This does NOT go towards making a good impression :-(

Tom H tomh0665 at
Mon Apr 1 11:46:01 UTC 2013

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 5:46 AM, Basil Chupin <blchupin at> wrote:
> On 01/04/13 19:01, Colin Law wrote:
>> On 1 April 2013 05:48, Basil Chupin <blchupin at> wrote:

>>> Seeing as how I try and help users here re their problems with Ubuntu,
>>> and
>>> seeing as how I did once, long mong ago and in a galaxy far far away, use
>>> Ubuntu for a short period, I thought that I would install a copy of 12.04
>>> LTS.
>>> So, I downloaded a copy of the 86_64 iso but the only version which I can
>>> find is something called 12.04.2. OK, I says to myself so it's 12.04.2.
>>> Pish! No worries! But then I thought that I would refresh my memory about
>>> the installation procedure because something at the back of my mind
>>> niggled
>>> me about and "alternate" version which gave one more options when
>>> installing
>>> - and I want to install this in a very special place and have the
>>> bootloader
>>> in a special place. And so I go and download 12.04.2 Alternate iso. I
>>> burn
>>> it to a DVD (a CD is too small) and I boot this DVD.
>> As others have said, 12.04.2 is just 12.04 with later updates included
>> to save downloading and installing them after installation. Also as
>> others have said if you have a 2G USB stick and can boot off USB then
>> that is a better option as it runs much faster. Instructions for
>> burning a stick are on
> This response is also aimed @ Jarred and Nils.
> The point of my post is that the normal way for someone interested in trying
> out a new distro is to follow ones' nose and download and use what is
> readily available and what one is pointed to when, say, going to the main
> page of the site which spouts the merits of the distro - as is the case of
> Ubuntu.
> One would need to be well versed in how to put the Live CD, for example,
> onto an USB stick to be able to either run Ubuntu in Live mode or even to
> install it.
> You are speaking like the typical people who know what you doing and not
> someone who knows nothing but has heard the Siren's call and decided to try
> out Ubuntu - and following the Siren's call they hit a brick wall when they
> download the Alternate version of 12.04 - which is now called 12.04.2 which,
> as you all state, is an updated version of 12.04.
> However, updated to what when one cannot use it to install Ubuntu? It's a
> 702MB piece of useless 0s and 1s.

I don't see the problem with the 12.04.x names. RHEL and its free
rebuilds use the same 6.x principle.

I don't see why you think that a new user'll choose to get the
alternative installer (it's anyway been discontinued as of 12.10). The
new user'll go to the download page [1] (or [2] - and [2] will lead
him/her to [1]. He/she'll have a choice of "For the latest features"
with a "Get Ubuntu 12.10" button and "For the long-term support" with
a "Get Ubuntu 12.04 LTS" button, with a further choice of 32/64 bit
for both. There's no mention of "12.04.x".

I don't see the problem with creating a USB-stick installer. There are
links on [1] for creating such a stick on Windows, OS X, and Ubuntu.

I don't see why "I want to install this in a very special place and
have the bootloader in a special place" means that you can't use the
Ubuntu rather than the Debian installer, unless ubiquity doesn't give
a choice of install locations for grub. I don't use ubiquity so I
don't know (anyone?).

There's a "Alternative options" section on [1] with a "Take a look at
a full list of our previous versions and alternative downloads" link
but it's many clicks later that you'll get to an alternative CD/DVD
download. The only reason that I can see for using an alternate ISO is
so as not to install a DE or install using mdraid without having to go
to a console, neither of which are newbie installs.

Furthermore, just because your one install failed doesn't mean that
the previous 1,000 or the next 1,000 have or will fail. I've just had
to install Arch in a VM and I had to reboot from the install CD
because grub's boot and core imgs weren't installed into the MBR (even
though the package was installed). I'll do another install later this
week to see whether it's repeatable (there was also a problem with
"locale" after I booted into the install). The point is that you can
have installation failures!



More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list