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

Basil Chupin blchupin at
Tue Apr 2 10:31:50 UTC 2013

On 01/04/13 22:46, Tom H wrote:
> 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".

"There's no mention of "12.04.x".

Look at

Read carefully what is written there.

Then read the 'Read the full installation instructions' and any 
conscientious and eager novice will then read the part at the end which 
states, "More technical detailed technical are available on the Ubuntu 
wiki" and this will take one to-

And what is stated there?



Using openSUSE 12.3 x86_64 KDE 4.10.1 & kernel 3.8.5-1 on a system with-
AMD FX 8-core 3.6/4.2GHz processor
16GB PC14900/1866MHz Quad Channel Corsair "Vengeance" RAM
Gigabyte AMD3+ m/board; Gigabyte nVidia GTX550Ti 1GB DDR5 GPU

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list