Comments on: Live CD vs Alternate Installer http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/02/01/live-cd-vs-alternate-installer/ Enhancing your Ubuntu experience! Fri, 11 May 2012 05:04:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: William Dishman http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/02/01/live-cd-vs-alternate-installer/#comment-4679 William Dishman Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:32:48 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=260#comment-4679 Why does it have to assume that you are using SATA in a RAID configuration in the first place. I'm using my two drives as separate drives. If it assumes that it an just an ATA drive (which older software assumes), it would install fine. As for Fedora, I have to use an older version to get it to install the way I want it to install. If I use an newer version of Fedora, it assumes that I'm using striping. Why does it have to assume that you are using SATA in a RAID configuration in the first place. I’m using my two drives as separate drives. If it assumes that it an just an ATA drive (which older software assumes), it would install fine. As for Fedora, I have to use an older version to get it to install the way I want it to install. If I use an newer version of Fedora, it assumes that I’m using striping.

]]> By: Chris http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/02/01/live-cd-vs-alternate-installer/#comment-4618 Chris Sat, 31 May 2008 03:30:50 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=260#comment-4618 I'm very disappointed with the 8.04 installers. Neither the Live CD nor alternate installer worked for me. The Live CD doesn't support RAID, so it's useless for all but the most trivial setups. The alternate installer support RAID, but craps out when installing the base system. Something about linux-generic having broken packages linux-restricted-modules and linux-image. Looks like I'm sticking with Fedora, which has mastered the seemingly complex art of being able to install itself. I’m very disappointed with the 8.04 installers. Neither the Live CD nor alternate installer worked for me. The Live CD doesn’t support RAID, so it’s useless for all but the most trivial setups. The alternate installer support RAID, but craps out when installing the base system. Something about linux-generic having broken packages linux-restricted-modules and linux-image. Looks like I’m sticking with Fedora, which has mastered the seemingly complex art of being able to install itself.

]]> By: Gede Sumardika http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/02/01/live-cd-vs-alternate-installer/#comment-4320 Gede Sumardika Fri, 02 May 2008 01:52:58 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=260#comment-4320 Hi, I failed upgrading from 7.10 to 8.04 using alternate CD. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=4809136 Hi,

I failed upgrading from 7.10 to 8.04 using alternate CD.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=4809136

]]> By: Anthony http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/02/01/live-cd-vs-alternate-installer/#comment-785 Anthony Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:48:12 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=260#comment-785 I have found that the alternate CD is often essential when installing Ubuntu on older hardware, for example: http://www.yoyo.org/~anthony/compaq_hardware.html (the above is the output of sudo lshw -html btw, a nice little application) On that machine and another like it, whilst the live CD would boot and work as a live CD only, installation from the live CD repeatedly failed. In contrast, installation using the alternate CD was simplicity itself. I have found that the alternate CD is often essential when installing Ubuntu on older hardware, for example:

http://www.yoyo.org/~anthony/compaq_hardware.html

(the above is the output of sudo lshw -html btw, a nice little application)

On that machine and another like it, whilst the live CD would boot and work as a live CD only, installation from the live CD repeatedly failed.

In contrast, installation using the alternate CD was simplicity itself.

]]> By: Gianni http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/02/01/live-cd-vs-alternate-installer/#comment-784 Gianni Sat, 03 Feb 2007 13:12:33 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=260#comment-784 Sure the Alternate CD is robust to install Ubuntu. The Live CD is a tool to backup things for me. Sure the Alternate CD is robust to install Ubuntu.

The Live CD is a tool to backup things for me.

]]> By: Daniel http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/02/01/live-cd-vs-alternate-installer/#comment-783 Daniel Fri, 02 Feb 2007 20:55:58 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=260#comment-783 What if the Live CD doesn't correctly detects your monitor resolution/refresh rate? That's what happen to a friend of mine, so the Live CD was useless for him. Until I've told him about the Alternate CD he was running Breezy Badger because it was the last distro with a text based installer. What if the Live CD doesn’t correctly detects your monitor resolution/refresh rate? That’s what happen to a friend of mine, so the Live CD was useless for him. Until I’ve told him about the Alternate CD he was running Breezy Badger because it was the last distro with a text based installer.

]]> By: Simon http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/02/01/live-cd-vs-alternate-installer/#comment-782 Simon Fri, 02 Feb 2007 19:06:00 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=260#comment-782 I prefer the Alternate-CD too. Since I installed with the Live-CD and it didn't take over the old Grub menu.lst and other issues, I better use the Alternate-CD. But I heard that Faisty has improved the options in the Live-CD. Will test it soon. I prefer the Alternate-CD too. Since I installed with the Live-CD and it didn’t take over the old Grub menu.lst and other issues, I better use the Alternate-CD.

But I heard that Faisty has improved the options in the Live-CD. Will test it soon.

]]> By: max http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/02/01/live-cd-vs-alternate-installer/#comment-781 max Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:02:52 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=260#comment-781 I also prefer the alternative installer, but lately I couldn't complete a fresh Ubuntu Dapper installation on a laptop because of some glitch with the video driver (Intel GMA 945) -- the screen flickered during "configure xserver-xorg" and then the display went completely blck. I had to abort the installation and the next one (using the live CD) went just flawlessly. I also prefer the alternative installer, but lately I couldn’t complete a fresh Ubuntu Dapper installation on a laptop because of some glitch with the video driver (Intel GMA 945) — the screen flickered during “configure xserver-xorg” and then the display went completely blck. I had to abort the installation and the next one (using the live CD) went just flawlessly.

]]> By: PriceChild http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/02/01/live-cd-vs-alternate-installer/#comment-780 PriceChild Fri, 02 Feb 2007 12:02:51 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=260#comment-780 I've always found the alternate cd a LOT more stable, with resizing of partitions normally crashing on the Live CD. I normally show Ubuntu off with the Live CD for them then quickly switch to the alternate if they want to install. It may be slower... but its proven technology that _will_ work :) I’ve always found the alternate cd a LOT more stable, with resizing of partitions normally crashing on the Live CD.

I normally show Ubuntu off with the Live CD for them then quickly switch to the alternate if they want to install.

It may be slower… but its proven technology that _will_ work :)

]]> By: Peter Liedler http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/02/01/live-cd-vs-alternate-installer/#comment-779 Peter Liedler Fri, 02 Feb 2007 06:18:15 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=260#comment-779 Using the live cd had simple practical reasons for me. Users that are new to (k)ubuntu feel more confident in switching to it when presented a polished up graphical setup frontend. We have to give ubiquity the chance to get rid of the bugs. Personally the reason to use the live cd is simple. When only using a wlan the modules of my network cards were not loaded by the alternate cd. No updates could be installed until a manually installed the restricted modules package after the installation. On the live cd I could configure the network interfaces and they were working after the installation. A suggestion for the live cd regarding the possible crashes: install a small base system, install boot manager, install enhanced system, upgrade boot manager. If the system crashes during the setup, we could boot the system from the base system and try to install the rest of it using the live cd as repos (i.e. based on a log file status or so). Using the live cd had simple practical reasons for me. Users that are new to (k)ubuntu feel more confident in switching to it when presented a polished up graphical setup frontend. We have to give ubiquity the chance to get rid of the bugs.

Personally the reason to use the live cd is simple. When only using a wlan the modules of my network cards were not loaded by the alternate cd. No updates could be installed until a manually installed the restricted modules package after the installation. On the live cd I could configure the network interfaces and they were working after the installation.

A suggestion for the live cd regarding the possible crashes: install a small base system, install boot manager, install enhanced system, upgrade boot manager.
If the system crashes during the setup, we could boot the system from the base system and try to install the rest of it using the live cd as repos (i.e. based on a log file status or so).

]]>