Live data from Hacker News

Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala released

ubuntu.com

21–30 of 170 posts

Re: Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala released

#21
post #20

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.

I can't answer the general question, but for what it's worth a 32-bit desktop install took up about 2.5G on disk.

Re: Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala released

#23
post #20

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.

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

#24
post #20

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.

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

#25
post #20

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.

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).

[deleted]

Re: Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala released

#26
post #24

Earlier 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.

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

Re: Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala released

#27

Earlier 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…

> I spend almost all of my time in firefox, emacs and a few other programs

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

#28
post #3

Earlier 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.

you must have a fast machine... Try installing windows 7 or snow leopard on a computer with 2gb of ram and a 2 year old processor... then the eye candy won't really add to the experience.

Re: Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala released

#29
post #24

Earlier 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

Disk space requirements aren't obscure technical information. Providing it wouldn't confuse anyone, especially not anyone adept enough to install an operating system. It should be provided.
Post reply on HN