fedora vs. ubuntu minimal install
Paul W. Frields
stickster at gmail.com
Mon Mar 5 13:10:15 UTC 2012
On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 08:22:37PM -0600, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> Just wondering: why is the fedora minimal install iso (266 M) so much
> larger than the ubuntu one (26 M)? Clearly, these are two different
> distributions and I do not mean to imply that one is more preferable
> than the other in this aspect, so I was just wondering.....
>
> For the Fedora minimal install (I was referring to boot.iso) while for
> the Ubuntu, I was referring to mini.iso. I suspect that the answer may
> be that boot.iso can do far more than a minimal install, in which
> case (just speculation), wouldn't it be useful to also have a minimal
> install iso?
>
> I have not used Ubuntu much: that is my wife's distribution. I have
> stuck with Fedora from Day 1 even though it has become less stable
> since the middle of Fedora 14. (Just my observations: I still prefer F
> to U, though).
You're correct that the Fedora install boot.iso has more content and
functionality. Since much of that is designed to power the Anaconda
installer, moving to a smaller ISO wouldn't be that useful. You'd
still need to download all the content at install time to make use of
the installer.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
More information about the users
mailing list