Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

VastOne · 2012-06-25 21:01:39

^ No. An alternative to even building a #! lite version.

sunfizz98 · 2012-06-25 21:01:58

^The thing about #! Lite Community Edition is the possibility that it could spawn numerous different flavors of #!....

pvsage · 2012-06-25 21:06:10

VastOne wrote:

^ No. An alternative to even building a #! lite version.

OK, let's say that I have hardware that will only boot from CD or HD, and I'm thinking about trying CrunchBang on it...but the ISO won't fit on CD. On what do I base my decision to commit to a netinstall...scrots and assurances from strangers?

falldown · 2012-06-25 21:08:44

pvsage wrote:

OK, let's say that I have hardware that will only boot from CD or HD, and I'm thinking about trying CrunchBang on it...but the ISO won't fit on CD. On what do I base my decision to commit to a netinstall...scrots and assurances from strangers?

Very good point!

falldown · 2012-06-25 21:11:45

sunfizz98 wrote:

^The thing about #! Lite Community Edition is the possibility that it could spawn numerous different flavors of #!....

Is that a bad thing?
We already have a variety of community created flavors based on personal taste.

sunfizz98 · 2012-06-25 21:17:01

@falldown
The various flavors are great, but too many can confuse a newcomer about which one to stay with. Then there's the idea about what makes the flavor truly crunchbang.

VastOne · 2012-06-25 21:22:18

@pvsage

That was not my thinking of what a lite version is, but one more like the original #! lite that was based on lighter core applications.

As I originally stated, a script could be easily written to handle taking a netinstal to a #! setup and has been done before.

I do not have an answer to the aging of hardware and a 700mb limit, nor do I think there is an easy answer to that one.

The real point I was trying to drive home was less versions for maintaining so that corenominal can focus on the main version.

The community creating this lite version and maintaining this lite version is no different than scripts created to do the same thing, IMO.

pidsley · 2012-06-25 21:31:10

I definitely agree that corenominal should focus on what he thinks is "the best openbox distro available" -- 700M limit notwithstanding. We will lose some new users with older hardware if they can't try a live image, but maybe that's OK. Some of them can't use #! now because the PAE kernel is the default. At some point "you can't please all the people all the time" and corenominal has to decide what he thinks is most important.

I've read some very good points in this thread -- one being that the CD limit is psychological -- once #! goes over that for a basic install, it's hard to call it "light." And reading back through the thread I also saw mention of the codecs -- how much space do they take up? Could they be added to cb-welcome?

Lots of good discussion here, much better than the default browser thread...

sunfizz98 · 2012-06-25 21:51:49

I thought the pae kernel was a good thing.

pidsley · 2012-06-25 21:54:32

sunfizz98 wrote:

I thought the pae kernel was a good thing.

Not for people with Pentium M machines.

http://crunchbanglinux.org/forums/topic … el-option/
http://crunchbanglinux.org/forums/topic … ic-plague/

Last edited by pidsley (2012-06-25 21:56:11)

pvsage · 2012-06-25 22:26:36

Perhaps, instead of a Lite version, we should try to come up with a short list of alternative distros that *are* still available as a <700MB Live ISO? Of course Puppy and SliTaz come to mind, though they're completely separate from the Debian tree. Maybe Siduction...

EDIT: In this case, distros that come with non-PAE kernels in the Live ISO would certainly be a good thing; if PAE is required, it can be installed from the distro's repo.

Last edited by pvsage (2012-06-25 22:28:24)

VastOne · 2012-06-25 22:30:29

^ You mean one like Debian, which does come with DE's?

pidsley · 2012-06-25 22:38:59

pvsage wrote:

Perhaps, instead of a Lite version, we should try to come up with a short list of alternative distros that *are* still available as a <700MB Live ISO? Of course Puppy and SliTaz come to mind, though they're completely separate from the Debian tree. Maybe Siduction...

Anticapitalista will be offended if we don't mention antiX; it has a 486 kernel, a CD-sized Live iso, is based on Debian, and is not difficult to "crunchify":

(edit) and yes, the siduction LXDE iso is ~590M

Last edited by pidsley (2012-06-25 22:43:12)

pvsage · 2012-06-25 22:47:01

Does Debian intend for Wheezy Live builds to be <700MB? Because I just checked the list of Squeeze ISOs, and the only ones that will fit on a CD are the Rescue and Standard images. (I assume "Standard" does not include any WM/DE.)

I didn't realize DSL is Knoppix-based; perhaps this would be a good entry point.

EDIT: AntiX definitely looks like a contender!

Last edited by pvsage (2012-06-25 22:49:39)

machinebacon · 2012-06-26 04:41:06

pvsage wrote:

Perhaps, instead of a Lite version, we should try to come up with a short list of alternative distros that *are* still available as a <700MB Live ISO?

aptosid (XFCE <500MB, KDE<600MB)
siduction (LXDE<600MB)
grml (various, 370MB)

of course add Arch, Fedora, Ubuntu, they all weigh <700MB. Except arch they all work as Live systems, too.

pvsage · 2012-06-26 05:27:57

Well...I know we have a few distro hoppers participating in this thread. Of the lighter Debian-based distros, which are closest in spirit to CrunchBang, and which would be easiest to CrunchBangify?

machinebacon · 2012-06-26 06:45:10

Well, it should be based on stable and not pure testing or pure unstable, so antiX gets my vote. Another one would be grml. However, I cannot imagine anybody going through a full installation of another OS just to strip things off and replace them through a script that downloads different stuff again. Only a Debian netinstall plus script makes sense, to some extend. If there are people who cannot use USB sticks, they would have to take this route, and honestly, it is of average difficulty, or not even difficult at all if there is a downloadable script that can be pulled in through a simple one-liner, similar to the smxi scripts.

Firstly, the 'average' Crunchbang user is not necessarily afraid of the command line, secondly I imagine those who decide to make a netinstall to be more computer-literate than those who use Ubuntu, for example. Anyway they would have no other choice if there are no CD-sized ISOs available anymore. Exception: the future #! -LiveCD is not identical to the installed system (the installer would download required packages), or the pipemenus offer downloads for the office packages (evince, abiword, gnumeric, GIMP) and try to shave off on ISO size

Honesty, how many of you use these 4 applications in Live mode? (Just asking because I barely use them even on an installed system)

pvsage · 2012-06-26 07:44:33

I'm not afraid of the command line by any means, but I've never had the guts to do a netinstall. Seems to me that starts one down a path that leads, through Arch. ultimately to LFS.

Well, I basically just check internet (e.g. "web") access, wifi support, and audio. If those all work out-of-the-box on the Live image and I like the way the user interface feels, then, well...must be CrunchBang.

I think a "lite" version could be, as others have suggested, just Debian "standard",the WM/DE, Iceweasel/Chromium, and VLC, with a promise that the user would be asked if s/he wants to install the packages for the "full" install on the first boot after installing the core system + WM/DE from disc. Nano too of course, and maybe a small smattering of CLI applications...moc or mpd+ncmpc (or even xfmpc) pre-configured might also be nice.

As an aside, I've always felt that the post-install welcome script would be better if the additional components were installed on an opt-in basis rather than opt-out, i.e. "y" would confirm that you want to install it, while any other key would signify that you don't.

And I always have to install acroread and the Mozilla plugin, so I rarely use evince either; as I've mentioned elsewhere, my bank pretty much forced me to go "paperless", and the only way to view my statements is as PDF files embedded within a web page.

omns · 2012-06-26 08:01:24

...and on this thread continues debating the merits of a lite version of CrunchBang. I believe the original question was

corenominal wrote:

When was last time you used a CD to install #!, or any other distribution?

It's pleasing then to see the recent discussion about lightweight alternatives to CrunchBang that may suit the needs of those requiring something even lighter than what CrunchBang is now and fulfill the needs of older hardware that can only use CD installs (I wouldn't include broken DVD drives in that scenario).

I think much of the confusion in this thread is caused by people believing that the focus of CrunchBang is on being a lightweight minimalist distribution. Sure it attracts those types of users but I don't see anywhere on the main homepage where CrunchBang is referred to in that way.

CrunchBang is a Debian GNU/Linux based distribution offering a great blend of speed, style and substance. Using the nimble Openbox window manager, it is highly customisable and provides a modern, full-featured GNU/Linux system without sacrificing performance.

el_koraco · 2012-06-26 09:10:42

pvsage wrote:

I
And I always have to install acroread and the Mozilla plugin, so I rarely use evince either; as I've mentioned elsewhere, my bank pretty much forced me to go "paperless", and the only way to view my statements is as PDF files embedded within a web page.

YOu don't need that bloat anymore, Firefox has its own pdf viewer: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/pdfjs/

bozhkov · 2012-06-26 09:20:01

But even if it is not aimed to be minimalist or lightweight, we have to remember that openbox takes a lot fewer space than LXDE for example, let alone for full blown DE's. So if they can still stick to 700limit (which I consider more of a psychological limit, not something else), what would be the beneft of having a larger image for an openbox distro?

omns · 2012-06-26 09:23:16

bozhkov wrote:

what would be the beneft of having a larger image for an openbox distro?

I think the benefit comes from not having to worry about the image size

bozhkov · 2012-06-26 10:19:50

But as 5 pages of discussion so far prove, people worry about image size. I am afraid it might sound as pointing finger at the boss, even if I certainly don't want it to sound that way, but at least in its current form, Statler and Waldorf could be in fact smaller, baring in mind the application sets, the openbox wm itself, and especially the lack of certain space hogs like printer support and libreoffice People worry, even if its not about whether it could be burnt on a cd or bandwidth limits. Personally, I have the nasty habit of cleaning up a lot of the preinstalled stuff after a fresh install - its a flashback from the good old times when I had #! installed on a 5gb partition, not on 50 gb

Tunafish · 2012-06-26 11:54:36

omns wrote:

...and on this thread continues debating the merits of a lite version of CrunchBang. I believe the original question was
corenominal wrote:
When was last time you used a CD to install #!, or any other distribution?

To answer the original question: About a year ago, when I didn't know how to install from an usb stick.
But I used a #! cd to run a live session some months ago when I couldn't log into my system. That's the reason I like to have some cds (or dvds) as well. (I can't copy the iso file to usb when I can't get my system running.)
Personally, I don't care if I have to use a CD or DVD.

serious_lee · 2012-06-26 12:04:29

My two bits. How about making it like Debian or older Mandrake powerpack/Turbolinux systems, where the installation is distributed over 2 or more CDs, though having the 1st CD is sufficient for a working system. You may provide a DVD version for those who want. But it'll probably be little too time (& resource) consuming, i guess. It is a very crude idea, anyway.

And how does this CD size thing works anyway? As far as i can see Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Lubuntu amd64 iso are all 698MB, and the former two contain heavier DEs, libreoffice and no less softwares than Lubuntu (heck, ubuntu has 3 DEs in the same CD). Compared to Lubuntu, #! clearly has more pkgs and might be expected to go over 700MB. Its a similar thing with Chakra, too. Despite being same size as Kubuntu iso, it contains much fewer apps. Do *ubuntus use different compression techniques?

CrunchBang Linux

SEARCH

#101 2012-06-25 21:01:39

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#102 2012-06-25 21:01:58

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#103 2012-06-25 21:06:10

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#104 2012-06-25 21:08:44

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#105 2012-06-25 21:11:45

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#106 2012-06-25 21:17:01

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#107 2012-06-25 21:22:18

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#108 2012-06-25 21:31:10

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#109 2012-06-25 21:51:49

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#110 2012-06-25 21:54:32

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#111 2012-06-25 22:26:36

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#112 2012-06-25 22:30:29

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#113 2012-06-25 22:38:59

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#114 2012-06-25 22:47:01

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#115 2012-06-26 04:41:06

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#116 2012-06-26 05:27:57

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#117 2012-06-26 06:45:10

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#118 2012-06-26 07:44:33

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#119 2012-06-26 08:01:24

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#120 2012-06-26 09:10:42

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#121 2012-06-26 09:20:01

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#122 2012-06-26 09:23:16

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#123 2012-06-26 10:19:50

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#124 2012-06-26 11:54:36

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

#125 2012-06-26 12:04:29

Re: Is it time to drop the 700MiB CD Limit?

Board footer