[markguy]

... which I do realize doesn't really call for a "versus."

The short version of my question is: why would you select XBMC Live over XBMC for Linux? Is it just to boot from DVD/USB drive, to avoid the power draw/heat of a HDD? Is there some speed advantage?

I didn't see anything in the wiki, nor did a sloppy search uncover anything in the forums. I began wondering while researching the best way to autoboot into XBMC, thinking Live might have an advantage there (which I haven't been able to determine either).

In any case, I appreciate anyone's insight and/or pointing out relevant documentation!

[natethomas]

The most obvious reason is because you are a linux noob. With live, you should theoretically not have to ever touch anything outside the XBMC system. You are essentially turning your little computer into an appliance.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but that's a huge one.

[idlehands]

I put the live image on a usb key, then installed from that to standalone on another usb image.
I'm assuming that the live image is mostly configured and doesn't have a lot of other unnecessary stuff with it.

I'm not a linux noob, I was just lazy ha-hah.