Especially in places like India, Brazil and Nigeria, where people have little/no access to internet. Like i mean that is one of the core ethos of ubuntu; to be accessible to everyone. Not everyone in those countries is going to travel 100km or so just to have access to internet to install the apps they need.
With something like Windows and Mac, its a different case entirely. Its okay. For an open-source os like Ubuntu, no. This will alienate potential users in developing-undeveloped countries like the three mentioned above and Indonesia.
To be honest, its fine if the goal of those distros is to be minimal as possible. But for something like Ubuntu, whose number 1 goal is accessibillity, this does not work out.
Sure, we as a community can make custom iso images for those people who don’t have internet.
Ubuntu is extremely popular in Nigeria and India and other developing-not developed countries for these reasons. Accessible to people with no internet connection as it comes with everything you need ootb.
Especially as a few months back, we made emphasized people should use Ubuntu for education. TBH, i like the idea of a minimal install, but we could just make an iso around 1.1 to 2gb. No nvidia drivers, no office suite, just the basic stuff for hardware support and a desktop and a web browser. Then in that minimal install iso, we could put a ‘choose your own packages to install’ during install just like they do in SUSE land.
Those who want to distribute to people with no internet could download the full iso with all the goodies including nvidia drivers and an office suite.
I share that concern. Ubuntu is a popular free OS for Linux newcomers, and it’s not only due to marketing. A sensible set of default apps probably plays a roll. While there may be a need to modernize that set, please be cautious.
Yes, as it could hurt the marketshare. Ubuntu is probably why ZA went from 1.91% in may 2023 to 3.25% in June 2023. And in India, 13% of the population uses Linux and in Nigeria, the marketshare increased from 2% in 2021 to 4,49% in 2023.
I have for a long time, They only want a web browser,
firewall. Just to get online to check their email, facebook,
etc. Otherwise I advise them to use the full version.
So far the 12 individuals that installed the minimal install
are still completely happy with the OS.
I installed the new ISO and i’m NOT completely happy. I miss:
shotwell or gthumb (or at least nautilus-image-converter): for a minimum image manipulation
baobab: because a novice need a tool to find out how your disk space is being used
simple-scan: because most users have a multifunction printer and need use the scanner
LibreOffice: but I still hope because slideshow says the are installed https://bugs.launchpad.net/subiquity/+bug/2028437
I think this would be the best way. This served all users.
Normal installation would be the best option for beginners, for those who want a full desktop, and for those with poor internet connection.
The minimal installation would be great for those with a good internet connection and for those who want a cleaner system.
The custom installation would be the best option for those with a little more experience, for those who want to have more control over what to install, so that they can better adapt Ubuntu to the project they want to run.
Just having this option more wouldn’t make the installation process more complex for a beginner.
We must not underestimate a beginner. Just know how to read. It is very clear what each option is for and for whom.
That would make Ubuntu adaptable to a larger number of users. I know several users who have preferred other distros because they can better adapt them to what they want.
P.S. Sorry for the bad mockup, it serves only as an example.
Hello everyone.
I have a little wish for next update Ubuntu installler. I want to get BTRFS subvolume @ and @home by default if Ubuntu installed with BTRFS root filesystem for using Timeshift. I get fail 3 times in my manual setup proccess. I’m glad to trying next update of new Ubuntu installer and my suggestions is realized. I now install Ubuntu 23.04 in my Thinkpad X280.
Sorry my English
I mean I want give suggestion for next release of Ubuntu Installer. I don’t want get support to my problem or asking something, just give suggestions. Why? Because in Ubuntu 22.04, if install with BTRFS root filesystem, it automatically get @ and @home subvolume. I wish that features can added to next release
I’ve shared some of my unstructured and personal Ubuntu provisioning thinking in Nought to productivity. My aspiration is to make the entire provisioning process simpler, streamlined, easier to maintain, and more modular.
Once the dust settles, and if I get buy in, then we can build features that allow individuals to customise their experience precisely.
In general I agree with the principle of this. However, OEM users don’t see this step in the installation process and so we need to move this type customisation somewhere else.
We’re aiming to land ZFS support in the 23.10 installer. The work foundations are doing to enable this, should pave the way for us to more-easily offer other layouts.
No promises though because this work is moving fast and things change regularly
I have had the same concern about GUFW. For years now has been in universe. I also agree that this would have to be a task at a different time. Thank You for acknowledging this.
Thanks for your explanation, Mister.
I suggest it because in Ubuntu LTS and 22.10 (before using new Flutter based installer) it can make auto-configuration for @ and @home BTRFS subvolume easily. So, I wish in new installer, @ and @home subvolume can configured automatically if select BTRFS as root filesystem
Do we plan to throw our security concepts out the window here ? There is a reason why we didn’t ship port-blockers in ubuntu up to now (a firewall is a physical device splitting two networks… calling port blockers firewalls was a clever marketing stunt of Microsoft in the early 2000s to give you a false sense of security on win XP)…
Ubuntu has since day one had a “no open ports by default” policy that made shipping such a tool superfluous… do we plan to drop that policy in the future? Otherwise shipping something like gufw just adds complexity to solve a non existing problem.
After all anything that would open a port on your desktop would be something you explicitly installed (I.e. a webserver) in which case I’d expect you to actually want port 80 to be open and accessible…
IMHO a tool like gufw should always be/stay optional…
You raise good points. As I mentioned above, we’re over committed/lacking capacity (same coin two sides) this cycle so can’t explore this in detail just yet.
Thanks for the information. I completely agree to leave it as optional. Would it be possible to have GUFW made into a Snap? This way it would be easier to find it and
and install from the snap store. If so this would be awesome. Specially for a newbie.
