Slimming down default install?

[Eric Dunbar]

> > As for "slim"/"bloated" argumentation in general:
> > With  hdd prices dropping to $80 for 160gig 20mb +/- prolly dont matter
> > much as long as the software is not completely obscure and you can keep
> > the users happy because after installation they have what they need.
> >
> > Someone who wants a super slim/"raw" linux installation should stay away
> > from distributions like ubuntu and the alike anyway..
> 
> HDD is only one part of the argument. I totally agree that disk space
> is not a huge issue, but:
> 
> 1) It'd be better to keep ubuntu on one CD - that way people are much
> more likely to download, burn and install it, and pass it to friends
> as they don't have to do multiple cds which is much more time
> consuming and means you can't just install and leave it - you have to
> check that the right CD is in.

Two points:
1. Ubuntu is designed to "just work". Working (i.e. good GUI...
otherwise it "just works" for those who already can use command-line
*nix in which case "just works" isn't an issue).

2. The beaty of Ubuntu is that its philosophy is that it "just works"
(paraphrasing slightly ;) and the one CD is key. A one CD download and
a ONE CD install are perfect for keeping problems to a minimum. If
people are willing to suffer through multi-CD downloads they could
download one of the kitchen sink distros.

Eric.