Re: RELEASE discs & ISO images (for future)

Hi Oliver Fromme! 

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:08:06 +0100 (CET); Oliver Fromme wrote about 'Re: RELEASE discs & ISO images (for future)':

>>> The xorg packages on disc1 occupy 54 MB.  Not really all
>>> that much, I think.  The linux base, perl and python occupy
>>> another 50 MB together.  The rest are small utility things
>>> and dependencies (only a few MB).
>> But that is still valuable if geom_ugz is in use.
> Have you actually tried it?  Providing hard numbers is
> more useful than just talking about it.  :-)

I've used Frenzy LiveCD many times (http://frenzy.org.ua), a Portable SysAdmin
Tool. It is 200Mb minicd with MANY useful packages. It has X Window and many
graphical and console utilities (about 600MB uncompressed).
It proved to be stable and not-so-slow.

> Here are some numbers:
>    224655360   7.0-RELEASE-i386-livefs.iso
>     94493696   7.0-RELEASE-i386-livefs.iso.uzip (16k cluster)
>    110188032   7.0-RELEASE-i386-livefs.iso.uzip (2K cluster)
> So the difference is 124 MB for 16K cluster size, and
> 109 MB for 2K cluster size (which is noticably faster
> during access).  Actually the space savings will be a
> bit less, because the /boot directory (about 30 MB)
> won't be compressed.  So the real gain is probably a
> little less than 100 MB in the 2K case.

The less for /boot should be compensated by 16K cluster size. But those
numbers are for utilities - are there any docs on ISO ?

>>> Also keep in mind that a new installer is in the works
>>> and will be usable "really soon", as far as I know.
>>> I'm sure the authors are aware of the problem of
>>> installing packages from changeable media, and that
>>> there will be a better solution.
>> 
>> This will surely not be finished before 8.0,
> I'm not so sure.

May be. But it definitely won't be bug-free and default installer before 8.0.

>>> Right, but I didn't read them either upon my first install
>>> 15 years ago.  :-)  The first thing I did when I received
>>> the Walnut Creek CDs was to go to www.freebsd.org and look
>>> for docs.
>> 
>> Tempora mutantur. Users nowadays rarely go for docs in first place. They
>> need understandable guide exactly in process.
> Users who refuse to read docs will also refused to read
> docs that are directly available on the CD.
> Users unwilling to read docs cannot be cured by technical
> measures.  It's a user problem, not a FreeBSD problem.

When you say so, you lose a number of users. A number which is impatient to
read too many docs about _unfamiliar_ system before, but will use help if it is
available.

>>> I guess almost everyone has internet access somehow (at
>>> home, at the office, at a friend, or elsewhere).
>> 
>> No, that doesn't matter. If user have only one computer online with
>> Internet, and during install previous operating system is of course
>> unavailable, then Internet (and docs on www!) is also unavailable.
> Uhm, I assume that a new FreeBSD user skims through the
> "Installation" chapter of the Handbook _before_ he starts
> the installation.  Of course it's useful to be able to
> look up things in the Handbook again during installation
> if the need arises.

It's _surely_ a must. Because novice user can't learn those chapters by heart,
so access to docs in the actual process will be needed.

>> So where would you browse the docs in the process except the installer
>> itself and first disk?
> Last time I used sysinstall, there was a menu entry that
> enabled you to read Handbook and FAQ.  I'm pretty sure
> it's still there.

That's the menu^

 x x    X Exit       Exit this menu (returning to previous)            x x
 x x    1 README     A general description of FreeBSD.  Read this!     x x
 x x    2 Errata     Late-breaking, post-release news.                 x x
 x x    3 Hardware   The FreeBSD survival guide for PC hardware.       x x
 x x    4 Install    A step-by-step guide to installing FreeBSD.       x x
 x x    5 Copyright  The FreeBSD Copyright notices.                    x x
 x x    6 Release    The release notes for this version of FreeBSD.    x x
 x x    7 Shortcuts  Creating shortcuts to sysinstall.                 x x
 x x    8 HTML Docs  Go to the HTML documentation menu (post-install). x x

It is access to the release accompanying files only. And HTML docs are
available after install only, as you can see.

> Note that you cannot use that menu entry once the actual
> installation has started, though.  You can only abort the
> installation, then go back to the menu, read the docs,
> and then begin a new installation.  That's a pain, too.
> Of course, once the installation has progressed so far
> that the docs have been installed on the harddisk, you
> can read them on the shell that's opened on Alt-F4.

That's a drawback. I think there should be another sysinstall's console on
which docs are always available.

> Still, it's best to read the Installation chapter in
> advance, or even better, have a printed copy on paper.

It is not ethical to require users to print docs before.

>>> That's what the DVD is good for that you can buy (or you
>>> can easily make one yourself).  On the DVD there is enough
>>> space for everything.
>> Agreed, but CDs still will be an option for a long time. And care must be taken
>> for those users who don't need packages and don't want to download DVD.
> Personally I think most computers that are equipped with
> an optical drive can read DVDs.  Only very few are left
> with a CD-ROM drive that's not DVD-capable.

> Therefore, my opinion is that we should publish a DVD
> image in the future that contains everything we have
> today on disc{1,2,3} docs and livefs CD.  The size of
> such an DVD would be 1.95 GB for 7.0-RELEASE/i386.

> For those who don't want or need packages and docs,
> a smaller CD image with just the install bits (and maybe
> the fixit FS) could be provided, and of course the small
> "bootonly" image, but nothing else.  Providing five or
> more CD images is rather last century like, in my opinion.

Yes, but DVD is still in the future.

>> You again forget about advocacy, new users coming from other OSes and
>> possibly comparing with some Linux distros.
> Such comparisons are bogus anyway.  I've installed SuSE
> linux before, and I think the graphical installer is
> terribly annoying.  It's worse than Windows.  It took
> me a lot longer to get a usable system installed, and
> even then it installed different sets than the ones I
> selected (I have no idea why).  In my opinion, FreeBSD's
> installation wins big time.

I've not said anything about graphics installer - but features/functional
only.

>> Imagine a review like this:
>> "That SuSe or Debian are wonderful with great number of software instantly
>> available and with this FreeBSD I must wait for download and then compile?!
>> Such shit! Don't use it, if they can't do this, they can't do other usable
>> things!"
> Such a review is worthless and shouldn't be taken serious.
> I really don't worry about that.

You don't, but a number of users can be lost. Advocacy, again.

>>>> Yes, but: livefs and disc1 have many things in common,
>>> No, they dont.  The only thing they have in common is the
>>> /boot directory, which is relatively small (about 30 MB).
>> And what about at least shell and some other tools?
> A shell and a few tools (very few, admittedly) are included
> in the MFS image in the /boot directory.
> And there's also the shell opened on Alt-F4 once the
> installation has started.  For anything else there is
> the "fixit" live FS.

That's shells are almost useless because even "ls" don't work.

>> This _can_ be combined, as previous releases have proven.
> Previous releases were a lot smaller.  :-)
> The point is, disc1 and livefs have _nothing_ in common
> except for the 30 MB /boot directory, so you only save
> those 30 MB when combining them.  No more.  Look at the
> ISOs if you don't believe me.

I can cureently look to 6.2 ISOs only - 7.0 is too big to download
"to just see" :-)

>>>> Really? Have benchmarks? If it is really hust a few percent, then it is not
>>>> worth, of course.
>>> I can't find the article right now, I'm afraid.  :-(
>>> When I have some time at the weekend, I might make a
>>> little benchmark myself.
>> Would be godd, I'll wait :)
> Why haven't you done it yourself?  It's not difficult.
> If you want to get something done, the best way is to do
> it yourself, instead just talking about it.  That's why
> FreeBSD is what it is today.  ;-)
> OK, here are the results of 7.0-RELEASE/i386:
> 348 MB gzip'ed (default)
> 297 MB bzip2'ed
> So the space saving is 51 MB (14.7%).  It took 45 minutes
> on my machine to create the bzip2-compressed files.  Here
> are the decompression times:
> 0:57  for the gzip'ed sets
> 7:20  for the bzip2'ed sets
> So it takes almost 8 times as long to decompress.  The
> machine was otherwise idle, and the times were reproducible
> with good accuracy.

OK, agreed. But bzip2 can be left as option to the future for some system prts
not in default install, if sizes will grow...

-- 
WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181       mailto:vadim_nuclight_at_mail.ru
[Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight]