The switch doesn't really affect me much either. I do think it is
"nostalgically sad" when I look back on my own history... When I first
installed Linux as a desktop gui, I didn't have any dvd drives, and I
didn't have a wired line for Internet (phone dialup or highspeed). Just
wireless a neighbor was letting me steal. I didn't have any strong
opinions on what flavor to install. I just wanted something with that
cool desktop that was on my knoppix live cd that someone gave me!

I spent hours reading documentation on websites for all the big players. I
remember being so confused that all of these companies had 3+ files to
download and burn to a cd. Did I need all of them for an install like I
do with floppies? Did my Debian install fail because I didn't start the
right cd or because I don't know how to "md5-sum hashtag a grub".

When I finally found and read about Ubuntu and got a clear understanding
that I needed this one 680 MB file on a cd, I was really happy. Especially
since I was down to just a few CDs left to burn. :) CDs are still my
preferred medium for "live" installations, but I only have one system left
that can't boot directly from usb.

Yes. It is a bit of a nostalgia trip, but it also has practical
implications for users of older computers with only CD drives. They will
have to find a workaround. I know that Canonical anguished over this. It
has been the subject of much discussion for years and they have spent lots
of time in past years paring down the ISO by cutting things out. Now they
have room to grow for years to come.

I think there is still a net install or minimal CD (for now). But for that
you likely need a wired connection and broadband. Some people will no doubt
get left behind. There are plenty of distributions that will work for them,
but few are newbie friendly, unfortunately.

Don't think it will be a major problem, given that most systems these
days have a DVD drive ( even if it's only DVD ROM ) and/or can boot
from USB. Hardware that's too old for that will also probably be too
old to run the later Ubuntu any way, or at least not run it well

Easy enough to keep an ISO of older Ubuntu versions and a CD of them
for those systems that need it - more as a repair tool than install
Ubuntu onto them.

That was probably their thinking. Time was right. In the past there would
be more CD users. They have wanted to do this for some time, but were
reluctant to cut off new users from trying Ubuntu.

What bugs me more is the loss of the Alternative disk. They are removing it
without being able to implement all of the parts into the regular disk. If
you want RAID you are out of luck till the spring. Bad decision. Do not get
rid of something till you have the replacement ready.
....softpedia.com/.../Canonical-Drops-Alternate-CDs-from-Ubuntu-12-10-2\
89338.shtml

I don't have a problem in principle with going with one ISO, especially now
they are increasing the size. I have a problem with the decision making
itself and what it says about Canonical and how it treats its users. What
is the sense of having RAID with 12.04 and 13.04 but skipping it in 12.10?
There is no consistency nor, it seems, does there need to be. We will do
what we want and you can like it or leave attitude. What would it have
taken to wait on this till everything was ready? They are jumping the gun
for no apparent gain and potentially ticking off users and giving bad PR.
Again. Why are they repeatedly poking a stick in their own eye and then
wonder why people jump all over them? Things were just going well after the
last fiasco.

What is RAID? I tried looking it up and the Wikipedia explanation just
confirmed how ignorant I am.

In short, it lets one hard drive mirror itself in two or more hard drives, this
was originally for servers and database safety, if my memory serves.

The other advantage is faster startups and file work because head
movement is less.