Tue Nov 9 18:23:41 PST 2004
Teh Entar-Nick wrote:
>begin Mike MacCana quotation:
>>PS. And thanks for your response to the mail regarding boot CD
>>replacements. Should I just assume you `don't understand' from the
>>lack of response, or be grown up and assume Ubuntu and our subject
>>matter do things differently for the specific reasons we've both
> I still don't understand what your big claim of advantage *is*
>here. Sure, Ubuntu ships out upgrades that only replace CD1, which is
>the installer boot CD.
* Some people want to get the whole distro on CD.
* Some people want to use the same ABI for a decent period of time, and
hence stay on the same stable release.
* A few years down the track, you can still use most of your original
CDs, but with a single new CD1 to get drivers, updates and errata (or a
CD 1B if necessary).
This is why the first CD isn't even half full - to leave room for
updates on future versions of that disc.
To do the same with Debian stable, I believe, you'd get a whole new set
of X many CD images for Debian stable update Y.
Ubuntu apparently has a support lifecycle of 'at least 18 months'
(versus at least 5 years for RHEL) so the issue doesn't matter so much
for Ubuntu - people using Ubuntu will be expected to upgrade to newer
releases more often. Fine, its a different audience. But RHEL using folk
like / need the long lifecycle, and the CDs are designed to support that.
More information about the linux-elitists