apt - How does Ubuntu flavor iso differ from a desktop package? - Ask Ubuntu
tl;dr: how ubuntu flavor iso installation ( example lubuntu ) differ installing desktop package via apt-get ? (for instance sudo apt-get install lubuntu-desktop)
context question:
some time ago answered question on askubuntu , tested in virtual machine removing unity-desktop , installing ubuntu-gnome-desktop. makes boot logo ( plymouth ) change, desktop changes, different packages installed (gnome-network-manager instead of network-manager , if not mistaken). appeared in effect i've switched different ubuntu flavor, though started out standard ubuntu system. hence question: differentiates pre-made ubuntu flavor iso installing package ? same base underneath hood or installation iso have specific configurations ? if it's possible install flavor via package manager, why separate flavor iso's exist ? (obvious answer user convenience, think there has exist other reasons. canonical business , , makes not lot of sense business provide additional flavor iso , if sysadmin or end-user can same thing via package manager themselves).
installations iso image , metapackage no different, when metapackages installed server iso , minimal cd images. users use official iso image , purge packages of existing flavour, install packages of flavour may see no difference well.
therefore, metapackages could provide same installation iso images. following sources seem support similarity.
lubuntu community has suggested metapackage in this page on lubuntu wiki.
[...] use server iso. when prompted install unmark (space bar) except basic server , press tab ok. once installed, login , do:
sudo apt install lubuntu-desktopto add in lubuntu system [...]
ubuntu community has mentioned metapackage in this page on generic wiki, albeit bit outdated answered date (since ubuntu installs unity instead of gnome).
[...] example, ubuntu-desktop metapackage installs full gnome desktop environment, other packages in default ubuntu install. existence of meta-packages makes easy install other ubuntu derivatives on desktop; [...]
this other page on generic wiki has mentioned similarly.
[...] example, ubuntu user can install kubuntu environment (kde , associated programs) selecting "kubuntu-desktop."
the last mentioned page has listed metapackages category, , relevant ones first two: "desktop metapackages" , "ubuntu system metapackages". means "kde" not equal "kubuntu", "xfce" not equal "xubuntu" , forth.
revised answers
what differentiates pre-made ubuntu flavor iso installing package ?
no difference installation itself. differentiates between 2 user experience of installing product. big deal end users expect product available in appropriately packaged form, rather installing relevant metapackage via terminal.
is same base underneath hood or installation iso have specific configurations ?
yes, both installations have same settings. achieved installing "default settings" package respective flavours, except ubuntu 1 named ubuntu-settings. usually, "default settings" package dependency of respective metapackages.
however, iso image different because must contain installer , additional packages bootable , installable. resulting installation same because these packages removed later; installer not available on local machine once installed.
if it's possible install flavor via package manager, why separate flavor iso's exist ?
a product meaningful when tangible , works advertised. iso images more tangible metapackages. iso images work advertised upon made bootable discs. metapackage require knowledge , effort make work , not quite product.
revised evaluation
it important note metapackages in answer refers metapackages ubuntu , flavours. these shall not mistaken metapackages of particular desktop environment such gnome, mate, cinnamon , razorqt. while ubuntu , flavours can have multiple metapackages, user have *-desktop metapackages relevant ones.
finally, returning top question:
tl;dr: how ubuntu flavor iso installation ( example lubuntu ) differ installing desktop package via apt-get ? (for instance sudo apt-get install lubuntu-desktop)
i have named 3 differences: user experience, more tangible, works advertised (or intended). end users, less knowledge , less effort required installing iso image when compared installing metapackage.
user convenience thing, not applicable iso images. example, minimal cd convenient small size download has more steps installation. minimal cd useful prepare custom installations, offers flexibility rather convenience.
when users gain more knowledge , more experience, less notice differences. both experienced , power users can use ubuntu , flavours easier, challenges faced beginning users have not changed.
like beginning users, once ignorant user couldn't make bootable disc iso image. i'd have not noticed these differences until recently, remembered once beginning user. above all, i'd prefer official iso image clean installation.
disclaimer
this answer revised approach based on experience beginning user, more relevant end users. following applies.
i did not compare installation iso image , installation metapackage, side side. there supporting facts tell these technically same.
i not find relevant views of canonical or leading members of community; answer contains own views, findings , facts web.
tl;dr installation iso image technically same installation metapackage, provided base system has no other flavour , correct metapackage installed. iso image more tangible, work advertised , close actual product.
related posts on ask ubuntu
Comments
Post a Comment