3 ms·

Except on servers. Which I guess is due to install disk space issues...?

• davidw 16y ago
  More likely it has to do with the GUI stuff that you wouldn't want on a server.
  • trafficlight 16y ago
    No sense in wasting resources on a desktop you'll never see.
  • tvon 16y ago
    I was assuming that different sets of packages would be installed depending on a choice presented during installation.
  • httpitis 16y ago
    luckily, my windows 2008 r2 server does not have graphical... eh... nevermind.
• Legion 16y ago
  It would be nice if they rolled server install into the same disc, because really all Ubuntu Server is is a different base set of packages from the exact same repositories.
  • tvon 16y ago
    Yeah, that's what I was getting at (most Linux distros used to work this way "back in the day").
  • dotBen 16y ago
    Not really because the comparative sizes of the install disks are substantially different due to the fact that none of the X windows environment or any X apps need to be shipped on server.
    • Legion 16y ago
      Only problem with that is that it's really not true. ubuntu-10.10-desktop-amd64.iso: 695M ubuntu-10.10-server-amd64.iso: 642M natty-desktop-amd64.iso: 681M natty-server-amd64.iso: 653M Not sure I would call that "substantially different". Every Ubuntu ISO is a full CD's size, give or take. Your reasoning for the difference isn't true either. X and X apps are most certainly included in the server ISO. Certainly, there's probably a few more packing the desktop ISO that aren't on the server one, but we're talking very little difference here.
• lhnn 16y ago
  Server edition is significantly different from all other editions. It uses different kernel settings (tick level and scheduler), and there is a large delta in the packages used.