<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 11/02/15 14:40, A Blesius wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I don't see why we should unnecessarily
increase the ISO size. LO is<br>
in the repos, so why bother shipping it directly? If we decide to
move<br>
on to <2 GB now, then we'll decide for <4 GB some time
later. It will<br>
begin to grow from release to release, and at some time Xubuntu
will<br>
no longer be a low-resources distro, which is one reason why I'm
using it.<br>
<br>
Greetings,<br>
<br>
Alex<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
It's taken longer than I've been about to discuss this - so I don't
for one moment expect it to become a topic again this side of the
next LTS release.<br>
<br>
If we take your argument further - then we should just give people
the Core - which can be installed from the net mini.iso.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<br>
Ich verschlüssele meine Emails mit GnuPG.<br>
Erfahren Sie mehr hier:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/de/index.html">https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/de/index.html</a><br>
<br>
Am 11.02.2015 um 14:52 schrieb Pasi Lallinaho:<br>
> Hello,<br>
<br>
> in the last community meeting we had some discussion about
the<br>
> target size for our ISO. Since many of the team weren't
attending,<br>
> we wanted to bring the discussion in the mailing list.<br>
<br>
<br>
> PLEASE NOTE that this is not a idea/proposal thread for ideas
on<br>
> filling the ISO with $software. People who send software<br>
> suggestions to this thread have the risk of being added to
the<br>
> manual moderation list. Thank you.<br>
<br>
<br>
> After we couldn't fit into a CD any more, our target has been
1GB.<br>
> The argument for that target size was that it was the next
usual<br>
> hardware limit (eg. there aren't many 900MB USB sticks).<br>
<br>
> This discussion is current since we are talking about
potentially<br>
> including LibreOffice; if that happens, we will definitely go
over<br>
> 1GB and there isn't anything we can drop to get back below.<br>
<br>
> My suggestion on the meeting was that if we go over 1GB, our
new<br>
> target should be "below or as close to 1GB as possible, but
2GB at<br>
> maximum".<br>
<br>
> What do you others think?<br>
<br>
> Cheers, Pasi<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<span style="white-space: pre;">></span><br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>