Just whiny, but why does Ubuntu (or most distros) not give any idea of minimum/average disk required for install in their system requirements area? I know, I can customize the install so as to reduce or increase space requirements, but even a suggestion that "a straight default install requires around 2gb of space for programs, and 1gb for swap" would be helpful.
Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala released
21–30 of 170 posts
Re: Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala released
#22Re: Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala released
#23Just whiny, but why does Ubuntu (or most distros) not give any idea of minimum/average disk required for install in their system requirements area? I know, I can customize the install so as to reduce or increase space requirements, but even a suggestion that "a straight default install requires around 2gb of space for programs, and 1gb for swap" would be helpful.
If you're not a geek, it'll fit (any consumer computer going over the counter for the past 6-7 years, probably more, has at least a 20 GB drive in it. Most likely you'll have 100+ GB).
Re: Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala released
#24Just whiny, but why does Ubuntu (or most distros) not give any idea of minimum/average disk required for install in their system requirements area? I know, I can customize the install so as to reduce or increase space requirements, but even a suggestion that "a straight default install requires around 2gb of space for programs, and 1gb for swap" would be helpful.
If you're a geek and need to ask, it's probably too large (if you worry about hard-disk space, you're probably trying to install it on something obscenely old. Ubuntu isn't for that.). If you're not a geek, it'll fit (any consumer computer going over the counter for the past 6-7 years, probably more, has at least a 20 GB drive in it. Most likely you'll have 100+ GB).
Or something new, like an SSD on which you're attempting to dual/triple boot.
Re: Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala released
#25Just whiny, but why does Ubuntu (or most distros) not give any idea of minimum/average disk required for install in their system requirements area? I know, I can customize the install so as to reduce or increase space requirements, but even a suggestion that "a straight default install requires around 2gb of space for programs, and 1gb for swap" would be helpful.
If you're a geek and need to ask, it's probably too large (if you worry about hard-disk space, you're probably trying to install it on something obscenely old. Ubuntu isn't for that.). If you're not a geek, it'll fit (any consumer computer going over the counter for the past 6-7 years, probably more, has at least a 20 GB drive in it. Most likely you'll have 100+ GB).
Re: Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala released
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're a geek and need to ask, it's probably too large (if you worry about hard-disk space, you're probably trying to install it on something obscenely old. Ubuntu isn't for that.). If you're not a geek, it'll fit (any consumer computer going over the counter for the past 6-7 years, probably more, has at least a 20 GB drive in it. Most likely you'll have 100+ GB).
"you're probably trying to install it on something obscenely old" Or something new, like an SSD on which you're attempting to dual/triple boot.
Re: Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala released
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, with Windows 7 and Snow Leopard out Ubuntu feels even further away from becoming mainstream. I want to like Linux on the desktop but looking at it objectively Win 7 and Snow Leopard are better.
I spend almost all of my time in firefox, emacs and a few other programs, which are the same on every platform. It really doesn't make much of a difference to me what desktop OS I use as long as it's cheap and it works with my hardware. I use Ubuntu on an HTPC because it's free and it (usually) works. I can't imagine what MS or Apple could do to improve on free + works. To me Linux is a lot closer now than it was in…
Me too, and I have a Dell laptop in the mail that I'll be installing Ubuntu on and trying to use as my main machine.
But you know what isn't the same in all of these programs between OS X and Linux? Font rendering. I can get Linux to "OK" but OS X is always refreshing in comparison.
Re: Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala released
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but it's coming out today, and it's going to get like a gazillion upvotes... so somebody wanted to earn the points by being the first to post. I've been using the beta for a while now, it is B.E.A.U.T.I.F.U.L. It's competing with OSX now (having surpassed Windows long long ago)
Actually, with Windows 7 and Snow Leopard out Ubuntu feels even further away from becoming mainstream. I want to like Linux on the desktop but looking at it objectively Win 7 and Snow Leopard are better.
Re: Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala released
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
"you're probably trying to install it on something obscenely old" Or something new, like an SSD on which you're attempting to dual/triple boot.
Yeah, well, good point. My point was that a userfriendly distribution shouldn't present technical information that isn't absolutely vital. And it's really easy to find, by the way: http://www.google.com/search?q=ubuntu+requirements