After previously hunting the Internet to build an archive of old Ubuntu MATE ISOs at https://releases.ubuntu-mate.org/archived/, I’m wondering, what is the official stance to flavour ISOs when they reach end of life?
For example, Ubuntu’s ISOs are archived at Index of /releases. Some of the flavours are there too, but coverage seems a bit spotty for some like Ubuntu MATE (which only has 19.04/19.10)
I’m looking for a 15.10 release of Ubuntu MATE for PowerPC, but it is challenging to track down on the open Internet. Were these ISOs archived/backed up to an offline server, or are they gone for good?
Also on the look out for Ubuntu MATE 14.10 amd64 to complete the archive, which was before Ubuntu MATE became an official flavour (and didn’t use Canonical’s build system infrastructure). Only 45% salvaged! Hope it turns up some day.
Thank you both - I had luckily been able to salvage 17.10 PPC from the Internet Archive. Pretty sure I tried digging around there previously, but I could’ve been stuck in the wrong point in time.
I’m still curious on what the policy/practice is/were for old flavour ISOs around that time, but I suppose only Canonical or the Ubuntu team could answer this.
The Ubuntu MATE Archive does have a slightly unusual structure:
/archived/21.10/ - I’ve added the missing official ISO here.
/21.10/ - contains the ISO spins for the UMPC systems (that the Ubuntu MATE team did)
/implish/ - actually just a symlink to 21.10.
5 years later, I still don’t know (and haven’t looked into) what happens to old ISOs for flavours. We have a script on the server that automatically downloads new ISOs into /archived/ so we have a complete collection. I guess 21.10 got overlooked at the time of building the archive.
Did you mean all flavours, or just UbuntuMATE? If you mean all flavours, I think there was no “central” directive to ensure such a historical record, and that it was left up to the “enlightenment” of the leadership for the various flavours to self-organize and undertake such efforts as part of their “business continuity” plans.
You can see the “scatter” of available releases at
My question still remains: What do Canonical do with them after they reach end of life? Might they be archived within Canonical, or would each flavour need to archive copies themselves? cdimage.ubuntu.com only provide what’s actively supported.
It’s not that important now, since we have a complete collection for posterity. We also have the SHA256 checksums within our website’s GitHub, or the Wayback Machine might have archived a SHA256SUMS file from cdimage.ubuntu.com to verify ISO integrity.
If you can’t find it there or on archive.org, then it’s lost to the sands of time and was permanently deleted. Don’t blame Canonical; they don’t develop the flavors and are, therefore, under no obligation to hold onto them.
Shouldn’t there be a “unified view” of such things?
Even if Canonical/Ubuntu doesn’t want to keep it under it’s own umbrella, shouldn’t it still be consolidated into one repository? ( which I still think should be under Canonical/Ubuntu).
Maybe an alternate source for UbuntuStudio ISOs might elicit some interest? A number of those ISOs, not currently in that repository, are available from this alternate source (admittedly, they need to be reconfirmed before full endorsement )
And, not knowing if there is a need for a “legal” motivator, maybe there could be issues raised regarding “providence” of code used and the consequent “entitlement to use”, regardless of the license involved, if there is lack or traceability regarding the creation/origins of the code? Lack of such “definitive proof” could lead to issues of ownership, and consequent revenue streams, IMHO.
The images at the first link are supported images for supported Ubuntu systems (they do include some ESM products supported only by Canonical).
The images at the second link are either unsupported due to EOL, may contain revoked keys (causing newer ISOs to be generated found at the first link) or other type issue.
If you need to go to the second old-releases link; there is a potential problem/risk, and by existing in a second link users may actually consider what that issue is & do they need or should be going there.
But for those, like Luke ( @lah7 ), who are trying to “re-constitute” the historical images into an “endorsed” archive, it is reasonable that it could be a source from which the ISO could be obtained, vetted, then published.
Erich, I hear what you are saying about officially recognized sources. I am not disputing that.
But Luke (@lah7) was talking about trying to “re-constitute” a more comprehensive historical record/image of those earlier ISOs, either for posterity or, as I mentionned, to provide the definitive record for a legal defense, if such an issue were to come about. And I was offering a potential source for what could be (still to be determined) a reliable source for some of those missing ISO images that are not available in the “officially recognized” repositories.
This has been discussed elsewhere by the flavor leads, and there’s no interest. I personally collected the LTS’s of Ubuntu Studio, but other than that I have no interest.
