Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

meugninez · 2008-09-06 12:50:55

Hello everybody.
I am not shure if i should have written this in the Installation section, but as this is more of an opinion rather than a problem, here it goes.
I have been an Archlinux user for more than a year already, and last time I went to download the installation iso, I got impressed with it's size.
I used to do ftp installation because it was faster to download, Something like 30Mb isn't really that much to download, and then I would install the packages I needed,
But this time it impressed me that the ftp installation iso has grown to about 140Mb.
Then I tried to look for a changelog, like the ones in the former iso directories, but there was none.
So I wonder. What really happened that justified such a great change in the iso size? Was it just the looks of it? Or was it space invaders?
There is also the much discussed subject of the automatic installation of base, but people have already compained enough, and I belive it is a closed subject, so I will just leave it.

What really happened in these 3 months between 2008.03 and 2008.06 to justify this huge growth?

moljac024 · 2008-09-06 13:35:29

I've noticed this too. When I installed Arch the install iso was about 100 megs in size. But now it's like 300 or more. So, I've been wondering about the size increase myself....

Last edited by moljac024 (2008-09-06 13:36:16)

bgc1954 · 2008-09-06 15:58:10

Honestly, she said size didn't matter!

skottish · 2008-09-06 16:07:41

All of the answers are in this thread:

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=54542

kensai · 2008-09-06 17:09:32

people in this forum should work for their local newspaper, with such topics: Is archlinux getting bloated? Is archlinux an Anarchy? Is archlinux being sold to Microsoft?

apaige · 2008-09-06 17:37:43

You forgot: "Is ArchLinux ready for the desktop?"

Mr.Elendig · 2008-09-06 18:25:25

skottish wrote:

All of the answers are in this thread:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=54542

That don't explain why the iso's are bigger.

The reason for the increse in iso sice, is that they are now a full fledged livecd, while the old ones are just a minimal shell.

dunc · 2008-09-06 18:35:34

kensai wrote:

people in this forum should work for their local newspaper,

"Arch Linux stuck up tree: firemen in dramatic rescue"

"Arch Linux unhappy with new town centre parking scheme"

"Arch Linux welcomes National Association of Widget Manufacturers' convention"

with such topics: Is archlinux getting bloated? Is archlinux an Anarchy? Is archlinux being sold to Microsoft?

Ah. Right. I see what you mean.

meugninez · 2008-09-06 19:11:54

Kensai, nevermind about the title, just try to answer the question.

I agree with Mr.Elendig about this subject not being answered in the suggested thread.

The reason for the increse in iso sice, is that they are now a full fledged livecd, while the old ones are just a minimal shell.

But what was wrong with that "minimal shell". It did the job, at least for me.
I think an install cd is to install the system, not to work as a live distro.

But aparently everybody is happy with the change, so why bother ha??

wonder · 2008-09-06 19:26:34

this discussion is useless. meugninez you will use the installer cd once and you'll throw away because you'll not install arch every week/month.
i installed arch once 2 years ago and is working for since.

lucke · 2008-09-06 19:49:54

It serves as a good rescue CD. That way you don't have to waste a CD burning it, at least! ;-p

Misfit138 · 2008-09-06 20:25:53

meugninez wrote:

But what was wrong with that "minimal shell". It did the job, at least for me.
I think an install cd is to install the system, not to work as a live distro.

I see where you are coming from..

However, the newer iso's are more versatile, and are far from being 'bloated'. They contain a good solid base environment. Without any GUI apps or X, how could you consider it bloated, anyway?

pelle.k · 2008-09-06 21:37:38

I think an install cd is to install the system, not to work as a live distro.

But wait, there's more, it can also take coffe stains of your clothes!
(the public goes; aaaaw!)
Yes, and the brand new arch linux installation ISO "system" can be yours for only 5.95, and if you order now, we will also throw in a few hundred extra megabytes for you, all for free.
(the public claps hands)

Anyway, I like the livecd. But then again, i'm not really a purist in that sense.

haxit · 2008-09-06 21:48:07

In this day in age, most of use have 100+gb of hd space. Whats an extra 200mb worth? The best OS to every be programmed on this planet?

Dusty · 2008-09-06 21:55:17

kensai wrote:

people in this forum should work for their local newspaper, with such topics: Is archlinux getting bloated? Is archlinux an Anarchy? Is archlinux being sold to Microsoft?

ROFL! what about "Are Arch users getting too trollish?"

meugninez · 2008-09-06 22:47:40

I dont really share haxit opinion, but hey, I really never saw the point of my laptop having 120Gb hard drive when I dont even use 10.

I generaly use some rewritable media for this installation things so wasting cds is not an issue.

Misfit138 explanation seems good enough though.
When I say bloated is not in the "having too much things and niceties" sense, is more like in the sense that we are using more resources to acomplish the same thing we used to do with less resources. I think I am to atached to Niklaus Wirth law that goes something like: Software is getting slower more rapidly than hardware becomes faster.

I will just take a better look at the iso images better to see what really changed, but only in about a couple of weeks when I get back to University, because I cant download 297642 KB in my current connection, and that is one of the reasons I prefered the older version too

Just keep on Arching and above all keep it smart and simple.

neotuli · 2008-09-06 23:36:00

The old install CD cherry-picked binaries and .so's off the host system (yes, one-by-one, listed in a plethora of files) and put them on the ISO image. If you wanted to add a binary to it, you'd have to resolve the dependencies yourself and copy over the necessary files. The old install CD also never left early userspace, the whole filesystem was on the initcpio image. That's why it was so small.

The new install CD leverages the fact that we already have a package manager that does dependencies for us (gee.. what a concept), and just installs full packages just like a regular system as a result. It also has the size of a full system due to this. Also, it leverages early userspace to get a real live environment instead of abusing it by using it as the live environment.

If you wanted to reduce the size of the ISO, you could either do the package installation as usual and remove extra space-consuming items, or make custom pacakges for use on the ISO that are smaller in the first place.

I hope that explains it.

iphitus · 2008-09-07 00:09:12

It's technically better than the old one too.

If you want, you could trivially remaster it to work like the old one, or have less installed on it. (like removing nano )

haxit · 2008-09-07 00:16:15

Uh oh. Here comes nano again :S
Well great job developers. I don't care if archlinux was 100000000gb!! Thanks for all your hard work.

ljshap · 2008-09-07 02:58:41

I just heard this old joke:
A guy complains to his neighbor that his house is so small. The neighbor suggests that he put the farm animals inside the house, which he does. The next time he complains to his neighbor about his house being so small, the neighbor suggests that he let his animals stay outside, which he also does. When he sees his neighbor again, he's glowing about how big his house is.
Maybe the Arch developers should make a Vista clone their next release, so that when they go back to good ole Arch everybody will talk about how light weight and responsive it is. I couldn't care less about how big the ISO is, its the installed system that counts, including how easy it is to customize it to your personality and preferences.

Arch may not be perfect, but its pretty darn close. Its very easy to get spoiled using a distribution that does NOT treat you like children.

The developers are doing a great job as are the AUR maintainers!!

jb · 2008-09-07 03:02:34

If a project is getting larger because of added functionality, that's not bloat: it's called either progress or feature whoring (depending on the usefulness of those added features).

Bloat implies it's just getting larger for no practical reason.

phrakture · 2008-09-07 03:09:05

neotuli wrote:

If you wanted to reduce the size of the ISO, you could either do the package installation as usual and remove extra space-consuming items, or make custom pacakges for use on the ISO that are smaller in the first place.

I'm sure if someone wanted to do the work, throwing a static busybox on there would probably save some space.

meugninez · 2008-09-07 10:14:58

Understood. I guess neotuli explanation really settles the thing.

Just keep up the good work then.

Gringo · 2008-09-10 16:24:37

The Arch Linux LiveCD has everything on it I need to whipe Windows partitions shiny clean. It's great!

No, seriously. I have to Rescue CDs: Arch Linux Live/Install CD and SystemRescueCD (v1.1 already, yay!). Usually Arch Linux does the job very well.

archdave · 2008-09-11 07:57:22

Arch Linux Mini Install
Arch Linux Net Install
KArch Linux
GArch Linux
XArch Linux
EduArch Linux
Arch Linux Media Edition

Oh no, its Canonical all over again, but better! since its Arch!
Actually, all you need is the Mini Install and a few scripts to load up whatever is needed for each of the other uses.

Last edited by archdave (2008-09-11 07:59:10)

Arch Linux

#1 2008-09-06 12:50:55

Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#2 2008-09-06 13:35:29

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#3 2008-09-06 15:58:10

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#4 2008-09-06 16:07:41

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#5 2008-09-06 17:09:32

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#6 2008-09-06 17:37:43

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#7 2008-09-06 18:25:25

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#8 2008-09-06 18:35:34

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#9 2008-09-06 19:11:54

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#10 2008-09-06 19:26:34

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#11 2008-09-06 19:49:54

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#12 2008-09-06 20:25:53

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#13 2008-09-06 21:37:38

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#14 2008-09-06 21:48:07

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#15 2008-09-06 21:55:17

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#16 2008-09-06 22:47:40

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#17 2008-09-06 23:36:00

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#18 2008-09-07 00:09:12

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#19 2008-09-07 00:16:15

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#20 2008-09-07 02:58:41

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#21 2008-09-07 03:02:34

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#22 2008-09-07 03:09:05

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#23 2008-09-07 10:14:58

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#24 2008-09-10 16:24:37

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

#25 2008-09-11 07:57:22

Re: Is ArchLinux geting bloated?

Board footer