Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
New blueprint for our new live CD https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/ubuntustudio-live-cd. I've talked with cj watson on getting the ISO to build. Should be a reality not too far into the future. I'll be editing our seeds a bit prior to that, but waiting until I get a green light. Going to merge our ship seed with the live seed, since we only do live ISOs now. And a few other things, in order to make sure the CD doesn't end up with all of our meta packages. The current preinstalled packages for the CD, will be: * minimal desktop, based on xubuntu-core * ubuntustudio-audio-core (includes jackd2, and a bunch of other core components) -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 15:05 +0200, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: ubuntustudio-audio-core (includes jackd2, and a bunch of other core components) For many needs there likely is no noticeable real difference between jackd and jackd2. I preferred jackd2 in the past, because it came with an improvement regarding to MIDI jitter. However, I didn't make music for a long time and during that time jackd and jackd2 seemingly have improved a lot. IOW I don't know what current version from jackd/jackd2 is better for what needs, IMO there should be offered a choice, with an explanation, that using jackd or jackd2 could make a difference. I hope you make jackd2 with pulseaudio and or dbus a recommended and not a hard dependency, assumed jack and jack dbus are separated packages. Regarding to the policy that Ubuntu Studio by default seems to come with a combination of jack + pulseaudio I won't add a comment, without switching to sarcasm-mode. sarcasm Why only using 2 sound servers? Why not making 4 or 6 sound servers the default? /sarcasm]. IMO it doesn't make sense, there should be a clear definition what Ubuntu Studio wants to support. Assumed Ubuntu Studio wants to be an audio distro, then pulseaudio is an absolutely no-go. If you want to ship Ubuntu Studio with the pulseaudio-jack combination add a note that Ubuntu Studio is not an audio distro. This might sound harsh, but it's my deepest believe, so I need to point this out. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014, at 03:59 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 15:05 +0200, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: ubuntustudio-audio-core (includes jackd2, and a bunch of other core components) For many needs there likely is no noticeable real difference between jackd and jackd2. I preferred jackd2 in the past, because it came with an improvement regarding to MIDI jitter. However, I didn't make music for a long time and during that time jackd and jackd2 seemingly have improved a lot. IOW I don't know what current version from jackd/jackd2 is better for what needs, IMO there should be offered a choice, with an explanation, that using jackd or jackd2 could make a difference. I hope you make jackd2 with pulseaudio and or dbus a recommended and not a hard dependency, assumed jack and jack dbus are separated packages. Regarding to the policy that Ubuntu Studio by default seems to come with a combination of jack + pulseaudio I won't add a comment, without switching to sarcasm-mode. sarcasm Why only using 2 sound servers? Why not making 4 or 6 sound servers the default? /sarcasm]. IMO it doesn't make sense, there should be a clear definition what Ubuntu Studio wants to support. Assumed Ubuntu Studio wants to be an audio distro, then pulseaudio is an absolutely no-go. If you want to ship Ubuntu Studio with the pulseaudio-jack combination add a note that Ubuntu Studio is not an audio distro. This might sound harsh, but it's my deepest believe, so I need to point this out. You know very well that Ubuntu Studio is not an audio distro, but a audio/video/graphics/photography/publishing distro The core meta will have next to no depends, only recommends, so that changing anything in it won't uninstall the meta. We have some ideas on how to make pulseaudio a choice for those who prefer not to use it. And if you're prepared to help with that, be my guest. I have yet to see a single argument for why you do not like pulseaudio, other than that you don't like it. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
Most desktops don't require pulseaudio to work. Years ago it was someone on this list who recommended I use Volti for a desktop mixer. Dealing with a dependency in a desktop package on pulseaudio can be done by making an empty package thatprovides pulseaudio and seeing what breaks. In my experience that is limited to desktop event sounds (in cinnamon) and the original volume control which volti replaces.Perhaps I should make volti a dependency in my empty pulseaudio package. This is not recommended when dealing with onboard sound that does not support a mono input or mono sound files will refuse to play. Most better onboard sound now has hardware mixing, but when there is no hardware mixer removing the software mixer means only one application at a time can use sound and only in formats directly supported by the soundcard. Ideally that would be jack but there are still too many things out there that do not support or do not easily support jack, such as browsers. On my netbook I use jack by itself when I need a sound server, but that's because I need utter maximum video performance to get it to play 720p video. I would not distribute those netbooks without pulseaudio. On 6/10/2014 at 11:06 AM, Kaj Ailomaa zeque...@mousike.me wrote: On Tue, Jun 10, 2014, at 03:59 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 15:05 +0200, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: ubuntustudio-audio-core (includes jackd2, and a bunch of other core components) For many needs there likely is no noticeable real difference between jackd and jackd2. I preferred jackd2 in the past, because it came with an improvement regarding to MIDI jitter. However, I didn't make music for a long time and during that time jackd and jackd2 seemingly have improved a lot. IOW I don't know what current version from jackd/jackd2 is better for what needs, IMO there should be offered a choice, with an explanation, that using jackd or jackd2 could make a difference. I hope you make jackd2 with pulseaudio and or dbus a recommended and not a hard dependency, assumed jack and jack dbus are separated packages. Regarding to the policy that Ubuntu Studio by default seems to come with a combination of jack + pulseaudio I won't add a comment, without switching to sarcasm-mode. sarcasm Why only using 2 sound servers? Why not making 4 or 6 sound servers the default? /sarcasm]. IMO it doesn't make sense, there should be a clear definition what Ubuntu Studio wants to support. Assumed Ubuntu Studio wants to be an audio distro, then pulseaudio is an absolutely no-go. If you want to ship Ubuntu Studio with the pulseaudio-jack combination add a note that Ubuntu Studio is not an audio distro. This might sound harsh, but it's my deepest believe, so I need to point this out. You know very well that Ubuntu Studio is not an audio distro, but a audio/video/graphics/photography/publishing distro The core meta will have next to no depends, only recommends, so that changing anything in it won't uninstall the meta. We have some ideas on how to make pulseaudio a choice for those who prefer not to use it. And if you're prepared to help with that, be my guest. I have yet to see a single argument for why you do not like pulseaudio, other than that you don't like it. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, Ralf Mardorf wrote: pulseaudio is an absolutely no-go. If you want to ship Ubuntu Studio with the pulseaudio-jack combination add a note that Ubuntu Studio is not an audio distro. This might sound harsh, but it's my deepest believe, so I need to point this out. That is not harsh, but not true either. Or it is only true if you limit your definition of audio distro to a very narrow group of uses and in fact make the distro into an appliance that does only one thing well and no longer a multipurpose machine. I do not dissagree with the idea that a studio DAW machine should not be used for anything else and that a second desktop machine might make be a better accounting, wordprocessing or browsing machine. However, most people are limited to one machine that has to do all of these things... and more. I would also question your assertion that pulseaudio is an absolutely no-go. I can do many types of audio processing at realatively low latency (in fact the lowest latency many internal audio interfaces are capable of) with pulseaudio running and using jack as it's output device with complete stability and no xruns. In my opinion, the problem is with jackd (1, 2 or dbus, take your pick) which does not provide the kind of desktop service pulseaudio does and is not likely to do so ever from what I can tell. If you look hard enough you can find reasons why any of the software on the US iso does not belong in an audio distro. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
I've started messing with seeds to create this new smaller ISO. New additions are: desktop-minimal (based on the new xubuntu-core seed/meta) audio-core cd-live (duplicate of dvd-live, but probably needed for making the new ISO) audio-core will also be a meta package: ubuntustudio-audio-core. Haven't made one for desktop-minimal yet, as I'm not sure we need it yet. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Thu, May 29, 2014, at 10:58 PM, Len Ovens wrote: I would still like to break out the settings from ubuntustudio-settings that are audio performance related. I am not sure which package to put them in... I had thought about adding them to -audio-core Yes, I agree that we should do this. Those settings are probably only related to audio performance. If so, we could put that all in audio core. We aren't seeding linux-lowlatency in audio-core, which I think we should. My thinking is that the controls package would both change settings to a known good audio default as well as giving the user the means to tweak things further. yeah, I've long had in mind a set to optimal default button in -controls to set up the system for good performance. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Tue, 27 May 2014, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: I've reconsidered a bit. lubuntu-core is great to base on, but we would at least need to add networking, and a few other things. We could also, as pointed out, just go with a smaller version of our XFCE setup - that would save us some energy, since we already know Xubuntu/XFCE better than Lubuntu/LXDE. In fact, our current DE, without the multimedia metas is probably quite a bit smaller than the Xubuntu installer. So, perhaps better to start with that. So, I think I will do that. I'm sure no one is against taking that road. So do we start another est of seeds or add another task to the seeds we have? From what I have seen either way is possible, but having two seed branches would be easier to work on from a clarity POV. I would still like to break out the settings from ubuntustudio-settings that are audio performance related. I am not sure which package to put them in... I had thought about adding them to -audio-core (or is that -minimal) I am thinking about such things as swappiness, for example. My reasoning is that when installing studio metas on other DEs but our own, the de settings are not relevant but the audio settings are. I would be quite happy to see these included in the -controls package if that would be better. I am thinking the -controls package is going to become something that will be depended on by audio-minimal anyway. My thinking is that the controls package would both change settings to a known good audio default as well as giving the user the means to tweak things further. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
I've reconsidered a bit. lubuntu-core is great to base on, but we would at least need to add networking, and a few other things. We could also, as pointed out, just go with a smaller version of our XFCE setup - that would save us some energy, since we already know Xubuntu/XFCE better than Lubuntu/LXDE. In fact, our current DE, without the multimedia metas is probably quite a bit smaller than the Xubuntu installer. So, perhaps better to start with that. So, I think I will do that. I'm sure no one is against taking that road. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
My idea is that this ISO is just an installer, not a new default installation for the system. The actual installation will be the same on both ISOs, where you will be able to choose which DE you want. The mini.iso is not what we will be basing our new ISO on. Both ISOs will be live, with ubiquity. But, lubuntu-core is a perfect meta to start from, Desktop wise, since you only get the bare bone for a DE, and that will save us a lot of space, and maintenance. I suggest we create this ISO within the week, and try out lubuntu-core. We will need to make changes to some of our core packages probably, in order to make it look Ubuntu Studio. I'll set up the seed files and make sure we get an ISO building ASAP. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Fri, 23 May 2014, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: I suggest we create this ISO within the week, and try out lubuntu-core. We will need to make changes to some of our core packages probably, in order to make it look Ubuntu Studio. I'll set up the seed files and make sure we get an ISO building ASAP. I think that will work great. I think if we wanted to stick with xfce it could be minimally installed too (just xfwm and xfce4-panel). But I think you intend to be able to install any DE from the ISO so the ISO DE would not be part of the install anyway. I find running xfce4-panel (LXDE's panel may work just as well) on top of any WM from openbox to fvwm or even twm to whichever super wm is new these days would probably give us a usable DE. (it may even make Unity easier to use for more complex setups) We will want to add the systray at least to support netman, volume controls, etc. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Thu, May 22, 2014, at 02:14 PM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: lubuntu-minimal is quite a nice meta to base on. It has practically nothing. Doesn't even have a web browser, which needs to be added if we were to use it, of course. Should save enormous amounts of space for a minimall install, yet with the benfit of getting a full DE that is easy to use even for the total newbie. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel Actually, the meta is called lubuntu-core. The install task in the UBuntu mini.iso was named lubuntu-minimal. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
Are you really sure that we need to spend time on something that maybe only a very few of our users will be interested with ?? Antoine Antoine THOMAS Tél: 0663137906 2014-05-22 14:14 GMT+02:00 Kaj Ailomaa zeque...@mousike.me: lubuntu-minimal is quite a nice meta to base on. It has practically nothing. Doesn't even have a web browser, which needs to be added if we were to use it, of course. Should save enormous amounts of space for a minimall install, yet with the benfit of getting a full DE that is easy to use even for the total newbie. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Thu, 22 May 2014, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: lubuntu-minimal is quite a nice meta to base on. It has practically nothing. Doesn't even have a web browser, which needs to be added if we were to use it, of course. Should save enormous amounts of space for a minimall install, yet with the benfit of getting a full DE that is easy to use even for the total newbie. I am trying it out. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Tue, May 20, 2014, at 04:50 AM, Len Ovens wrote: On Mon, 19 May 2014, Len Ovens wrote: Is there some kind of sandbox we can build ISOs in? If the ISO has a package blacklisted so it is not included on the ISO, can ubiquity still DL It's possible to set up your own ISO build server, with custom seed files. This page is not very comprehensive, but has some info on that - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuStudio/SetupLocalIsoBuildServer. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
[ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
I would like us to introduce a new netinstall type of ISO, small enough to fit on a CD, and useful when you don't want to install the whole suite of packages that come with Ubuntu Studio. I'm thinking a stripped down version of our current ISO. Keep the core stuff, like jack, so the installer can be used for simple testing too, but otherwise nothing. We will need a super light DE setup for this. I do prefer to have a DE, with a web browser and easy graphical means of setting up wifi, and such. Also, with the ubiquity installer. As little maintenance as possible should be the goal of course. Any Ideas? -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Kaj Ailomaa zeque...@mousike.me wrote: I would like us to introduce a new netinstall type of ISO, small enough to fit on a CD, and useful when you don't want to install the whole suite of packages that come with Ubuntu Studio. I'm thinking a stripped down version of our current ISO. Keep the core stuff, like jack, so the installer can be used for simple testing too, but otherwise nothing. We will need a super light DE setup for this. I do prefer to have a DE, with a web browser and easy graphical means of setting up wifi, and such. Also, with the ubiquity installer. As little maintenance as possible should be the goal of course. Any Ideas? I think it's great idea and have been toying with it lately as well. I ended up using the Ubuntu Studio ISO and then uncheck all packages but the ones I really want. After that I installed dwm as WM and dwb as a browser. I like it, but perhaps a bit too complicated for the average user with dwm and dwb. I'm running it on a usb-stick in an old eee-pc and it's working great. Though setting up wifi I kind of cheated as I kept Xfce and logged in there to set it up, after that it carries over to when I log in to dwm. I have been wanting to do like a mini-iso and even looking into using terminal audio tools, but that's also stretching it a bit far. When comparing size, resource usage and ease of use I think we are already on the right track with Xfce. My own small investigations have not come up with a better solution which is also easy to set up wifi and so on. The difference between Xfce and Lxde have been to minor to make any difference IMHO. /Jimmy -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
As little maintenance ? so try first using Unity before considering switching to another desktop. Otherwise, LXDE in its latest version is interesting. I would keep the very basics if possible: Firefox, Ardour, Gimp and Inkscape, maybe a video editor like Pitivi. But I would drop Libre Office and other stuff like that. Antoine THOMAS Tél: 0663137906 2014-05-19 13:31 GMT+02:00 Kaj Ailomaa zeque...@mousike.me: I would like us to introduce a new netinstall type of ISO, small enough to fit on a CD, and useful when you don't want to install the whole suite of packages that come with Ubuntu Studio. I'm thinking a stripped down version of our current ISO. Keep the core stuff, like jack, so the installer can be used for simple testing too, but otherwise nothing. We will need a super light DE setup for this. I do prefer to have a DE, with a web browser and easy graphical means of setting up wifi, and such. Also, with the ubiquity installer. As little maintenance as possible should be the goal of course. Any Ideas? -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Mon, May 19, 2014, at 01:54 PM, ttoine wrote: As little maintenance ? so try first using Unity before considering switching to another desktop. Using unity would mean we need to create a custom desktop seed file for Unity, which would place us in the situation where we do need to do maintenance for it. I would rather our seed file only pointed to an existing DE, which was small in size. lxde is a strong candidate there - one would just need to make sure it is functional enough for what we want it to do. If we start supporting multiple DEs, unity will always be installable though. Otherwise, LXDE in its latest version is interesting. I would keep the very basics if possible: Firefox, Ardour, Gimp and Inkscape, maybe a video editor like Pitivi. But I would drop Libre Office and other stuff like that. The smaller ISO is not meant to be used as a live tool, so if we are to put any applications on it other than a basic DE, a web browser and the installer, we need to figure out why. I would still like it if one could do a bit of troubleshooting with it. And for that, it's good to have jack, and perhaps one application to go with it. As for other areas, I wouldn't know what would be worth to include for the sake of troubleshooting. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Mon, 19 May 2014, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: I would like us to introduce a new netinstall type of ISO, small enough to fit on a CD, and useful when you don't want to install the whole suite of packages that come with Ubuntu Studio. A netinstall ISO is in the form of the old style ALT iso. Is this what you mean? This is an install only media except for shell access. The old alt installs were the netiso with a package repo on disk and an install script to install them. Not much good for testing. I'm thinking a stripped down version of our current ISO. Keep the core stuff, like jack, so the installer can be used for simple testing too, but otherwise nothing. We will need a super light DE setup for this. I do prefer to have a DE, with a web browser and easy graphical means of setting up wifi, and such. Also, with the ubiquity installer. As little maintenance as possible should be the goal of course. Ah, So this is really a very lite live iso. It needs a WM and a menu to work. But could still do the install an alt style so that the the packages on the ISO itself would not be what got installed. I do not know how well ubiquity would deal with this. But ubuntustudio-installer with the expansions you have envisioned might do well... except that would require (ubiquity too) a number of gui libs to be installed. I would almost suggest against any of the DEs that we support so that the user would be aware from the start that this look and feel of this ISO are not representative of any of the installed flavours. It would be good to define the exact use cases for this ISO. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Mon, May 19, 2014, at 05:32 PM, Len Ovens wrote: On Mon, 19 May 2014, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: I would like us to introduce a new netinstall type of ISO, small enough to fit on a CD, and useful when you don't want to install the whole suite of packages that come with Ubuntu Studio. A netinstall ISO is in the form of the old style ALT iso. Is this what you mean? This is an install only media except for shell access. The old alt installs were the netiso with a package repo on disk and an install script to install them. Not much good for testing. I'm thinking a stripped down version of our current ISO. Keep the core stuff, like jack, so the installer can be used for simple testing too, but otherwise nothing. We will need a super light DE setup for this. I do prefer to have a DE, with a web browser and easy graphical means of setting up wifi, and such. Also, with the ubiquity installer. As little maintenance as possible should be the goal of course. Ah, So this is really a very lite live iso. It needs a WM and a menu to work. But could still do the install an alt style so that the the packages on the ISO itself would not be what got installed. I do not know how well ubiquity would deal with this. But ubuntustudio-installer with the expansions you have envisioned might do well... except that would require (ubiquity too) a number of gui libs to be installed. I would almost suggest against any of the DEs that we support so that the user would be aware from the start that this look and feel of this ISO are not representative of any of the installed flavours. It would be good to define the exact use cases for this ISO. -- By netinstall, I don't mean in the traditional term. Just that most things get installed over the net, instead of from the ISO. My view, as I said before, would be it is to be used for two things: * installing only what you need over the internet (so, no need to download the entire 2+GB ISO) * simple troubleshooting/testing (again, no need to download the entire 2+GB ISO). Also, it would be nice if could fit on a CD, all though the CD is a dying medium. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Mon, May 19, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2014, at 05:32 PM, Len Ovens wrote: On Mon, 19 May 2014, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: I would like us to introduce a new netinstall type of ISO, small enough to fit on a CD, and useful when you don't want to install the whole suite of packages that come with Ubuntu Studio. A netinstall ISO is in the form of the old style ALT iso. Is this what you mean? This is an install only media except for shell access. The old alt installs were the netiso with a package repo on disk and an install script to install them. Not much good for testing. I'm thinking a stripped down version of our current ISO. Keep the core stuff, like jack, so the installer can be used for simple testing too, but otherwise nothing. We will need a super light DE setup for this. I do prefer to have a DE, with a web browser and easy graphical means of setting up wifi, and such. Also, with the ubiquity installer. As little maintenance as possible should be the goal of course. Ah, So this is really a very lite live iso. It needs a WM and a menu to work. But could still do the install an alt style so that the the packages on the ISO itself would not be what got installed. I do not know how well ubiquity would deal with this. But ubuntustudio-installer with the expansions you have envisioned might do well... except that would require (ubiquity too) a number of gui libs to be installed. I would almost suggest against any of the DEs that we support so that the user would be aware from the start that this look and feel of this ISO are not representative of any of the installed flavours. It would be good to define the exact use cases for this ISO. -- By netinstall, I don't mean in the traditional term. Just that most things get installed over the net, instead of from the ISO. My view, as I said before, would be it is to be used for two things: * installing only what you need over the internet (so, no need to download the entire 2+GB ISO) * simple troubleshooting/testing (again, no need to download the entire 2+GB ISO). Also, it would be nice if could fit on a CD, all though the CD is a dying medium. And, using ubiquity, and in all other regards, a similar setup to our DVD, would make it easier to maintain. Less variables to keep track off. Also, as I suggested before, having network-manager with a graphical gui is kind of nice when setting up an internet connection, if you need wifi. Plus, when doing simple testing, you still need graphical tools, and most often, access to the internet with a browser. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Feature Spec Discussion: Introduce New Netinstall ISO
On Mon, 19 May 2014, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: By netinstall, I don't mean in the traditional term. Just that most things get installed over the net, instead of from the ISO. My view, as I said before, would be it is to be used for two things: * installing only what you need over the internet (so, no need to download the entire 2+GB ISO) * simple troubleshooting/testing (again, no need to download the entire 2+GB ISO). Also, it would be nice if could fit on a CD, all though the CD is a dying medium. 200 Meg CDs fit in pockets real nice. I once had (maybe I still do) an ISO image that would fit in 200 Meg with a DE, browser and a pack of network and other admin tools... even a windows reg editor. Seems to me the browser was very basic, but there was a menu item for downloading and installing firefox into memory But, are there any machines made since 2000 that will not boot from a USB stick? USB started showing up before then. I do have One running laptop from 98 that while it does have a usb port, will not boot from it. However, at 360Mhz and 256M ram, it is not going to do much of any audio. In fact, there is no Ubuntu flavour that is worth running on it. Funny, I used to be able to get videos to run smoothly on it at one time. I used vcds to keep the kids busy on long trips. Anyway, Aim for CD size, if for nothing else besides short DL time. Do you want it pretty too? or are coloured backgrounds ok? Can we ditch plymouth? Is there some kind of sandbox we can build ISOs in? If the ISO has a package blacklisted so it is not included on the ISO, can ubiquity still DL and install that package later? Right now our (and most flavours) rely on a basic desktop package (i'm guessing X and some generic X apps/utils). It would be nice to still use that but be able to blacklist things at least to try without them. IS there any reason to do both 32 and 64 bit.. at least to start? I wouldn't mind playing with a seed package for this. ubiquity uses gtk? (on top of python) So the DE should also be GTK based. LXDE has announced they are moving towards QT, so that is probably out unless there is a qt based version of ubiquity that does not also use the kde toolkit. XFCE is probaly the only one that makes sense, or to put it another, any other DE will still result in the gtk libs just for ubiquity anyway. We need a menu, but not indicators or systray, the netman will run without them. Do we need the panel? Is there a menu without? (if so would the average user find it?) How stripped down do we want/need? The install option has no DE. ubiquity becomes the wm. It will start the netmanager if it is needed for example. We can make something with very little that will do the job, but should we? Matchbox anyone? -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
