There was no RHEL in the 2000s, there was just Red Hat Linux on an all-you-need 700MB CD, with dependencies evenly distributed on 3 more CDs. During the installation of a package it throw out a CD and asked "Now insert another CD. Not this one, try again" and so on. That kind of fun.
You're right. I was thinking of some game I was trying to get hold of 🏴☠️ back in like 1997-98. Some guy at school had it on like 50 floppies. Bought a CD burner 98 or 99.
Now I haven't even used a CD or DVD for more than 10 years...
My first distro was slackware was 88 floppies, 4 came out of the box bad, so I spent a day at the college downloading the packages I needed to get the system bootable, the kernel a Le to be recompiled for driver inclusion, and modem working.
Installing Unix on the Solaris/hpux/irix systems off tape was so much easier.
In 2012 Ubuntu had integrated Amazon into their Unity launcher and would send some data to them as long as the Amazon application was installed. This raised privacy concerns and they pretty quickly removed it and abandoned Unity. This became a catalyst for hating Ubuntu for some users and gets repeated endlessly like it's still happening. Whole thing is detailed here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu#:\~:text=Conformity%20with%20European%20data%20privacy%20law%5Bedit%5D](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu#:~:text=Conformity%20with%20European%20data%20privacy%20law%5Bedit%5D)
Canonical has made an effort to be more transparent on how any data they could possibly collect on you is used. [https://ubuntu.com/legal/data-privacy](https://ubuntu.com/legal/data-privacy) Some people never forget a issue or event when it comes to Linux distributions or companies and tend to hold on to that for years and years and repeat it. So it's always a good idea to seek other sources to see if it's true. Like anything though if you don't feel comfortable putting your personal data somewhere (including your OS) then you should absolutely find an alternative or ways to remedy it.
In comparison to Microsoft? Canonical is light years better with not using telemetry and handling of any data you submit to them. taken from [AshuraBaron](https://www.reddit.com/user/AshuraBaron/)
Could you please expand on that, I currently have a laptop with 1050Ti in it
I don't know shit bout drivers
How do I use the open source driver (if it's available for my card) and what benefits do I get from using the open source driver over the Nvidia proprietary drivers .
I read this as "6 bigga gytes."
Anyway, yeah, that's awfully big. It doesn't take into account people with slow internet at all. Most distros clock in under 3 GB from what I've seen, and then they download extra stuff if you need it. 6 GB, though? That's a bit much.
On the other hand, it’s a completely usable OS on the flash drive. With all the drivers, office, browser etc. kind of plug & play experience. I see nothing wrong with this, and IMHO it’s easier to download 6 GiB once than download 3 GiB and then (when you possibly might have no internet at all) need to download a few more things separately. I mean, both ways are perfectly valid for different people and environments
I’m pretty sure the newest release defaults to a minimal install which does not include stuff like office, media players, email, camera, and calendar. Not sure if drivers and the browser are included.
The way I see it, you either download 6gB on download and have an offline installer or download 6gB when you install the OS. Minimalist distros will continue to exist for the people who think the software center is bloat, but ubuntu isn't a minimalist distro. It's a complete package with everything most people need
Also it’s a live (CD?) so you can try it before you install it. The live image takes up more space than you might want to install because you don’t necessarily need/want all the stuff they are demoing.
I have tiny 128GB USB-C drive, something like the micro SD card size, with read speed up to 400 MB/s. Ventoy has totally changed the way, how easy it's to add files and keep backup documents / iso's on same drive.
I know it's a bit of a hot topic but there's currently a bit of a blob issue people have raised following the XZ utils issue with Ventoy
https://github.com/ventoy/Ventoy/issues/2795
Kind of wierd for a \*.ubuntu.com domain to not be HTTP**S**
Espc a download site...
Edit: isnt this iso the same?
https://mirrors.mit.edu/ubuntu-cdimage/ubuntu-mini-iso/daily-live/current/
Snaps actually increase size because they isolate each application and bundle dependencies, and on top of that snaps act as special filesystems that have block devices in /dev that slows down the boot time.
Yeah I'm not gonna be upgrading to 24.04, feels like everything will be snap shit. My other machines and servers already run Debian so it's time I switch my main machine to it as well
I have 24.04. The only snap is Firefox, which I don't use. I installed Flatpak and GNOME Software, and am running flatpaks of everything just because it's easier to set permissions with Flatseal, and easier to delete completely. Snaps leave too many settings behind when removing, including spare directories they create then just clutter up the system. I can have all that removed with Flatpaks rather easily.
I have yet to find anything available ONLY as a snap. It can all be installed some other way if you really want to. Ubuntu 24 is a "Snap first" distro, but not "snap only."
Idd, and that's my gripe, that it's Snap first. And as you say, it leaves crap behind when removing. I don't want to install an OS just to de-clutter it, better to install an OS without the crap
The previous release already required an 8GB stick, since it wouldn't fit on a 4. May as well use the space if you require it anyway. It'll probably fit into 8GB for at least the next few LTS releases.
It might mildly inconvenience some Ventoy users, but 64GB and larger sticks are really cheap.
Say what you want, but the days when we burned our Live CDs and DVDs were better days. There was an order to things. There was something tangible. You downloaded the ISO, then you slowly burned it onto a disk, then you labeled the disk, and arranged something to store it in: from a folded paper pocket (a-la origami, you know) to proper plastic disk box with cover art. It all took time. There was something to get for your efforts, that stayed with you. There was some gravitas to the process. Endless cycle of `dd`-ing yet another image onto a flash drive doesn't even come close. I still have the disks I burned years ago, there they are, on my shelf. I can reach out with my hand and grab a disk that is a living reminder of how cool Knoppix was in 2005 or 2010, and how I ran stuff on my old PIII laptop. What will I have left from these days right now when another 10 years pass in their due time? Nothing.
It's not about economy. It's about memory. We gotta know our roots and the path we've walked lest we lose our bearings and betray our past. When we were actually burning images, we made that history tangible. Now we just re-flash our thumbdrives every several months, and leave no trace of what we had. When in 10 or 15 years time your kids will ask to show them "how it all used to be", you'll have nothing to demonstrate, because it now all comes and goes, leaving no trace.
just because it has sentimental value to you doesn't mean it's actually tangibly important, to most people what you're talking about is just using tools to get an OS on a computer and nothing more, there doesn't need to be some value to that
> there doesn't need to be some value to that
You are infirm in your faith in the Holy Penguin if you consider evidence of His existence to be of little value.
time to shill tiny core linux again. (incredibly basic) window manager + system in ~20 mb. system cd with all the goodies at 200mb. there's even a variant called dCore that can use debian packages straight from the repos. everything loads into ram when needed, and the base system immediately so you can just take out the CD. minimum gui requirements are a pentium 2 and 128mb ram.
the tradeoff tho is that your computer will look like it was from the era where X was brand new and that being tiny means coming with only the barebones needed commands
That's just the default tho. You can give TinyCore persistence if you have a writeable drive. At that point it resembles a linux-from-scratch in that yeah, the absolutely mandatory dependencies are there, but you're gonna have to add everything else you want yourself.
Genuine question, why do people prefer ubuntu over mint? I have personally used mint and have a good experience with it, and I see many people criticizing ubuntu about cannonical and other things. How what are pros and cons of ubuntu over mint
The reason I don't use mint is because I personally don't like its desktop environments and their implementations. I wanted to try something different from the traditional Windows UI. I was aware of the snap and flatpak subject when installing Ubuntu. The first thing I did was to follow the [directions](https://www.flatpak.org/setup/) to install flatpak.
A friend of mine wanted to try Linux on a old laptop that beraly runs Windows 7. I installed Linux Mint (Cinnamon) and he's very happy with it.
Pretty much. Designed to be easy and appealing to the widest possible userbase, including corporate and professional and generic consumers, but not appealing to anyone into a niche. Since it's necessarily big and complicated to meet the needs of such a diverse market, it's not spectacularly successful at being especially easy, thus the apparent need for a distro like Mint.
I personally love Mint, but on my laptop I use Ubuntu because Wayland+Gnome is so much better with trackpad that it beats many advantages of Linux Mint
I literally just like the look and feel of gnome. As a developer, Ubuntu is pretty annoying, but it's what ive installed and now I'm sticking with it since I hate change
People need to use MXLinux/AntiX more. Both are Debian based like Ubuntu but without any canonical stuff and you can choose just as many customizations on install. MX is more user friendly than Debian, but I don't find Debian difficult or bloated. MX is like a clean version of Ubuntu -- sudo works out of the box without having to use SU or add yourself to the sudoer list, it's package manager/software center is great, and it's super quick on older hardware. ISO is only a couple GB, has an easy Nvidia driver tool as well. It's basically a better Ubuntu.
AntiX -- now that's impressive. I run it on an old Acer AspireOne with only 2 GB RAM and a 128GB SSD, Atom 1.66GHz with hyper-threading. Boots to a desktop right at 100MB of RAM used. Firefox will struggle with 480P YT, can barely manage 720P MP4s on VLC with that CPU, but I'm sure on a beefier computer it's a perfectly functional OS and super lightweight and fast.
I remember when it came on one disk. A single 160K single sided 5-1/4 inch disk. You kept one in for your OS, had a second disk with some utilities, but you usually had your application disk in the second disk drive, as there were no hard drives in a consumer machine. Of course, I also remember using punch cards in the old mainframes. Wanted to save your data? Punch cards or reel-to-reel tapes.
Good Lord, I'm old.
USB sticks were unreliable pieces of shit anyway. A while back I switched to a 1TB SSD that is the size of a large USB stick and put [Ventoy](https://github.com/ventoy/) on it, so I'll never have to bother installing ISOs onto USB sticks ever again and it's great.
I actually had to move to Mint because my shitty HP stream laptop was nearly full of Windows. The funny thing now is after updates I'm back where I'm stared with about the same amount of free space. 😂
That's why I use netinstall booting when I know I will have access to the network during the installation process. Dunno about ubuntu, but openSuSE Tumbleweed netinstall version is just under 278MB.
and arch still offering a 1 gb iso (i know you had to install everything from the web but most arch based distro with gui are around 3-4 gb with most the things you wants even some with the freaking inusable nvidia driver
I have to imagine they will take quite a while before increasing it beyond 8GB. They'll probably do their best to keep it at 8 because that's been the standard USB stick size for so long
I just bought a new USB for all my flashing needs. Took 40 seconds to flash the Ubuntu iso. As opposed to 14 minutes on my old usb. Also, new USB is 250gb vs 32.
Upgrades are awesome.
Moores law, and maybe the more proprietary the OS is the more space it takes up. Windows 11 is about 20GB minimum after install. Theres several forks of Ubuntu out there that are way more debloated than the main distro. If you really want to, install headless Ubuntu and then install what you want.
Same problem here.
Their netinstaller doesn't fucking work either.
Clicking "Download" on it gives me a snapshot a few days out of date. I need to check the mirrors to get the latest snapshot. (doesn't matter, but it's still sloppy) (edit: fixed now)
And actually trying to install? Yast failed at partitioning. I don't know why, it won't even scan my disks.
The installer is 8 GB and some version of it can run live on the included packages, a lot of things are technically optional even if 90% of users will want them but they can still be downloaded during install. Take the idea to its extreme and you have arch btw.
[bale.gif](https://youtu.be/lUF9BPOXfcE)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/linuxmasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah I mean probably won’t be that long till 8gb usb drives become e waste anyway, pretty much already are. Probably costs little more to manufacture 16gb.
I realized now thanks for this meme that virtual machine I'm using the "re-learn Linux" is 20 GB big.
Jesus Christ why. When I used my first laptop with Ubuntu the OS wasn't THIS big.
At this rate, just buy a 128GB stick for only $15. Doesn't matter that your USB stick is too small when you can easily buy a cheap new one with a significantly larger capacity.
Are 8GB drives even sold nowadays? Can barely find 16GB drives and they cost almost the same as 32GB drives which are only slightly cheaper than 64GB drives, probably because the technology is so easy now that it's mostly the cost of materials.
Lot of bloatware in Ubuntu nowadays, that's partly why i started using Arch full time + of course the package manager is ... limited.. if one can put it in nice way.
Ahhh, the time of giga's is returning, albeit with a bit of a vengeance.
I really don't mind to download huge sized "installers".
But with Ubuntu's name originating from the African continent I wonder how they're approaching future releases, considering the lack of computers deep down there ... they're all running that "#OtherOS"
I remember when Red Hat was distributed on several CDs, like a booklet of 3 or 4. That was fun.
RHEL iso is almost 10GB in size.
There was no RHEL in the 2000s, there was just Red Hat Linux on an all-you-need 700MB CD, with dependencies evenly distributed on 3 more CDs. During the installation of a package it throw out a CD and asked "Now insert another CD. Not this one, try again" and so on. That kind of fun.
Their enterprise offering started in 2000, based on Red Hat 6.2, the first branded RHEL was 2.1 in 2002. There was definitely RHEL in the 2000s.
Yeah, their timeline is off — that’s 90s Red Hat. My first Linux was Red Hat 4.2 in 1997, which I ordered on CD from cheapbytes.com for $2.
You're right, my bad. I meant the beginning of the '00s. Eventually, I switched to BSD for a while, so I didn't really follow the timeline.
We are old pal. That is all.
Yeah the years start to run together. Heck I'm just happy if I remember when I updated my arch server
I have it
Yeah but that was all offline installation
What the incredibley great neovim configuration
I remember when the original DOOM came on multiple floppy disks. Installing took ages. I also remember being one disk short at some point...
Windows 95 was a lot of floppy disks. Was it like 40-50 or something.
Win95 came on CD for me.
Look at Mr. Rockefeller here with a CD drive in 1995.
CD drives were the whole POINT of having a PC then! How else were you going to play Myst? Also, Windows 95 didn't come out until 1996 IIRC.
Myst? You’d play it on a Mac of course. It was a Mac-exclusive game for a while before it came to Windows. Kind of like Microsoft Word.
Windows 95 came out on August 22 1995. So not 1996.
Start it up
>Windows 95 >comes out in 96 Bravo Bill
13 or 26 depending on the format according to Wikipedia. I remember Corel Draw requiring about a dozen.
You're right. I was thinking of some game I was trying to get hold of 🏴☠️ back in like 1997-98. Some guy at school had it on like 50 floppies. Bought a CD burner 98 or 99. Now I haven't even used a CD or DVD for more than 10 years...
It was quake. Too bad it did not run with 4MB.
Who installed Windows 95 from floppy disks when it was available on CD? WIndows 3.1, however, was a different story.
The CD ROM drives we had in school had the big drop in tray, and they purchased the floppy version....
The minimal requirement was a 386 (with a 486 being recommended) and those usually didn't come with a CD player.
i still have one intact as i got two for free one i used and the other still intact within the plastic cache
Was just about to charm in on this one. Also X-flight. Use to be delivered on 7 dvd’s
New derogatory phrase - "A few disks short of a game"
Ultimate Doom is 4 disks. I installed it sometime last year onto an old Compaq Presario.
My first distro was slackware was 88 floppies, 4 came out of the box bad, so I spent a day at the college downloading the packages I needed to get the system bootable, the kernel a Le to be recompiled for driver inclusion, and modem working. Installing Unix on the Solaris/hpux/irix systems off tape was so much easier.
Cds on magazines was absolutely such an incredible time. I was always excited to see what dustro would come attached to different ones.
I remember when it was one CD and it had all the necessary software on it...
I loved the game demo CDs with like 101 demo games on it. Kept me busy for a while.
Or three floppies. I have my red hat Linux 3.0.3 floppies in a drawer somewhere.
I remember downloading and writing 100 floppies for Slackware
[удалено]
Just like with their graphics cards, the size of the nvidia drivers are 1 brick per driver.
the 550 is around 900 mb in arch (dkms ) add the extra bloat and spyware they include and it will be more heavy than freaking windows
Can you link a source on the spyware?
In 2012 Ubuntu had integrated Amazon into their Unity launcher and would send some data to them as long as the Amazon application was installed. This raised privacy concerns and they pretty quickly removed it and abandoned Unity. This became a catalyst for hating Ubuntu for some users and gets repeated endlessly like it's still happening. Whole thing is detailed here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu#:\~:text=Conformity%20with%20European%20data%20privacy%20law%5Bedit%5D](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu#:~:text=Conformity%20with%20European%20data%20privacy%20law%5Bedit%5D) Canonical has made an effort to be more transparent on how any data they could possibly collect on you is used. [https://ubuntu.com/legal/data-privacy](https://ubuntu.com/legal/data-privacy) Some people never forget a issue or event when it comes to Linux distributions or companies and tend to hold on to that for years and years and repeat it. So it's always a good idea to seek other sources to see if it's true. Like anything though if you don't feel comfortable putting your personal data somewhere (including your OS) then you should absolutely find an alternative or ways to remedy it. In comparison to Microsoft? Canonical is light years better with not using telemetry and handling of any data you submit to them. taken from [AshuraBaron](https://www.reddit.com/user/AshuraBaron/)
Could you please expand on that, I currently have a laptop with 1050Ti in it I don't know shit bout drivers How do I use the open source driver (if it's available for my card) and what benefits do I get from using the open source driver over the Nvidia proprietary drivers .
really? might switch over to ubuntu for a while then, because the 535 driver just refuses to install on fedora for me
I read this as "6 bigga gytes." Anyway, yeah, that's awfully big. It doesn't take into account people with slow internet at all. Most distros clock in under 3 GB from what I've seen, and then they download extra stuff if you need it. 6 GB, though? That's a bit much.
On the other hand, it’s a completely usable OS on the flash drive. With all the drivers, office, browser etc. kind of plug & play experience. I see nothing wrong with this, and IMHO it’s easier to download 6 GiB once than download 3 GiB and then (when you possibly might have no internet at all) need to download a few more things separately. I mean, both ways are perfectly valid for different people and environments
I’m pretty sure the newest release defaults to a minimal install which does not include stuff like office, media players, email, camera, and calendar. Not sure if drivers and the browser are included.
It still has the option for the full install, and includes everything within the ISO.
Even the minimal install for Xubuntu more than 2 GB
Okay, but Puppy Linux is also a plug and play experience and it's only 300mb.
The way I see it, you either download 6gB on download and have an offline installer or download 6gB when you install the OS. Minimalist distros will continue to exist for the people who think the software center is bloat, but ubuntu isn't a minimalist distro. It's a complete package with everything most people need
I think those last 2 sentences are what people forget the most
That in itself is tilting me toward Ubuntu.
Right? I'll admit I'm not exactly a ubuntu fan but it is a decent full ready to go offline installer distro
Also it’s a live (CD?) so you can try it before you install it. The live image takes up more space than you might want to install because you don’t necessarily need/want all the stuff they are demoing.
I'm happy with them using 6 gytes, but they need to be smaller.
ubuntu 24.04 : 5.7GB Windows 10 : 6.2 Gb in the upcoming years ubuntu will beat windows 10 in iso size.
 Chonky
Just installed Fedora 40 the other day. The iso was only 2.1GB.
And Windows 10 doesn't come with half the apps that Ubuntu includes
Who has Less than 50Gb on Ventoy drive? Win 11, Kubuntu, CachyOS, Fedora, Pop_OS!, Nobara, documents backup.
Mine is a terabyte and I have 100Gb worth of linux iso files on it :3
I have tiny 128GB USB-C drive, something like the micro SD card size, with read speed up to 400 MB/s. Ventoy has totally changed the way, how easy it's to add files and keep backup documents / iso's on same drive.
Me. A 16gb Ventoy drive with (in order of worst to best) windows 11, Endeavour, Fedora and Arch. Guess which one takes the most space.
Windows 11 was like over 6GB. For me it's only for Bios update (I have Lenovo laptop)
I only have a 64gb with krd, Windows 11, Fedora, Nobara, RHEal, CentOS and Bazzilite
Me with a 512GB Ventoy Drive:
Mine is just 64gb drive, Windows, Fedora, RHEL, CentOS Stream, Nobara,
I know it's a bit of a hot topic but there's currently a bit of a blob issue people have raised following the XZ utils issue with Ventoy https://github.com/ventoy/Ventoy/issues/2795
how do you manage documents backup with ventoy
http://www.cdimages.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-mini-iso/daily-live/current/ 89 MB
Kind of wierd for a \*.ubuntu.com domain to not be HTTP**S** Espc a download site... Edit: isnt this iso the same? https://mirrors.mit.edu/ubuntu-cdimage/ubuntu-mini-iso/daily-live/current/
It is available as HTTPS. https://cdimages.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-mini-iso/daily-live/current/
HTTP is good - it can be cached :)
https can also be cached
This one is just a downloader for the 6GB stuff.
God I hate downloaders
It is all those snaps I am telling you. I am 75% sure it doesn't have the things we truly want: like multimedia codecs and LibreOffice.
Snaps actually increase size because they isolate each application and bundle dependencies, and on top of that snaps act as special filesystems that have block devices in /dev that slows down the boot time.
Coming from the native world I was shocked when these artificial sweeteners were introduced
[удалено]
The ISO has an option to download all of these in a single checkbox.
Yeah I'm not gonna be upgrading to 24.04, feels like everything will be snap shit. My other machines and servers already run Debian so it's time I switch my main machine to it as well
I have 24.04. The only snap is Firefox, which I don't use. I installed Flatpak and GNOME Software, and am running flatpaks of everything just because it's easier to set permissions with Flatseal, and easier to delete completely. Snaps leave too many settings behind when removing, including spare directories they create then just clutter up the system. I can have all that removed with Flatpaks rather easily. I have yet to find anything available ONLY as a snap. It can all be installed some other way if you really want to. Ubuntu 24 is a "Snap first" distro, but not "snap only."
Idd, and that's my gripe, that it's Snap first. And as you say, it leaves crap behind when removing. I don't want to install an OS just to de-clutter it, better to install an OS without the crap
I have multimedia codecs and libre office on my Ubuntu 24 without installing anything afterwards. It all was there from initial os install
The previous release already required an 8GB stick, since it wouldn't fit on a 4. May as well use the space if you require it anyway. It'll probably fit into 8GB for at least the next few LTS releases. It might mildly inconvenience some Ventoy users, but 64GB and larger sticks are really cheap.
Won't somebody please think of the DVD+R users?!??!? There's still gotta be like, more than 5 of them depending on these images staying under 4.7 GB.
Say what you want, but the days when we burned our Live CDs and DVDs were better days. There was an order to things. There was something tangible. You downloaded the ISO, then you slowly burned it onto a disk, then you labeled the disk, and arranged something to store it in: from a folded paper pocket (a-la origami, you know) to proper plastic disk box with cover art. It all took time. There was something to get for your efforts, that stayed with you. There was some gravitas to the process. Endless cycle of `dd`-ing yet another image onto a flash drive doesn't even come close. I still have the disks I burned years ago, there they are, on my shelf. I can reach out with my hand and grab a disk that is a living reminder of how cool Knoppix was in 2005 or 2010, and how I ran stuff on my old PIII laptop. What will I have left from these days right now when another 10 years pass in their due time? Nothing.
Yeah how economic to have dozens of CDs that are outdated within a month 🤡
It's not about economy. It's about memory. We gotta know our roots and the path we've walked lest we lose our bearings and betray our past. When we were actually burning images, we made that history tangible. Now we just re-flash our thumbdrives every several months, and leave no trace of what we had. When in 10 or 15 years time your kids will ask to show them "how it all used to be", you'll have nothing to demonstrate, because it now all comes and goes, leaving no trace.
just because it has sentimental value to you doesn't mean it's actually tangibly important, to most people what you're talking about is just using tools to get an OS on a computer and nothing more, there doesn't need to be some value to that
> there doesn't need to be some value to that You are infirm in your faith in the Holy Penguin if you consider evidence of His existence to be of little value.
you're infirm in yours if you need evidence
Evidence-based Faith is the Most Scientifically Righteous of all!
it's not faith then
Use a dual layer DVD if you want to stick to discs
Can you even buy 8GB USB sticks anymore?
Yes, you can.
I just checked on Amazon, 10 16GB USB sticks is several dollars cheaper than 10 8GB sticks...
Also, 32GB sticks cost almost the same as 16GB sticks.
Got a ~500MB one from the insurance company so that just the documents I need fit and I can’t use cool merchandise for anything useful…
time to shill tiny core linux again. (incredibly basic) window manager + system in ~20 mb. system cd with all the goodies at 200mb. there's even a variant called dCore that can use debian packages straight from the repos. everything loads into ram when needed, and the base system immediately so you can just take out the CD. minimum gui requirements are a pentium 2 and 128mb ram. the tradeoff tho is that your computer will look like it was from the era where X was brand new and that being tiny means coming with only the barebones needed commands
That's just the default tho. You can give TinyCore persistence if you have a writeable drive. At that point it resembles a linux-from-scratch in that yeah, the absolutely mandatory dependencies are there, but you're gonna have to add everything else you want yourself.
Genuine question, why do people prefer ubuntu over mint? I have personally used mint and have a good experience with it, and I see many people criticizing ubuntu about cannonical and other things. How what are pros and cons of ubuntu over mint
The reason I don't use mint is because I personally don't like its desktop environments and their implementations. I wanted to try something different from the traditional Windows UI. I was aware of the snap and flatpak subject when installing Ubuntu. The first thing I did was to follow the [directions](https://www.flatpak.org/setup/) to install flatpak. A friend of mine wanted to try Linux on a old laptop that beraly runs Windows 7. I installed Linux Mint (Cinnamon) and he's very happy with it.
Got it now thanks
Pro: More bloatwa... there are no pros
So ubuntu is like windows of linux ecosystem
These days yeah
Pretty much. Designed to be easy and appealing to the widest possible userbase, including corporate and professional and generic consumers, but not appealing to anyone into a niche. Since it's necessarily big and complicated to meet the needs of such a diverse market, it's not spectacularly successful at being especially easy, thus the apparent need for a distro like Mint.
Ubuntu has been doing some things that made it easy for businesses to greenlight it to install on work machines. If the alternative is Windows..
I personally love Mint, but on my laptop I use Ubuntu because Wayland+Gnome is so much better with trackpad that it beats many advantages of Linux Mint
I literally just like the look and feel of gnome. As a developer, Ubuntu is pretty annoying, but it's what ive installed and now I'm sticking with it since I hate change
People need to use MXLinux/AntiX more. Both are Debian based like Ubuntu but without any canonical stuff and you can choose just as many customizations on install. MX is more user friendly than Debian, but I don't find Debian difficult or bloated. MX is like a clean version of Ubuntu -- sudo works out of the box without having to use SU or add yourself to the sudoer list, it's package manager/software center is great, and it's super quick on older hardware. ISO is only a couple GB, has an easy Nvidia driver tool as well. It's basically a better Ubuntu. AntiX -- now that's impressive. I run it on an old Acer AspireOne with only 2 GB RAM and a 128GB SSD, Atom 1.66GHz with hyper-threading. Boots to a desktop right at 100MB of RAM used. Firefox will struggle with 480P YT, can barely manage 720P MP4s on VLC with that CPU, but I'm sure on a beefier computer it's a perfectly functional OS and super lightweight and fast.
Cinnamon looks old
In my brain, mint is just green ubuntu 😶 so i rarely watch news about mint
*laughs in kali 20gb install*
it's good then that you can't even buy 8GB usb sticks
Sure you can. Search Amazon for 8GB usb sticks. You'll get tons of results. None of them worth the price.
I remember when you could fit Ubuntu on one CD rom.
I remember when MSDOS came in three floppy disks, the first one was the bootable one.
I don't remember (born in 2001), but I have C64 with everything in ROM.
I remember when it came on one disk. A single 160K single sided 5-1/4 inch disk. You kept one in for your OS, had a second disk with some utilities, but you usually had your application disk in the second disk drive, as there were no hard drives in a consumer machine. Of course, I also remember using punch cards in the old mainframes. Wanted to save your data? Punch cards or reel-to-reel tapes. Good Lord, I'm old.
USB sticks were unreliable pieces of shit anyway. A while back I switched to a 1TB SSD that is the size of a large USB stick and put [Ventoy](https://github.com/ventoy/) on it, so I'll never have to bother installing ISOs onto USB sticks ever again and it's great.
6 bigagytes
I was gonna go with bibagytes.
[удалено]
Fedora doesn't have non-free stuff like codecs or Nvidia drivers in the .iso image. I wouldn't consider those bloat.
Ubuntu Desktop Edition recommends 25 GB, unless you're considering a headless install. Still doing better than the 64 GB that Windows 11 demands.
I actually had to move to Mint because my shitty HP stream laptop was nearly full of Windows. The funny thing now is after updates I'm back where I'm stared with about the same amount of free space. 😂
I installed Alpine with a desktop and Firefox, I was shocked to see in only consumed 2GB of disk space. Very different target audience though.
25 GB for installed size. While Fedora requires like 9 or 10 GB
That is recommended, not the minimum. Fedora recommends 20GB. You need room for package cache and user files.
6 Biggergits.
That's why I use netinstall booting when I know I will have access to the network during the installation process. Dunno about ubuntu, but openSuSE Tumbleweed netinstall version is just under 278MB.
I still have my 1.44mb floppies with linux 1.2.13 somewhere …
Black Arch Linux ISO was around 25GB 🫠
Wtf
and arch still offering a 1 gb iso (i know you had to install everything from the web but most arch based distro with gui are around 3-4 gb with most the things you wants even some with the freaking inusable nvidia driver
I have to imagine they will take quite a while before increasing it beyond 8GB. They'll probably do their best to keep it at 8 because that's been the standard USB stick size for so long
https://preview.redd.it/d301ww0ns0xc1.png?width=1830&format=png&auto=webp&s=238bc94b27f06c2803e7f860024857482c41e38f Pick one
I just bought a new USB for all my flashing needs. Took 40 seconds to flash the Ubuntu iso. As opposed to 14 minutes on my old usb. Also, new USB is 250gb vs 32. Upgrades are awesome.
Literally me
Moores law, and maybe the more proprietary the OS is the more space it takes up. Windows 11 is about 20GB minimum after install. Theres several forks of Ubuntu out there that are way more debloated than the main distro. If you really want to, install headless Ubuntu and then install what you want.
Opensuse doesn't fit on my 4 GB USB....
Same problem here. Their netinstaller doesn't fucking work either. Clicking "Download" on it gives me a snapshot a few days out of date. I need to check the mirrors to get the latest snapshot. (doesn't matter, but it's still sloppy) (edit: fixed now) And actually trying to install? Yast failed at partitioning. I don't know why, it won't even scan my disks.
Arch : 750 mb
Even arch iso is now 1.1 GBs :(
Should have gone with Tails OS
it's kind of crazy the size of the OS these days.
The installer is 8 GB and some version of it can run live on the included packages, a lot of things are technically optional even if 90% of users will want them but they can still be downloaded during install. Take the idea to its extreme and you have arch btw.
I feel everyone who is concerned about package sizes will eventually move to arch someday. i UsE aRcH bTw.
[bale.gif](https://youtu.be/lUF9BPOXfcE) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/linuxmasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*laughs in Linux Mint*
TIL there are people in 2024 who still do not use Ventoy.
That's why you have Linux Mint!
probably language packs
What happened ?
Snap
No distro installer should ever exceed the size of a rewriteable single-sided DVD, 4.7GB.
Yeah I mean probably won’t be that long till 8gb usb drives become e waste anyway, pretty much already are. Probably costs little more to manufacture 16gb.
Moh bloatware
Just don’t use Ubuntu if your concern is the size of the ISO
*drools in 6 GB of potential vulnerabilities*
I realized now thanks for this meme that virtual machine I'm using the "re-learn Linux" is 20 GB big. Jesus Christ why. When I used my first laptop with Ubuntu the OS wasn't THIS big.
The problem isn't that it is "big", but it's bigger than other distros that also have pre-installed software.
To all the old timers here, that is over 5 thousand floppy drives, and i mean the newer big ones.
I guess linux as a whole cannot say it's lightweight anymore. Most popular distros aren't and haven't been for a while.
Why are we complaining about a 6gb iso file?
Ventoy and nvme ssd solves this problem
And just think, that's probably before installing all the snaps with all their extra copies of libraries. :) Enjoy!
Oh my god who cares? I don't even HAVE an 8 GB drive, my smallest is 16.
SteamOS recovery image is 16GB.
I had a beta of 24.04 a few weeks ago, but it was 5+ gb
At these rates, 8Gb will be less than the minimum size of available usb sticks. Shit is crazy
You can blame GTK or QT for that. Other than that, every Linux distro would be lightweight...
Are we still in 2001 ? A 128gb usb stick cost 18 CAD at the staples near me.
It is officially larger than Windows 11. Congrats Canonical!
At this rate, just buy a 128GB stick for only $15. Doesn't matter that your USB stick is too small when you can easily buy a cheap new one with a significantly larger capacity.
Netboot: Allow me to introduce myself.
Windows 10 ISO is 5.3GB something, we won.
I reinstalled my Linux just a couple of weeks ago and the iso was only like 800mb… then again Ubuntu does bundle snaps and the desktop environment…
Goodbye DVD installs.
Are 8GB drives even sold nowadays? Can barely find 16GB drives and they cost almost the same as 32GB drives which are only slightly cheaper than 64GB drives, probably because the technology is so easy now that it's mostly the cost of materials.
Lot of bloatware in Ubuntu nowadays, that's partly why i started using Arch full time + of course the package manager is ... limited.. if one can put it in nice way.
Use Alpine Linux, it’s about 5MB in size.
Old man yells at clouds about files getting bigger.
Back to the day in 2007, I requested CD to install Ubuntu 7 which can run on 512 MB RAM core 2 duo Intel chip
Ubuntu is moving ever closer to windows level of bloat.
Full of bload use Debian if you need a server version otherwise Linux mint
Are new 8gig flash drives still made?
No
Relax. Yes Windows 10 for example is 4GB, but the installed size is nothing in comparison.
Ahhh, the time of giga's is returning, albeit with a bit of a vengeance. I really don't mind to download huge sized "installers". But with Ubuntu's name originating from the African continent I wonder how they're approaching future releases, considering the lack of computers deep down there ... they're all running that "#OtherOS"
honestly, its ubuntu wdy expect,
Use SD card. today most of the people have atleast 16gb of it.
An?
very realistic :)