On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Glenn Lagasse<Glenn.Lagasse at sun.com> wrote: > * Peter Tribble (peter.tribble at gmail.com) wrote: > >> There's no doubt that the new installer has some success in that area. I >> don't think that the Live CD is really suitable for the targeted developer - >> primarily because there are significant things missing off the Live CD (such >> as the total lack of any development tools). At the moment the Live CD is >> reasonable for NetBook style use (but even there is short of key >> applications) >> and demonstration, but it's a lot more work later to get it to a useful state >> for other usage patterns. > > I think the liveCD is perfectly suitable for developers. It gives them > media they can install and then add things to easily. How many > developers actually develop while running directly from a liveCD? I > know I sure wouldn't want to compile anything while running from a CD.
The problem is that the contents of the newly installed system will be the same as the liveCD - so there are no developer tools at all. The potential developer then has to face a significant download before they can do anything. It's definitely not just drop in the CD and go. Pulling the amount of data required definitely isn't easy. Many potential users will be put off by the amount they have to download, especially if they got the physical CD given to them. The reason for having the liveCD is to keep the download small, but to get a decent development system is far bigger. I don't believe that we want to bloat the download image, but it isn't obvious why the physical media that's being handed out isn't a full DVD - most users could use a DVD, I guess, although downloading and burning it might remove a significant fraction of the target audience. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
