similar to the old Debian or RedHat FTP based install. I think what would serve the OPs original request, and could be a great asset to businesses large and small would be a setup such as this: You first install a server on your network. Add another option to the install along side the DNS and LAMP options for Domain Master. The domain master would install LDAP as the central user store; GOsa for user management; apt-cacher for package management; ssh server, and create an install user w/ssh key authentication; and a program to create a basic USB key used to install clients. Then use that key (complete with the server's ssh keys) to initiate an install off the server. Or, as an alternative, have the CD ask on boot if this is a server or client install (though I like the key idea much better). Call this distro the Corporate Edition. One media to keep up to date! Also, it could be further extended with the use of kickstart to create multiple install types (Install program contacts server via ssh; home directory of install user has a list of kickstart files; install program offers list of predefined install types; option for a roll your own would be a configuration item). And best of all, it would be a great way of chipping away at bug #1. Try installing that easily in Windows even with SMS, lol. Just my $0.02 -- Kevin Fries Senior Linux Engineer Computer and Communications Technologies, Inc. a division of Japan Communications, Inc. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Single CD for Server & Desktop?
Christofer C. Bell wrote: > I'm curious why there are 2 CDs, one for Server and one for Desktop. > Is it not possible to have a check box at installation time that says: > > * I would like to install an Ubuntu Desktop [ ] > * I would like to install an Ubuntu Server [ ] You might want to go for the DVD, which contains everything you want on one disc. Regards, Andreas -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
