Two Reviews of Debian 3.0

Interesting review by pope+nihil · 2002-10-20 14:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

An unflattering review from debianplanet. Nice. Maybe this will actually motivate some of the debian guys to fix the distribution. I really enjoy debian when it works, and when the software is moderately up to date. I used to use the unstable version, but even that started getting where it uses way out of date software.

Re:Interesting review by AvitarX · 2002-10-20 14:13 · Score: 2

I totally agree. I tayed with knoppix and felt the KDE 3.0 goodness, and was like yay. Then I switched to redhat 7.highest number, and liked it, favoring gnome 2.0. Then I went to mandrake nine for I forget why (I think I read that the new compiler made it faster). Even SID was way behind these guys (Though it seemed that gnome 2.0 stuff was slowly moving in).

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:Interesting review by barawn · 2002-10-20 15:02 · Score: 2

To be honest, I would imagine that few if any people use dselect - it's horrible. Synaptic, aptitude, etc. are all much better package managers. But still, I don't know why people would use anything except apt-get. Need to know what packages are available? Why? That's what the Web is for. If you know what program you want, you know the name of it, and you can nine times out of ten apt-get install it.

Debian's main strength is the fact that the systems are all the same, regardless of who's actually running them. Debian stable has basically the same set of libraries and program versions as any other Debian stable version, and so if a program runs on one system, it'll run on another as well. You could say this about Red Hat, but Red Hat packages are simply not of the same quality as Debian packages are. Debian packages just work.
Re:Interesting review by peeping_Thomist · 2002-10-20 15:17 · Score: 5, Informative

Need to know what packages are available?

apt-cache is pretty useful as a search utility. "apt-cache search " usually gives me what I need.

--
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
Re:Interesting review by Malcontent · 2002-10-20 15:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

The problems of debian are obvious and easy to fix. The reason debian packages are old is because there are too many of them. There are thousands of packages in the debian system and there are very strict rules as to when they are declared to be stable. This means that no matter what package you install into a debian stable system you are guranteed all dependent packages are available and more importantly that package will never ever brak your system. This applies no matter what your CPU or architecture is.

The problem is that this is a herculean task and although debian does a decent job it's a futile task.

IMHO debian should do the following.

Trim down the list of "official" packages drastically. Take only the best 100 or so packages and concentrate on them exclusively. The rest of the packaged can be treated as "add on" and should be put on separate servers. The users can choose to add them to their apt.sources or not and if they do there are no guarantees.

This will allow the debian package mainters to concentrate on a drastically smaller list and make sure the bugs are cleared up rapidly.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Interesting review by Permission+Denied · 2002-10-20 16:31 · Score: 5, Funny

the developers see my PhD and know that I mean business and they usually agree with my complaint and say they'll fix it.
Oh. My. God. Moderators on crack.
This guy is a troll. Look at his previous posts. Look at this one and this one. Now, look at this guy's posting history.
Read his comment again. Does it contain any content? No, it does not. It makes a few obtuse, generic, meaningless comments with no specifics. He gets a +5 for claiming to have a PhD?
Well, I have an IQ of 156, a PhD, a JD, an MD, a CCIE, and I've been using Linux since before kernel 0.01. I like dselect. Moderate away.
Re:Interesting review by Permission+Denied · 2002-10-20 17:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

You seem to have added him to your friends, though, possibly in error?
No, actually that was intentional. He's the kind of troll that I like: the old-style troll like you would find on usenet. The idea is that you post something which seems meaningful and controversial to newbies, but which is immediately recognized as utter bullshit by the clueful.
This is funny. For instance, look at this post. I still laugh at that when I look back: "just in time assembling?!" What really gets me is that someone may have taken that BS seriously (I can just imagine someone nodding vigorously in agreement, afraid to admit that they've never heard of "pipeline overflow caching"). This would be even better in person, eg. as the subject of conversation at a high-brow pseudo-intellectualist dinner party.
Now, when people start taking him seriously, that makes me look bad since I also post to this website.
Re:Interesting review by reverius · 2002-10-20 19:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Trimming Debian down to a really small distribution with add-ons would pretty much destroy the usefulness and stability of Debian as it exists now. I love debian and use it every day; I have since I first tried version 2.1. I never use outside packages, and wouldn't even consider it. The way the entire distribution works is phenominal - it is a Zen-like experience just to use a perfectly-running Debian system.

It would be impossible to trim it down, because as soon as you put something in an "add-on" third party source instead of the core distribution, it loses its credibility. Sure, there's a chance it will function properly with the entire distribution, but it's not thorougly tested the way the current Debian distribution is. Bottom line is, the extreme testing length and size of the distribution are not negative characteristics of Debian - they are intended. For me, it's a perfect distribution. I'd much rather apt-get something from ftp.us.debian.org and know for sure that it's going to work perfectly than apt-get it from a third-party source and have a newer version.

I went through that once, using Ximian Gnome on Debian 2.2 (yes, it actually is one of the distributions supported by Ximian). Their packages worked... for the most part. But they had their little quirks and bugs, mostly due to interoperability with the rest of the distribution. It turned Debian into what every other distribution already is - a mostly up-to-date buggy and quirky mass of packages. I'll take an infinitely stable and well-working organized system of old packages any day. Choose a distribution. Debian's purpose is to be old and stable. I use it. You don't have to.
Re:Interesting review by Stephen · 2002-10-20 21:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

IMHO debian should do the following. Trim down the list of "official" packages drastically. Take only the best 100 or so packages and concentrate on them exclusively. The rest of the packaged can be treated as "add on" and should be put on separate servers. The users can choose to add them to their apt.sources or not and if they do there are no guarantees.
I strongly disagree with this. One of the biggest advantages of Debian is that every package is an official package, and has to conform to the same standards as every other package; and all the packages have to work together.
Compare that with the variable quality of Redhat contrib. The program I'm the author of had a security bug and I still couldn't get Redhat to pull the contrib packages until someone volunteered to package a newer version several months later.

--
11.00100100001111110110101010001000100001011010001 1000010001101001100010011
Re:Interesting review by dvdeug · 2002-10-20 22:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Trim down the list of "official" packages drastically. Take only the best 100 or so packages and concentrate on them exclusively.

Go for it. You're more than welcome to make your own group and do so, even starting from Debian if you want. ("Debian is 100% Free software", line one of our social contract.) But that's not what developers are lining up to work on, and I suspect that's not what developers are signing up to use. I have 1300 packages installed, and it's nice to know they're all held to the same level of quality with bug tracking system.
Re:Interesting review by Col.+Klink+(retired) · 2002-10-20 23:15 · Score: 2

So then I can have a perfectly stable machine, unless I try and do something useful with it. No thanks.

> make sure the bugs are cleared up rapidly.

You propose clearing up the bugs rapidly by ignoring 90% of them? Are you sure you don't work for MicroSoft?

I supposed if Debian were a commercial distribution that had a marketing department, this is exactly what they'd do. How fortunate that the people building Debian are also their most important customers who wouldn't be easily fooled into thinking their distribution was more stable by fixing fewer bugs.

--
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Re:Interesting review by frozencesium · 2002-10-21 01:04 · Score: 2, Informative

This has probably been said before, but what about the nice pretty gui front-ends for the apt/dpkg system? I mean, gnome-apt, kpackage...
with these tools not only can you see a list of availible packages, but you can search through package names, their content, a few other things.
I know there are other tools out there, but if you are running a gui, these tools make installing new packages and even searching for a package that performs a certian function (but that you may not know the name of) a breeze!
just my $0.02...
-frozen

--
I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
Re:Interesting review by Pii · 2002-10-21 02:53 · Score: 5, Informative

Jumping in late, I know...
I'm not entirely comfortable with the premise of this review. Thi author prefaces the review with this:
This is a critical review of Debian 3.0, but I want to say right from the start that I'm not trying to bait anyone. However I feel that reviewers often root for Debian as the open-source underdog, and give it marks which it doesn't deserve. If RedHat 8.0 came out with installation software like Debian 3.0 it would be savaged. I think it's time for an honest review, to spur the Debian developers into making the best possible distribution. I really want Debian to succeed. I want to use it daily, and recommend it to my friends. But I can't do that right now and I think it's important people understand why.

The Redhats and Mandrakes of the world are dependant upon user adoption because they have a financial interest at stake. User adoption means increased revenue, and with that, provided they run their business well, financial success.
In courting users, Corporate Linux vendors have to appeal to as broad a cross-section as they can, in an effort to become all things to all people. There's nothing wrong with this, and I applaud their efforts, but there's no reason to hold Debian to the same standard as distributions with mass-market appeal.
The Debian project does not cater to the same people, nor are it's goals in line with these other Linux distributions. Those of us that choose to run Debian tend to look at issues other than "ease of installation," or "latest and greatest" software packages.
It is far closer to a server-class distribution than these others can claim to be, in my opinion.
When I'm looking to play Quake III, I don't install it on my server. I install it on my desktop system, where I run Mandrake.
When I want to ensure that my infrastructure is sound and stable, I run Debian. I want my upgrades to come off without a hitch. I want to upgrade in place, with little to no downtime. I don't want to worry about dependencies that need to be satisfied. I want it all to happen cleanly, and efficiently.
Debian is unmatched when viewed from that perspective. If the Developers decide to allocate their time and resources toward a fancy installation routine, that's fine, but it's not what concerns me most. I hope they never sacrifice the things they do well so that they can chase after the userbase. It's a niche distribution that suits me just fine the way it is.

--
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
Re:Interesting review by Malcontent · 2002-10-21 14:32 · Score: 2

"It would be impossible to trim it down, because as soon as you put something in an "add-on" third party source instead of the core distribution, it loses its credibility."

The hard fact is that there are only so many volunteers and the list of packages keeps growing. Something has to give sometime.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Interesting review by Malcontent · 2002-10-21 14:39 · Score: 2

"You propose clearing up the bugs rapidly by ignoring 90% of them? Are you sure you don't work for MicroSoft?"

Yes to the first part and no to the second. Otherwise you are left with the current situation where a bug in some obscure package will hold up the entire distribution. It's especially onerous if the hold up is due to a bug in an architecture that is not widely used. Not to pick on them but do you really want the next version of debian held up until some bug in mod_midgard gets cleared up?

I say trim the core down to the packages that most people use and leave the rest as "contrib". If you stick with the approved list you are set if you use contrib you take your chances.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Interesting review by Col.+Klink+(retired) · 2002-10-21 14:44 · Score: 2

In the past, release-critical bugs in obscure packages resulted in obscure packages being dropped from testing.

--
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Re:Interesting review by Reziac · 2002-10-22 03:00 · Score: 2

I can see both points of view (to package or not to package) but perhaps from a workload standpoint for the Debian folks, it would make more sense to tier them within the distribution, so you've got the 100 or so that are absolutely A+ quality, then the 500 or so that are good but maybe not quite AS good, then the 500 or so that are "okay" but haven't had quite the proofing (and regardless of how good their bug tracking is, I have to think there is already some internal prioritizing along these lines, simply to keep things manageable). That way everyone gets whatever they want and the Debian people don't go insane trying to keep up.

Just trying to generate some sort of compromise idea, feel free to mangle and savage it. :)

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Interesting review by dvdeug · 2002-10-22 07:13 · Score: 2

and regardless of how good their bug tracking is, I have to think there is already some internal prioritizing along these lines, simply to keep things manageable

Ah. You don't understand how Debian works then. With the exception of a few important packages, each package has one maintainer. (Many important packages have a team of maintainers, and standby co-maintainer is becoming more popular.) A maintainer basically has total control over his or her packages, and each maintainer has control over as many packages as they feel they can manage. There have been and probably are very important packages that are poorly maintained because the maintiner doesn't have the time to keep up with them. There are many minor packages that have any bugs fixed promptly and are in perfect condition, because the maintainer has the time and interest to do so.

Anyone can send patches to fix the packages to the BTS, and another maintainer can upload a package if the packages needs a bugfix (but woe unto those who would do it carelessly or for trivial reasons), and there's policy that must (should - can?) be followed, but the maintainer has ultimate and almost total responsiblity for the package, and handle all the work and bugs on that package.

(For example, if you send a bug in on display-dhammapada, I handle it. I may consult with upstream or other maintainers, but the job of dealing with it for Debian is mine. If you have a bug on any of the X packages, Branden Robinson handles it. There's a lot of people who help him, but the decisions and most of the work is by him. (It's an unenviable position, but he does it well.))
Re:Interesting review by Reziac · 2002-10-23 03:03 · Score: 2

Ah, thanks for the info re how Debian packages are maintained. I hadn't looked into the guts of it, tho I have noticed it seems to be the disty of choice to base things on when someone wants to make a whole new monkey.

Anyway.. given that each is essentially an independent vendor, and your comments about how quality control can range from poor to terrific -- how is the end user to know which packages are "completely reliable" and which are "use at your own risk"??

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Interesting review by dvdeug · 2002-10-23 06:07 · Score: 2

how is the end user to know which packages are "completely reliable" and which are "use at your own risk"??

Every package in unstable is "use at your own risk". Anytime you upgrade to unstable, you're running a risk of your new libc not working or something else going terribly wrong. (I once spent a Saturday, trying to figure out why I couldn't login. A mistake in the last consoletools package changed my keymap to French, which doesn't affect any letters in dvdeug, but did affect some in my password.)

As for testing or a stable release, that's what the bug tracking system is there for. When you submit a bug on a package, you choose a severity, and high enough severities can prevent a package from going into testing or being released. The definition of "serious" is "should not be included in a release".

Overall, it works fairly well. Most people I know think it works better than Redhat contrib for most things, and I'd bet there's when Redhat (especially Redhat main) produces better stuff.
Re:Interesting review by Reziac · 2002-10-23 07:16 · Score: 2

Thanks for the info. Personally I value "never having to fix the damned thing again once I've got it running" so I'm not likely to ever try an unstable release :)

I'm curious about something else, tho. So the person reporting a bug defines the seriousness of said bug? Are there any standards for "how serious is serious", such as fatal=wipes HD, serious=eats files, mild=occasional crashes (making these up but you get the idea).

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

Debian is rock solid but the install ... by alexandre · 2002-10-20 14:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

As a long time debian user i must say that i would never want to go back to other packaging system (for now at least)... But when it comes to trying to install a _NEW_ computer for some friends, i usually try debian first and since i can't stay there to tweak everything for hours (which i would do at home since once done your system is constently kept up to date for years), i usually have to throw a redhat or mandrake at them :-/ conclusion: Debian rocks if you can get it installed and know linux well... maybe not the best thing for starters unfortunetaly..(not wanting to scare anyone ... not too fast ;-)

Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by espresso_now · 2002-10-20 14:15 · Score: 2, Offtopic

Check out Gentoo Linux. It uses a package system called Portage that is similar to FreeBSD's "Ports" system. Basically, you run "emerge apps-editors/vim" to automatically build Vim for you, it will also download and build any dependancies required too! The only downside is it will take a while to build X, or any other large package(Gnome, KDE, etc).

--
Of course, and I highly suspect it, I may be talking out of my ass. -oqti
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by Chris_Stankowitz · 2002-10-20 14:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think there is something to be said for a Distro that if not by design at least by default is geared to those with a little more linux knowledge under their belt. There are still more linux Distros than users and they shouldn't all need to be designed to "steal" MS users. As far as up-to-date software, I have to admit that I have a RH 5.0 box running with some pretty old ftp software on it that is still rock solid.
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by alexandre · 2002-10-20 14:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

thats the main reason why i didn't like the BSD /ports... having to compile a whole batch of file (like when you dist-upgrade) would use the power of your slow machines until the next upgrade :-) I still think that it is probably the second-best way to do it though... i first learned linux on redhat and having to _seek_ upgrade on the web really is a huge p.i.t.a ... i wonder what is happening these days with redhat and mandrake, do they have free-internet-ready (buzzwords! :) upgrades? (like a apt-get dist-upgrade?)
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by GreyWolf3000 · 2002-10-20 14:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Never fails. Every time Debian or the coolness therein is mentioned anywhere, some Gentoo user always throws a sales pitch.
I have great respect for your distro and your developers (from your ml's it's painfully obvious that you guys are making a fine distro), but I, and I don't think I'm alone here, find the one-or-two zealots that run around /., web boards, and mls screaming for p.r., really annoying.
We know Gentoo's good. We get the message. We know that you have every reason to be excited. Please, though, stop evangelizing.
I know this is flamebait, but I think a lot of people are sick of this besides me, so I'll take the karma hit if necessary.

--
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by rizzo420 · 2002-10-20 14:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

i find this funny. i'm not primarily a computer geek or linux geek. i come from a strong windows background. a good friend of mine uses linux a lot and i wanted to try something different. so one day he came over and helped me install linux. his first question was "what distribution do you want?" and i was like "uhhhh... what do you use?" and he said "debian, but this other guy thinks you might be better off with red hat because it's easier" and i said "i want debian". he helped a lot with the first install, but didn't completely do it on his own, he taught me. i had it dual-booting win98 and debian for a while, but things got a little crazy and i wanted a larger partition for debian, so i decided to reformat and repartition everything. i installed win98 no problem (i've done that many times before), but i wanted to install debian. i did it on my own this time. ran into a couple problems, but in the end i got the system up and running no problem. i use the network install from teh floppies, i find that to work the best. it's quick and easy. the article says that the installation system and the configuration are difficult. i had no problems whatsoever. i have compiled kernels and stuff no problem. i don't see why people shy away from debian because of the installation system. i think it's great. very simplistic. not every distro has to be for converted windows users. i didn't know linux well, i still don't know all that much, but this is now 3 years later. i guess i have had as much linux experience as the guy that wrote the debian planet review. i learned first on debian. that might be the problem some people have, they don't just throw themselves into it. i think if they were to, they'd find that they could learn more quickly.

MiniLaz, my linux box...

--
please me, have no regrets.
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by isdnip · 2002-10-20 14:48 · Score: 2

I've never installed Debian, though these reviews gave me a good idea of the flavor. (And I did install Yggdrasil on a 386SX back in, oh, 1983 or so. I know my own hardware pretty well.) Debian's sounds tricky and confusing.

But at least it's an installer. I installed Gentoo 1.1a a few months ago to see what the buzz was about. It doesn't even have an installer! Gentoo's installation is, I suppose, based most closely on Linux From Scratch. It was a bunch of instructions about how to fetch this package and have portage install it, then use nano to write this or that configuration file, etc. So by contrast, Debian 3.0 sounds pretty easy.

But in the meantime I'm using Mandrake 9.0, which may mark me as Fat, Dumb and Lazy but it does get an awful lot of software up and running very easily.
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by GreyWolf3000 · 2002-10-20 14:56 · Score: 2

The parent was merely the straw that broke the camel's back--I hate how *every* opportunity to point out the merits of their distro is taken swiftly. We all know gentoo is cool.

--
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by Otter · 2002-10-20 15:02 · Score: 2

As a long time debian user i must say that i would never want to go back to other packaging system (for now at least)...
On the other hand, as a Yellow Dog and MacOS X user, I get the benefits of apt-get without having to deal with Debian. It's a great system, no question, but Debian is no longer the only way to enjoy it. I'm looking forward to giving Conectiva a try...

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by barawn · 2002-10-20 15:08 · Score: 2

Hence the beauty of a Debian system. With a little effort, it's pretty easy for a Debian system to be set up to auto-update itself with security patches (it takes a little effort, but not much). Debian puts out security patches just about the fastest of anyone out there, and so a Debian box can basically always be secure, if configured right.

You could do the same with other systems, as well, but there're several benefits for Debian - one, the servers are ungodly fast (at least for me they are...) and setting up mirrors is easy. I know Red Hat and other distros have been creating apt clones (urpmi and up2date) but I don't know how they compare.
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by barawn · 2002-10-20 15:16 · Score: 2

Yah, you can apt-get install kudzu. Along with sndconfig, linuxconf, and just about every other Red Hat tool, which is really nice. :) What I'd like to have is a page in the manual which says "You want this? Do this." I still usually use printtool to set up printers on Debian systems (why not? it works).

I completely agree about Debian's customizability though. For crying out loud, if the computer is on the Net constantly (which many of them are), you don't actually NEED software installed on your computer if you're not going to use it. Red Hat ships with bunches of servers disabled - why have them installed if they're disabled?

As per knowing exactly what hardware you have, modules, etc., I still don't see that as a bad thing. It means that the system will always work, as opposed to other distributions where it's magic whether or not things work. Personally, I think Debian's main strength is the fact that it doesn't have those tools - you're only using the programs the way they're supposed to be used.

That being said, there could be tools to set things up, yes, so long as they don't do strange things to the actual configuration files. Take etherconf, for instance - it's not bad.
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by silicon_synapse · 2002-10-20 15:35 · Score: 2, Informative

I hate how *every* opportunity to point out the merits of their distro is taken swiftly. We all know gentoo is cool.

True, but you should really give libranet a try. It's like a softer, friendlier Debian.
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by entrylevel · 2002-10-20 15:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't know about all these Debian installer complaints. Of course I might be using a different installer than the rest of you. I went over to http://debian-imac.sf.net/ and grabbed the woody installer. It was high time I got my poor server off of potato with home-brewed debs and little bits and pieces of SID. The server is a Power Mac 6500/225 603e, with a paltry 64MB/4GB.

Guess how long it took me to yank it out of the closet, hook up a monitor and keyboard, install Debian, and get it back in the closet? 7 minutes and 47 seconds! Granted this was just the base system, but all in all it took me less than 5 minutes to install this bad boy, as opposed to about an hour for YDL, RedHat, Mandrake, OS X, OS 9, etc. I love the text-based installer, and wouldn't ask for it any other way.

People complaining about the X install process should realize that they can basically ignore debconf and use xviddetect or any other number of video card detection utilities afterwards.

I would never recommend Debian to anyone who doesn't have at least intermediate Linux knowledge, but then again I would never recommend Linux to anyone who doesn't have at least basic *NIX knowledge (or really wants to learn). People who just want word processing and e-mail can do that fine on there old operating systems and hardware.

Finally, it strikes me as somewhat disturbing that Linux newbies are so numerous now that they are now posting negative reviews of "expert" Linux distros. It's not so much that they get posted that annoys me, as everyone has the right to opinion and free speech. What really bugs me is that they are being taken so seriously. The crowd here at /. has got to see how ironic it is that Lycoris and Lindows are seen as too dumbed down for us to use, but Debian is too hard for new users. I think it's great that Linux is finally gaining more casual users, but they must realize that this is what free as in speech is all about. They also must realize that THERE IS NO FREE BEER!

--
Karma: Incomprehensible (Mostly affected by posting at +5, reading at -1, and metamoderating everything unfair.)
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by Wdomburg · 2002-10-20 18:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

>I personally like the install. Unlike some
>distros (cough..Red Hat...cough) it totally lets
>me in control.

What in particular do you think you can't control in a Red Hat install? If you don't like what's available in the installer you can even switch over to the command prompt and do things manually.

>I decide exactly how I partition my drive, which
>partitions I format, and which I mount and how.

You can do that all in Red Hat as well.

>And then, it install ONLY what I tell it to
>install, no megs and megs of junk you never use
>(again, Red Hat is especially nasty in this area.)

The base package list for Red Hat is actually pretty lean. About 150 packages, totalling a bit over 100MB. There's some stuff which isn't strictly necessary (tcsh, gpm, slocate) and some stuff which isn't necessary for every system (raidtools, hotplug, dhcpd).

I don't really consider it a drawback to include some low level utiltiies that might be useful on some systems or later on in a systems life. And honestly, the savings of a couple megs of disk space isn't worth the risk of relying on users to actually know if they need particular tools and the hassle on the users part of having to go through the list.

Even better, if it bugs you THAT much, you can unpack the CDs, remove the packages you don't want in the install from the RedHat/base/comps file, and use that as your install server. We do that where I work because we have our own packages that we want as part of the base install and also wanted to pull out a couple things (gpm is useless on racks of headless servers, for example).

>And it's great for older computers, unlike that
>other distro!!!

Resource requirements have very little to do with your distribution. It's the software that you're going to be running that is the issue.

Matt
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by Wdomburg · 2002-10-20 18:22 · Score: 2

>Red Hat ships with bunches of servers disabled -
>why have them installed if they're disabled?

The only daemons installed as part of base are apmd, atd, crond, sendmail, and syslogd. These are all system level daemons that required on a normal distribution. (Note - Sendmail is configured to only accept local connections by default).

Matt
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by Permission+Denied · 2002-10-20 18:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

the main reason why i didn't like the BSD /ports... having to compile a whole batch of file
It is indeed a pain sometimes. If it's only a few ports, you can create a binary installation thing (sort of like an rpm or a deb) like this:
pkg_create -b zsh-4.0.4 /tmp/zsh.pkg
Idea is, you download and install your ports on a big fast machine and then you can just install the binaries on the slower machines by copying over the package and doing something like this:
pkg_add zsh.pkg.tgz
You can, of course, script this if it's a larger number of packages (another trick: export /usr/obj via NFS). Theoretically, you could just distribute the pkg.tgz files to FreeBSD and do away with cvsup and ports, as these pkg files know about dependencies and whatnot. The reason nobody does that is because it's useful to always have the source code and it's useful to build all your software from source (so you can control compilation flags).
I still prefer ports and build world to all the linux "package management" stuff because I actually use the source: if there's a really nasty bug that I need to trace down into libc, just cd /usr/src/sys/lib/libc. If I want to add a switch to "find" cd /usr/src/usr.bin/find. If I don't like the compilation flags for mutt, cd /usr/ports/mail/mutt/work. This happens often enough that I don't want to have to deal with searching the web for srpms and whatnot (I always want the source right there with the binary).
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by llin · 2002-10-20 20:26 · Score: 2, Informative

Yep, I recently switched to Gentoo and have been loving it. More customizable than Debian, and Portage is *much* more up to date than Debian's package trees.

The install procedure, however, isn't exactly newbie-friendly.
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by barawn · 2002-10-20 23:52 · Score: 2

If you install telnet server, it disables it by default. Same with ftp - ftpd is currently installed on the one Red Hat machine I deal with, and it's disabled.
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by Wdomburg · 2002-10-21 00:39 · Score: 2

>If you install telnet server, it disables it by
>default. Same with ftp - ftpd is currently
>installed on the one Red Hat machine I deal with,
>and it's disabled.

There's a couple reasons I can think of that make this Correct Behaviour - a) daemons should remain disabled until such time the admin has configured them, and b) it is far from uncommon for newbies to install software without knowing what it is (e.g. "install everything").

And of course if Red Hat didn't do this, you'd have the hordes of Red Hat haters screaming "Root Hat"... Oh wait, they do that anyways, despite a default configuration leaving services off and firewalling off any incoming connections.

Matt
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by evilpenguin · 2002-10-21 02:56 · Score: 2

Not to nit-pick, but I hope you mean 1993 or so. We didn't have Linux, Yggdrasil, or 386SX's in 1983.
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by barawn · 2002-10-21 09:05 · Score: 2

"Daemons should remain disabled until such time as the admin has configured them" - if the admin is installing it, obviously he wants to configure it, right? Do both in the same step.

"It is far from uncommon for newbies to install software without knowing what it is" - this isn't intelligent behavior. Retrain them.

Really, what would happen if Red Hat had a package management system as easy as apt, and didn't ship telnetd? Who'd complain?
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by Wdomburg · 2002-10-21 09:13 · Score: 2

>That may be true, but to get more you have to rpm
>-i stuff, oh no, it needs these dependencies,
>install that, bla bla. To get a good desktop
>(Gnome or KDE) at install time you need to install
>tons of junk.

That's going to be true regardless of what distribution you install Gnome or KDE on. There are very few false dependencies in Red Hat, and they will remove them if you find them (for example, I noticed an unnecessary dependency in etherereal on 7.2, filed a bug report, and it was fixed in the next package release).

>I tried installing RedHat on a 800 meg hard
>drive. Couldn't get a decent desktop. It was a
>lot of hassle selecting the packages too,
>selecting general things, then unchecking junk I
>don't want, etc. Much easier in Debian, just
>apt-get what you want.

If you're doing this during the install, select the packages you want, and let it resolve the dependencies for you. So far as I know (I haven't installed it anywhere yet) this capability is in RPM itself now.

Other RPM frontends (Red Carpet, urpmi, apt-rpm, etc) have implemented this for quite a while now.

>Yeah, but hard drive space is a big issue.

The disk space required by a particular package is barely affected by distribution as well.

>And it's true, you can disable init scripts you
>don't want starting up (I do that a little with
>Debian,) but why have em there in the first
>place? What desktop user needs a NFS server,
>gimme a break?

The NFS server is part of the "NFS File Server" package group, which isn't selected by default. In fact, in the default and workstation installs NO servers are installed.

>It just took FOREVER for RedHat to start up on an
>old computer I installed it on once.

Which version of Red Hat, and what software is installed? Unless you're starting a lot of daemons (which it won't by default) or have something misconfigured, it doesn't take appreciatively longer than any other distribution.

>(Side note, who's idea was it to run depmod
> -a on every start up anyway?)

It runs depmod -A, not depmod -a. This uses timestamps to determine if it should actually update anything, so typically runs in less than a second.

Matt
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by Wdomburg · 2002-10-21 09:30 · Score: 2

>if the admin is installing it, obviously he wants
>to configure it, right? Do both in the same step.

Configuring for a new service might include modifying tcp wrapper configurations, firewall rules, etc as well as configuring the service. Or maybe you'd like a chance to patch the server before you start enabling services.

It's really NOT that big a deal to type "chkconfig on" to enable it when you've got the system ready. I swear.

>"It is far from uncommon for newbies to install
>software without knowing what it is" - this isn't
>intelligent behavior. Retrain them.

Why should it be Red Hat's responsibility to train everyone who buys or even downloads their distribution? And how do you propose they do it?

Besides, how many people started calling them "Root Hat" (oh, that is just so witty I can't stand it) when they left more services on by default?

>Really, what would happen if Red Hat had a
>package management system as easy as apt, and
>didn't ship telnetd? Who'd complain?

I personally find the apt v. rpm argument silly, so I'm not going to comment on that.

What is wrong with the current setup (not installing telnet unless you specifically ask for a server install or choose it explicitely)? What would be the point of changing that?

Matt
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by MobyTurbo · 2002-10-21 11:48 · Score: 2

thats the main reason why i didn't like the BSD /ports... having to compile a whole batch of file (like when you dist-upgrade) would use the power of your slow machines until the next upgrade :-)
You can always use pkg_add (on FreeBSD the syntax is pkg_add -r) instead and download binary packages with auto-resolved dependencies like apt-get. You can even install Debian's tools on BSD yourself if that's what floats your boat, there's such a thing as Debian GNU/NetBSD No, I am not making the name up. ;-)
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by barawn · 2002-10-21 16:39 · Score: 2

Configuring for a new service might include modifying tcp wrapper configurations, firewall rules, etc as well as configuring the service. Or maybe you'd like a chance to patch the server before you start enabling services.

Yes. All this should be done when you install telnetd - it's just a "preconfigure" script. My point (that you haven't addressed yet) is that there is no need to actually have telnetd installed without it being activated. It doesn't do anything. At all. Nothing. It is sitting there, taking up space. This is why configuring and installing should be done in one step, not two separate steps.

Why should it be Red Hat's responsibility to train everyone who buys or even downloads their distribution? And how do you propose they do it?

Um, training people who run operating systems is one of the basic functions of the operating system creator. You want to make people more fluent in using the operating system - i.e., the computer. By the logic you're using, it's not Red Hat's responsibility to teach (remind) people to download patches, etc.

If something isn't safe, don't have it even available at the default install. The default install should be to get the system up and running, not to install every piece of software you need. This is good debugging/testing practice - start minimal, and add things from there. That way you know when things break. So when people say "Install everything", okay, install everything that's safe. If you're going to deactivate something don't install it. Heck, that way they can't "accidentally" activate it without specifically knowing what they're doing.

Besides, how many people started calling them "Root Hat" (oh, that is just so witty I can't stand it) when they left more services on by default?

I am not saying they should leave services on. What I am saying is if you are going to turn them off, don't install them. There's no point to it.

And the apt comment was because Red Hat's package management system wasn't always so easy that you could just say "install telnet". If you're going to force users to configure telnet for it to be useful, why not just tack on the added cost of installing it as well? This way it saves them the disk space, and the hassle of not understanding why telnet doesn't work.
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... by Wdomburg · 2002-10-21 23:57 · Score: 2

>Yes. All this should be done when you install
>telnetd - it's just a "preconfigure" script.

The Red Hat policy is not to have packages require user interaction, and I happen to agree with this.
When you manage more than a single machine, being able to install packages unattended is a big deal.

Besides, why the hell would I want every single network related package to configure firewalling, access rules and attempt to download packages? It's much easier to do that all in one step.

>My point (that you haven't addressed yet) is that
>there is no need to actually have telnetd
>installed without it being activated. It doesn't
>to anything. At all. Nothing. It is sitting >there, taking up space. This is why configuring
>and installing should be done in one step, not
>two separate steps.

If you don't want it installed... don't choose to install it. Simple, eh?

You're also ignoring the possibility that I might have a daemon that I enable only for testing purposes at various times.

>Um, training people who run operating systems is
>one of the basic functions of the operating
>system creator. You want to make people more
>fluent in using the operating system - i.e., the
>computer.

No, providing reasonable default behaviour and documentation is a basic function of the operating system vendor.

There is no way that a vendor can force a user to learn anything (especially something as tedious as good administration policy).

>By the logic you're using, it's not Red Hat's
>responsibility to teach (remind) people to
>download patches, etc.

Nope. They provide an automated process for doing that, since you can't trust that the average user will pay attention to any warnings you give them on the subject. They also firewall off any incoming connections by default so that, unless a user decides to change things, they're not vulnerable to remote exploits in the first place.

>If something isn't safe, don't have it even
>available at the default install.

It's not a simple black/white issue. If a given piece of software is inherently unsafe, it shouldn't be available at all.

>The default install should be to get the system
>up and running, not to install every piece of
>software you need.

The default install *is* just that. There is an option for more, which is a matter of convienence for those people who know what they need ahead of time.

There is very little to be gained from forcing some software to be installed after the installation.

>This is good debugging/testing practice - start
>minimal, and add things from there. That way you
>know when things break.

The only time one package should have the chance of breaking another is if its a dependency. In which case it needs to be installed anyways.

Even if you did conjecture that unrelated packages could somehow break one another, you're ignoring the fact that the market that Red Hat is targeting is businesses, who will be QAing a full platform including all the software they need.

>So when people say "Install everything", okay, >install everything that's safe.

That wouldn't be everything, now would it? There's already an option for installing predefined subsets of packages.

>If you're going to deactivate something don't
>install it. Heck, that way they can't
>"accidentally" activate it without specifically
>knowing what they're doing.

It's pretty difficult to "accidently" activate a service.

As I said, as a matter of policy it makes sense to allow an administrator to make sure a system is configured to his liking BEFORE a service is activated, and I don't think its feasible (or desirable) for install scripts to try and divine what tasks might be performed for configuration.

>I am not saying they should leave services on.
>What I am saying is if you are going to turn
>them off, don't install them. There's no point to
>it.

Sure there is. Our standard builds at work have a specified subset of services which get installed.
Before they are activated, they need configuration files rsynced to them. Once that's done, they can be enabled.

>If you're going to force users to configure
>telnet for it to be useful, why not just tack on
>the added cost of installing it as well?

They already have the added cost of installing it... in the installer, of all places. :)

Having it done post install requires one of several things:

a) Red Hat runs a free service similar to apt.
This would cost them money and give them
little to no real benefit.

b) The user would have to run an server that
provides similar functionality. Not really
feasible for a home user.

c) The user would have to copy every RPM to
his hard disk on the off chance that he might
want it later. This negates the "saves them
disk space" argument.

d) The user has to go through putting in at
least one, and up to three CDs during a post
install setup. This is a hassle and would
inevitably lead to the question "Why does
Red Hat make me do this? Mandrake/SuSE/etc
don't! Red Hat sUxx0rs d00d!"

>This way it saves them the disk space, and the
>hassle of not understanding why telnet doesn't
>work.

If a user doesn't know how to how to configure running services, they shouldn't be running them.

And for a user who wants to system to learn on/test on/play with, there may be good reasons to have all the software readily available. Afterall, at current prices, a full install costs about $3 worth of hard drive space.

Matt

of course by waspleg · 2002-10-20 14:11 · Score: 2, Informative

the first AC bitchy nay-sayer didn't even bother to read the article

here is a quote from the first paragraph:

"I really want Debian to succeed. I want to use it daily, and recommend it to my friends. But I can't do that right now and I think it's important people understand why."

maybe you can get someone to read it for you (illiterate fuckwit)

install system by reverse+flow+reactor · 2002-10-20 14:12 · Score: 5, Informative

The article does discuss the Progeny Graphical Installer, which is being included in the next release. The last time I used this installer was roughly a year and a half ago. I could install a progeny 1.0 system in 25 minutes flat with this installer.

Yes, the current installer stinks, and it needs much work to catch up to Mandrake, Red Hat and SuSE. But to move from the progeny to potato to woody releases was as simple as changing my /etc/apt/sources.list to reflect the new base and downloading the updated packages.

However, I have not had to reinstall my primary system in a year and a half. I cannot say that for any other operating system. The stable archives work well together.

Debian: not for newbies. Higher learning curve than others. Worth learning if you want more control over your system.

--

The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. -Einstein

Re:install system by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-20 14:25 · Score: 5, Funny

The article does discuss the Progeny Graphical Installer, which is being included in the next release.

..and I look forward to using it, Fall 2006.
Re:install system by Skuld-Chan · 2002-10-20 14:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

I would agree to a certian extent. When I first started using debian is was all confusing, but after a while everything made sense. I fell into a kind of geek zen - now I know the system better then I did any redhat machine. There are things that make it easy - for instance all config files are in /etc

Now Redhat is hard to use.
Re:install system by barawn · 2002-10-20 15:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Red Hat and Mandrake are the "middle ones" - they're not terrible, but they're still a little strange.

For the direct opposite of Debian, take the "user-friendly" Linuxes - Lycoris, Lindows, etc. They strongly discourage the users using the actual configuration files, and instead have graphical setup programs for each one.

Red Hat is kindof the same - it's got tools which create the configuration files for you, but the worst part is the fact that it doesn't tell you what it's doing. Take kudzu, for instance. Yank an ethernet card, and put a new one in (which I did recently) - it successfully removed the configuration from the old card, and created a new configuration for the new card - except for the fact that it didn't change the alias for the module, so none of the actual changes actually happened. Whoops.

So what's the point of this example? A person who uses Red Hat would complain about kudzu not working correctly, which is correct - but the person is not debugging kudzu. They want to switch ethernet cards. So for Debian, the benefit is that they know directly where to look (well, if they ask around, that is). And there's no chance of ifconfig and route not working, because that's what all the other things use.

I think there's a strong benefit of using a system that's built solidly on the real workings of a Linux system, rather than tool upon tool upon tool. Less chance of things going wrong.

(Yes, this basically means I want Debian to stay user-unfriendly - at least by default. Have user friendly tools be available to install - like etherconf, printtool, etc.)

Anyway, the point is that the previous statement should've been that Debian forces you to take control over your system, whereas the others do not.
Re:install system by barawn · 2002-10-20 15:32 · Score: 2

What package are you talking about? I've never seen emacs included for any package at all, and vi (actually nvi) is included in the base system by default, because you need SOME editor. nvi is quite small, so it definitely isn't 20 meg.

I've really never seen a Debian package that didn't include a package that it really needs. If you found one, you really should've reported it as a bug. The few screwed up packages I've found were usually fixed within a few days.
Re:install system by wandernotlost · 2002-10-20 18:11 · Score: 2

Touché. On the other hand, I'm pretty happy with Debian's release priorities. They don't release until the distribution is solid. This means that I can trust it to run my server flawlessly for years. Servers don't like to be changed very often, anyway. I run testing on my laptop and find it to be a perfect balance between stability and currency.
Re:install system by Alan · 2002-10-20 18:59 · Score: 2

Same here. However, I'm guessing that like me, you are familiar with the debian installer, it's ins and outs, and have installed debian more than a couple of times, just like me.

I agree with the article, dselect sucks, the installer sucks, the packages are way out of date,etc (though I haven't seen the wierdness post install with bad fonts or windows way to wide and whatnot). HOWEVER.... those of us who use debian (though I am a recent convert to gentoo for my home box anyway), are used to these things and frankly, deal with them. Oh sure, people spout that you can just ask on #debian, or read the mailing lists, or whatever, but these are people like me who have installed deb many times and *know* the curveballs that it's going to throw.

Frankly I don't think I'd want my mostly-windows-but-dabbling-in-linux friends to install debian without confidence in their hacker-zen, simply because I know it sucks. However, I am happy with it, and am not sure I want it to turn into another redhat/suse/etc with graphical installer and drool-inspired install scripts.

Anyway, my $0.02... sorry to those who I wanted to mod on this story :)
Re:install system by Random+Walk · 2002-10-20 21:05 · Score: 2

I just installed four systems on my laptop: Debian, Redhat, Gentoo, and FreeBSD.
Debian: installed like a charm, network ok, X configuration ok, no problems at all.
Redhat: (a) installer died when probing the X configuration (on two years old hardware). Any newbie would have thrown it out of the window at that point ...
(b) I did not have too much diskspace for each system (about one Gb), and it was very difficult to trim down the bloat. I wasn't really successful (everything depends on python and gnome and hundreds of obscure libraries), did not have too much time to sort it out (few hours), and ended up with some missing functionality (the system is so bloated that with one Gb, you still cannot run the graphical network config tool :(
Gentoo: network (PCMCIA ethernet card) did not come up. On the mailing list, I found a workaround for the problem. Installation went on fine, except that I needed about half a Gb for compiling X and that installed daemons by default are not set up to start on boot (somewhat irritating). Could not compile a working kernel, until I figured out that I had to disable USB, but that is probably not Gentoos fault.
FreeBSD: (I) install kernel did not boot, needed to disable drivers manually
(Ia) keymap was not configured when manual intervention was needed first (see above). I have a german keyboard, i.e. 'y' and 'z' are exchanged. Result: the system appeared to hang when I typed 'y' - no error message. Very irritating, took some time to figure out.
(Ib) When 'sysinstall' finally came up, I could choose a keymap, but it did not work. On my laptop, some keys double as numerical keypad, and for all these keys, only the numerical function worked. Very annoying (it worked, however, after the first reboot).
(II) I run out of free inodes when compiling the kernel. The installation instructions did not explain that FreeBSD has a problem with inodes ..
A few days later, I had to reconfigure my network address, and by accident introduced an error in the routing (wrong subnet for gateway). Results:
Debian: fixed the routing automagically, network worked
Redhat: detected the error, did not add any routes, no network
Gentoo, FreeBSD: did not detect the error, added the route as specified, no network
Re:install system by SgtChaireBourne · 2002-10-21 01:35 · Score: 2

Once I stopped trying to use dselect, I found that the install goes like a breeze. If I have the correct install CDs / FDs and know what I want in advance, I can be up and running with a fairly well configured server in less than half an hour on either i386 or PPC.
The part I wish I were better at, or had more detailed instructions on, is how to roll my own modifications into a DSC. There are plenty of instructions about how to make a DSC from scratch, but for me it's more useful to tweak an existing one. For example, adding extra make or compile options : --with-foo

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Re:install system by rickmoen · 2002-10-21 16:49 · Score: 2

..and I look forward to using it, Fall 2006.
Why, is your copy of wget broken?

I've used tons of distros by RestiffBard · 2002-10-20 14:15 · Score: 2

but I like debian the most. I don't knwo but I feel more comfortable with debian than I ever have with any other distro. Its just feels solid and reliable. I likes it. It just tastes good.

and we've had this discussion before about debian not being for everyone. well linux isn't for everyone either. OS X isn't for everyone, windows isn't for everyone, AmigaOS isn't for everyone. use what you like. I likes debian.

--
- /* dead coders leave no comments */

Re:I've used tons of distros by KagatoLNX · 2002-10-21 03:03 · Score: 2, Informative

I have to agree here. I think people really like Debian for the same reasons people really like the BSDs. It has power *AND* is consistent.

I started on Slackware. Every system seemed to have weird frontends that just insulated you from the real thing. That is one thing that Debian does *NOT* have.

On the other hand, Rock Linux and the like give the same raw access, but their lack of consistency still drives me back to Debian.

It is also nice to generally be able to count on things functioning the way the developer intended them to function (a few crazy applications usually developed at RedHat aside).

I mean, even Interchange (RedHat's e-Commerce solution, used to be Tallyman/Minivend) installs and works find as a Debian archive. Then there's alien... I just don't find myself fighting against the system, I just end up working with it. A lot of distros and other OS vendors miss the mark of having a base system that works well before slapping an interface on it. Debian very rarely feels like the developer was "trying to get it out the door". It's the kind of software that gets developed when there are no deadlines. I like that.

It's consistent, solid, and I have the right mixture of bare metal with finished interface.

I think a lot of these complaints will disappear when Debconf really takes off and a lot of the silly messages disappear.

--
I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)

Lets face facts by mfos.org · 2002-10-20 14:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Debian isn't really ment to be the distro for the masses. It is a bitch to set up, and doesn't come with all the bells and whistles Jane Somebody will be looking for in their OS. However, I feel it is the truest to Linux's roots and it is an incredible system, if you have the necesarry skill set.

Re:Lets face facts by timeOday · 2002-10-20 14:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Along, those lines, the linuxwatch review deserves some credit for this statement:
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is a good choice for technical users and/or those who have plenty of Linux experience. Those who have a lot of spare time and patience might also take a shot at "Woody". We wouldn't recommend those who use dial-up for Internet access use Debian due to it's high use of the 'net during installation. We would not recommend Debian to a new user, instead we would point them more in the direction of Red Hat or Lycoris. We would recommend Debian for either experienced users workstations or in a server environment.
This is all true. However, the rest of the review talked about things I don't care about, and frankly failed to criticize debian's drawbacks that I DO find bothersome:
1) Scarcity of .deb's. On one hand, it's amazing how many packages are available, considering the debian project has to make them all. And having them centralized is largely good because they're more likely to work together. But on the other hand, you're somewhat out of luck if nobody wants to maintain a .deb for the software you want. Alien sometimes works, but more often the binary will be compiled for the wrong libc, or have lots of dependencies that also aren't in Debian.
2) Out of date packages. Again, the issue is that Debian is the source of .deb's, whereas most developers will release rpm's on their own. This means lag time.
3) Broken packages. This doesn't apply to debian stable. Debian stable is great for servers, but lags too far behind for a desktop. And Debian testing or unstable are actually fairly stable, but do live up to their names more than I'd like.
Can't think of much else. I really like debian, and it amazes me that they do it all for free. It's a great distro, and I realize this evaluation is one-sided because I haven't mentioned all the great things about Debian that keep me away from Slackware, RedHat, and even Gentoo. (Actually I do use RedHat at work because they standardized on it, but after Debian anything not network-based feels prehistoric).
Re:Lets face facts by rodgerd · 2002-10-20 14:46 · Score: 2

I know people who are professional admins who dislike Debian's install because it makes it hard for them to do their jobs - no unattended install, no kickstart (a la RedHat) is a pain in the arse for a server farm.
Re:Lets face facts by mfos.org · 2002-10-20 16:20 · Score: 2

I had no intention as coming off as elitist. The message I am trying to convey is that Debian is not a distro for the masses. I don't want someone picking up Debian as their first intro to Linux. They will think it sucks. Even the technically literate type will turn away gibbering at the first glance of dselect.

As for the roots, that's my personal opinion. I've installed the big three all at some point, Mandrake, Red Hat and SuSE. Every single one of those I felt some kind of commercial obligation. I either purchased a box set, or had a barebones system because I had downloaded a free ISO. That and the pay for support. I always knew these where commercial companies trying to make a buck. The thing I like about Debian is that its a bunch of individuals around the world hacking together a kick ass OS, and not charging a dime for it. I think that is very cool.
Re:Lets face facts by rodgerd · 2002-10-20 16:37 · Score: 2

*Right now* it doesn't work as well as kickstart. When it does, that'll be great.
Re:Lets face facts by sheriff_p · 2002-10-20 18:45 · Score: 2

it is the truest to Linux's roots

First, what does that mean? What are 'Linux's roots'? Seriously? Are you going to point to its lack of a flashy setup tool and say that that's Linux's roots? Are you going to say it's because of the community?

Secondly, whatever these roots are, why's it good that a system is stuck in the past? Seriously? There's a reason why modern Linux distributions do have flashy setup tools, and that's because they're convenient and a good idea.

--
Score:-1, Funny

I would have to agree, but... by UnidentifiedCoward · 2002-10-20 14:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

I have never thought Debian was a typical OS for the typical user. Consider for a moment what Redhat has done for to their distribution. They want it to be as easy to install as windows. And to their credit they have come close, but Debian has, IMHO, and always will be the an atypical OS for the atypical user.

That is not to say a bit of spit and polish on UI/configuration side wouldn't hurt, but then again I know that GeForce is an Nvidia product and no amount of rebranding by Creative Labs is going to change that (with regards to my X config). The same is true for a lot of hardware.

When you think about it the only difference between linux (and particularly Debian) and windows is that windows presumes (and Redhat is trying to emulate) that the user is an idiot (especially with regards to hardware) and Debian does not.

Re:I would have to agree, but... by Sanity · 2002-10-20 14:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

When you think about it the only difference between linux (and particularly Debian) and windows is that windows presumes (and Redhat is trying to emulate) that the user is an idiot (especially with regards to hardware) and Debian does not.
That is exactly the wrong attitude. I am not an idiot because I want a fully working and configured system in 20 minutes, rather than after hours or days of tinkering. I am not an idiot because I expect the installer to avoid asking me things that it could find out itself or which I have already told it.
Debian's installation is totally unpolished, inconvenient, and it basically sucks. That argument that it is only inconvenient if you are a newbie is bunk - it is inconvenient for anyone that doesn't have time to burn configuring every tiny little detail. Yes, apt-get might be wonderful, but it will be much easier for Redhat and co to incorporate Debian's advantages than it will be for Debian to incorporate Redhat's. That is simply a fact.
Debian will never succeed until it takes the installation process seriously.
Re:I would have to agree, but... by dvdeug · 2002-10-20 14:55 · Score: 2

Debian will never succeed until it takes the installation process seriously.

You miss the point. Debian has succeeded. It is the distribution that its developers want to make. In any case, I've only had to install Debian twice on my computer, first four years ago when I bought it, and then again one year ago, after I fragged the partition table. Whether it took an hour or a day, it was a long time ago, and I've been happily upgrading since.
A lot of people do get past the installation process, and once you have, it's not an important part of any distribution comparison.
Re:I would have to agree, but... by civilizedINTENSITY · 2002-10-20 15:25 · Score: 2

My first linux install was Debian downloaded to floppys. I wanted my first time to be free in all senses of the word. I prefer Debian from my "religious" perspectives. Its the one distribution I really want to survive. Yet while I install it every third upgrade (SuSE, Mandrake, Debian, repeat) I always miss some basic functionality that I can't get working. This last time it was both sound and my scroll mouse. I love apt-get. Upgrading couldn't be easier. Its beautiful. But...I could only spend 30-40 hours reconfiguring before I gave up again. Installed the new mandrake 9, autodetection makes it a non-issue. I can understand choice. I use 5 different windowmanagers weekly just for the pleasure of a new look and feel. But its not a choice if the choice is "do without". Install/configure isn't an important part of a distribution if you can get past it. If you can't get past it, then its critical. Its sad that the distribution that has won my heart remains so critical.
Re:I would have to agree, but... by wandernotlost · 2002-10-20 16:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

That is exactly the wrong attitude. I am not an idiot because I want a fully working and configured system in 20 minutes, rather than after hours or days of tinkering.

Debian was not made for you. Debian was made for people like me, who don't want arbitrary installation choices made for them to making installation "easier." Installation is not a frequent process with Debian, because upgrades are practically automatic. So you generally only have to install once, and it's a very small part of the overall experience. Thus, installation is not worth spending excessive development time on, because those of us that use and develop for Debian don't have a commercial agenda driving adoption rates. If Debian works well for you, use it, if it doesn't, use another distribution. That's why there's more than one.

I recently upgraded my web/cvs/mail/etc. server from RedHat to Debian (finally!), and it was effortless. It didn't take much more than 20 minutes of my time, and at the end I had exactly the packages I wanted, no more, no less. Netinst in particular makes Debian a dream to install. Just insert the CD with the minimum necessary software needed to talk to the network, then select your packages (as simple as copying a file and issuing a single command if you've got a similar system running). Hit apt-get update and it downloads all the software from the network (the most recent version - no installing then upgrading right away), then configures and installs it. The configuration system even lets you select the level of detail you want to have control over. If you want all the default choices, you don't have to do much configuration at all.

Debian's installation is totally unpolished, inconvenient, and it basically sucks. That argument that it is only inconvenient if you are a newbie is bunk - it is inconvenient for anyone that doesn't have time to burn configuring every tiny little detail.

That's just uninformed, one-sided bullshit. Debian's installer is simple, easy-to-use (for those that know what they're doing), and gets the job done. My last few installs have been painless and quick. Furhermore, any pain that might have been experienced the first time installing has been rewarded many times over by the effortlessness of upgrading and maintaining a stable system.

Yes, apt-get might be wonderful, but it will be much easier for Redhat and co to incorporate Debian's advantages than it will be for Debian to incorporate Redhat's. That is simply a fact.

RedHat doesn't have any advantages for me that I've seen. None. So much for fact.

Debian will never succeed until it takes the installation process seriously.

Debian is right now an overwhelming success. It meets my and many other developers' needs to a tee. It is by leaps and bounds the best operating system I have ever used (including Mac OS X, BTW). If you want a system that holds your hands through a "polished" installation (an activity that probably occupies much less that 1% of your time using the system), and guesses how you want your system configured to spare you the trouble, either write a new installer yourself, or use a different distribution. You'll be missing out on a lot of functionality, but that may be appropriate, because you may not have the desire or be willing to spend the time to learn how to use it.

Don't forget that Debian is not a company. It doesn't have profit motives. It is written by the developers for the developers. And for the developers, it's a pretty damn fine system.

P.S. Okay, one more thing...I do evangelize a lot about Debian, not because I think that Debian is right for everyone, but because it still happens that every once in a while, Debian makes me break out in an ear-to-ear smile at how easy the system is to use, and how powerful it is (I think this happened when I was installing on my server). I know that other people can experience the same joy if they're willing to put in some effort. But I readily acknowledge that Debian isn't for everyone. If you're not interested enough to put in some effort, then you probably won't appreciate Debian's greatness anyway.
Re:I would have to agree, but... by dperkins · 2002-10-20 17:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

...Debian makes me break out in an ear-to-ear smile...

This is the kind of geek-speak that makes ME break out in an ear-to-ear smile. I haven't used Debian before, after reading this poster's comments, I want to!

I can't help but love reading a website that has users with this kind of love for an OS. Thank goodness for slashdot. A place after my own heart.

--
My sig hates me. That's ok, I never cared for it much anyway.
Re:I would have to agree, but... by Sanity · 2002-10-20 19:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Debian was not made for you. Debian was made for people like me, who don't want arbitrary installation choices made for them to making installation "easier."
Firstly, much of the article wasn't complaining about that, it was complaining about things which are simply dumb or demonstrate carelessness on the part of those responsible for installation.
Secondly, if you want Debian to only be of interest to "people like you", then you should be prepared for it to continue to decline in market-share relative to Redhat, because people with the time or inclination to spend hours or days tinkering just to get sound or networking working are a dying breed.
Re:I would have to agree, but... by geekoid · 2002-10-20 19:36 · Score: 2

"Debian was not made for you. Debian was made for people like me, who don't want arbitrary installation choices made for them to making installation "easier.""

This falls into the all or nothing argument. There is no reason you can't have both.

"I recently upgraded my web/cvs/mail/etc. server from RedHat to Debian (finally!), and it was effortless"
why? What was the problem with the previous Linux distro? Just curious, really.

" Netinst in particular makes Debian a dream to install."
I love when someone says "x is easy, just do this 10 things..."
You assume every one wants to install via the network. I presume you mean the Internet. That sounds like fun, you want current? you got to be connected. Sheeze. I know of several reasons why a server may not be able to install via the Internet. Security, Slow connections, etc..

"So you generally only have to install once, "
Really? what if I have several machines, perhaps each has a slightly different need?

" easy-to-use (for those that know what they're doing),"
By definition, that is not easy-to-use.
That's like saying, "quantum physics is easy, if you know it."

"You'll be missing out on a lot of functionality"

No, properly done, you will be adding functionality. The functionality to automate the install. If the automation is done correctly, you get both worlds.

"It is by leaps and bounds the best operating system I have ever used "
That just speaks volumes for the number of OS's you have experience with, I'm guessing windows, os X and Linux. All of which have something in common, but I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

"Don't forget that Debian is not a company. It doesn't have profit motives. It is written by the developers for the developers. And for the developers, it's a pretty damn fine system."

Assuming you speak for every Debian developer, fair enough. OTOH I don't really see the purpose of developing a system that's only good for people developing the system. It would seem to me that you could bring the concepts you like, and get them into other packages as an install option. That gets you the same thing, to more people, a lot easier.

"Debian makes me break out in an ear-to-ear smile at how easy the system is to use"

Again, if you have to know all the ins and outs to get it to run, it is not easy to use.

Finally, I have no problem with debian; however, it annoys me when people make couterdictions just to espouse their religion.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:I would have to agree, but... by Daniel · 2002-10-21 01:39 · Score: 2

Assuming you speak for every Debian developer, fair enough.

I don't think that he speaks for *ANY* Debian developer; he is a developer of other stuff (Freenet, as far as I can tell) who happens to use Debian.

Daniel

--
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Re:I would have to agree, but... by StarFace · 2002-10-21 04:02 · Score: 2

...because people with the time or inclination to spend hours or days tinkering just to get sound or networking working are a dying breed.

Citation? What possible evidence do you have for this statement?

--
V
Re:I would have to agree, but... by wandernotlost · 2002-10-21 06:39 · Score: 2

Firstly, much of the article wasn't complaining about that, it was complaining about things which are simply dumb or demonstrate carelessness on the part of those responsible for installation.

"That" amounts to essentially what you just said. To build more intelligence into the installer would require more time and effort on some developer's part. I don't find the installer to be inconvenient enough to warrant the use of someone's time to improve it, if that means taking that time away from another part of Debian.

Secondly, if you want Debian to only be of interest to "people like you", then you should be prepared for it to continue to decline in market-share relative to Redhat...
I'm not sure why you think I give a flying rat's ass about market-share. Market-share is meaningless to an organization without profit motives, beyond the critical mass necessary to sustain the project. Worrying about that is left to companies, some of which have already built or are working on better installers for Debian. As I said before, if the Debian installer doesn't suit your needs, and the installer is your basis for choosing an operating system, use a different distribution or write a better installer. Most of us don't worry about the installer, because either it isn't a problem for us, or because the amount of time spent installing is negligible (even if it takes 3 days the first time) in comparison to the amount of time spent actually using the system.
Re:I would have to agree, but... by wandernotlost · 2002-10-21 06:57 · Score: 2

I mean would it really hurt debian all that much to give people ,(newbies who have not learned all the in's and out's of unix maybe),an easy install option along side a more complicated one , would a half way house really hurt all that much ?

Well, it would mean that someone would have to maintain all those paths. If that meant taking that person's time away from aspects of Debian that influence people for more than the first day of use, I'm not sure it would be worth it.

What people seem to have a hard time grasping here is that Debian is not a company. What gets improved and worked on is what developers are interested in improving on. Companies that use Debian worry about getting new users, and they spend time/money on improving the installer. Eventually Debian itself will probably benefit from that. If a developer is sufficiently interested in improving the installer, she will do so. If not, it will remain a minimal implementation that suffices for the apparent majority of us (that already use Debian) who are more concerned with the experience after installation.
Re:I would have to agree, but... by Sanity · 2002-10-21 07:14 · Score: 2

Citation? What possible evidence do you have for this statement?
Well, the size of the Debian user-base relative to Redhat for one.
Re:I would have to agree, but... by Sanity · 2002-10-21 07:16 · Score: 2

I'm not sure why you think I give a flying rat's ass about market-share.
I don't care whether you care about market-share, but the success of an Open Source project is reasonably measured by how many users it has in proportion to other similar projects.
Re:I would have to agree, but... by wandernotlost · 2002-10-21 07:36 · Score: 2

I don't care whether you care about market-share, but the success of an Open Source project is reasonably measured by how many users it has in proportion to other similar projects.

I disagree. There's room for more than one distribution. This isn't a contest, and I don't think Debian's success is lessened by the fact that more people use RedHat. RedHat caters to a larger audience than Debian. Debian has a niche that it fills very successfully.

It seems that you (and many other people) think about this in terms of a traditional capitalist, profit-driven point of view - which is entirely appropriate when talking about a company which is seeking a profit. Open-source projects however, as distinct from the companies that try to market and sell their products, don't need to have a huge following to be successful, they just need to be useful (to someone). Debian is eminently useful to me and many others, and meets my needs for an operating system almost perfectly. That, in my book, is a success.
Re:I would have to agree, but... by StarFace · 2002-10-21 08:10 · Score: 2

Eh, that ignores a multitude of factors, such as the most obvious one: RedHat markets their butts off to the general population because they are a corporation. Debian really only gets word of mouth amongst the geek community, and that is just fine for them. Besides, a smaller percentage of users does not indicate a decline. That is taking a static, single point statistic and trying to predict a temporal shift with it. Any 9th grade algebra student would laugh at such an attempt. Even if you could show an expanding rift between the size of the two communities, it wouldn't imply a decline in the Debian camp.
Even if you could prove a decline in the Debian user base, it still wouldn't prove a decline in the type of person you indicated. At the very least it could just demonstrate that that demographic was shifting out of Debian for some reason. The expansion of Gentoo is probably a good example of that.

--
V

Yup by systemapex · 2002-10-20 14:22 · Score: 4, Informative

Red Hat's got their Red Hat Network upgrade service. It's a lot like Windows Update with XP - it'll tell you when updates are available, and you'll have the option to download them. It works well. I have personally intalled apt-get (for RPM) and I've fallen in love with it. But it is not an official Red Hat apt-get. You can grab it from FreshRPMS.

Re:Yup by alexandre · 2002-10-20 14:26 · Score: 2

So you can actually upgrade from redhat 7 to redhat 8 for free by running this program? I saw this i think at school on our redhat machines but i thought users had to register with redhat?
And about that apt-get for RPM, which repository can be used?
Re:Yup by Chris_Stankowitz · 2002-10-20 14:26 · Score: 2, Informative

Ximian will also do pretty much the same thing for you as the red hat network and I found that it is very user friendly and works well.
Re:Yup by systemapex · 2002-10-20 14:37 · Score: 2

I don't think RHN will let you do the same sort of version upgrade a CD upgrade install will do. It'll just maintain your current version. I remember somebody posting in a forum somewhere on the net (I've forgotten where) that they were upgrading from 7.3 to 8.0 with "apt-get dist-upgrade". I've just switched to Red Hat so I've never tried this myself but I believe it is possible. Of course, if a totally new package is introduced in the new version of Red Hat, I'm willing to bet it won't get installed with apt-get dist-upgrade. That probably just upgrades all the packages you have on your system to the newer ones. And as for respositories, I'm using the psyche.freshrpms.net repository. There is a way to choose different repositories but I haven't bothered to look for any other ones.
Re:Yup by rodgerd · 2002-10-20 14:44 · Score: 3, Informative

Yes, you can. You need, though, to manually install the redhat-release RPM for the appropriate distro (eg 8 if you're coming from 7.3). At that point, running up2date -u will pull down all the packages that upgraded in the distro.
Re:Yup by crush · 2002-10-20 15:56 · Score: 2

Have you actually done this or are you speculating that it _should_ work this way? Because it's pretty cool if you did get it to work.
Re:Yup by ryanvm · 2002-10-21 03:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've looked at Red Hat and the RHN, but my understanding is that it costs money. If so, then I don't think you can really compare RHN to Debian's free apt servers or even Microsoft's "free" Windows Update.

Sure, Red Hat 8.0 is polished as hell. But unless it's got a free method as simple as Debian's "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade", I won't be switching anytime soon.
Re:Yup by bonius_rex · 2002-10-21 07:52 · Score: 2

Close.
You may register as many machines as you like, but you may only Entitile one machine at a time for free. Each additional entitlement costs $60/year. I personally have 2 machines registered, my desktop and my laptop, and I just move the entitlement from one machine to the other when upgrade time comes.

Clearly he has never install OpenBSD by Tester · 2002-10-20 14:24 · Score: 5, Funny

Reading how people think that the debian installer is the worst. Those people clearly have not installed OpenBSD... But hey, for them its a security feature, only an expert can install it!

Re:Clearly he has never install OpenBSD by alexandre · 2002-10-20 14:32 · Score: 2

hehe the only hard part actually is the partionning since BSD has their own way to do it :) but i agree that making an installer harder almost on purpose is not a good idea ...

What is up with these unprofessional "reviews"? by SlashChick · 2002-10-20 14:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

I have a feeling someone will mod me as "troll" for this, but so be it...

I do not understand why so many of these so-called "reviewers" cannot take the time to use a simple spelling and grammar checker. The review from LinuxPlanet was written by the webmaster of LinuxPlanet, yet it contained several grammatical gaffes, including use of "it's" instead of "its" and some misspellings (one of which, "managment", made its way to the front page of Slashdot.)

This seems to be a growing trend in certain review sites. It really bothers me that some of the foremost open-source sites seem to have such a problem with grammar and spelling. This reflects badly not only on those sites, but on open-source and free software itself.

Proper spelling and grammar may be unimportant to you personally, but it makes a lot of people view your site as unprofessional. If you want respect, you need to focus on good grammar and spelling -- or, at the very least, running your articles through a grammar and spelling checker before they are posted. (With that respect comes several bonuses, as well: great goodies such as advertising dollars, free software and hardware to review, and more.)

The fact that most of these sites don't bother to check spelling and grammar before posting "reviews" is one more reason for me to not feel any sympathy when they need those advertising/subscription dollars to stay alive. If you make the effort to use proper grammar and spelling, I'll reward you with visits and subscription money. If you don't, I won't, and neither will most corporations looking for a place to advertise.

--
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!

Re:What is up with these unprofessional "reviews"? by Hal-9001 · 2002-10-20 15:45 · Score: 2
Two points:
1. I know it's/its is a pet peeve of yours, but it's a relatively minor usage error.
2. Compared to Slashdot, the spelling and grammar of the LinuxWatch article isn't that bad. And to think that search engines like Google treat Slashdot as a reliable news service. *shudder*
--
"It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
Re:What is up with these unprofessional "reviews"? by geekoid · 2002-10-20 19:42 · Score: 2

no no no, you got it wrong, poor reviews, bad grammer, and poor spelling arn't why those sites fail! thos site fail because the internet has gone bust.. really ;)

I wonder if there would ba a times(any times) paper if the grammer, reporting habits and spelling where as bad as all most all open source review/news sites.

Of cours I am talking about the people who post articals, not the comments.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

So? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-20 14:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Debian stable is old but it's STABLE. I stick with testing and go hunting for updated packages if I need them, but rarely do I need to do something "cutting-edge". I've had unstable create SERIOUS problems, particularly with glibc versions, but that's unstable for you.

As for unusability, I definitely agree that there are more user-friendly OSes out there than Debian. I don't believe Linux is desktop-ready for the masses right now, and I don't believe Debian will ever be. However, I really like it for running servers. And I believe servers should eschew fancy user interfaces and put the power towards the services instead -- why on earth do we need a fancy graphical UI to run a web server?

Debian's free. Debian does what I want it to do. Debian ain't perfect, but it's pretty damn good at some things. And I never have to worry about it going away.

woody is worth it by jalippo · 2002-10-20 14:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

i switched back to linux this month after 4 years of windows development and decided to try with Woody based on reviews of no frills, stability & the packaging system. - installation took 1 night - configuring X and installing KDE 1 night - getting sound working 1 night. i love it. configuring X & sound was not intuitive but some heavy IRC sessions on #debian got me through the tough times. I have about 5 years IRIX admin experience from a long time ago and I find the package system very reminscent of the IRIX package system. And now I have a DVD player more stable than my crappy Windows 98 software. Well worth the effort

actually by kingofnopants · 2002-10-20 14:29 · Score: 2, Informative

actully, the article is pretty negative toward the new debian. It actually talks about how other linux versions had better features that he wished were in debian.

--
Disco Stu was talkin' to you.

The problem with those reviews... by Tester · 2002-10-20 14:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

is that debian is NOT a desktop distribution. Even if the debian people would like to think that it is. The default configuration of "desktop software" is soo bad its just unusable.. Even Gentoo, which is even more hardcore than debian seems to be have a nicer default desktop setup.. And I never had on Gentoo the kind of problem that I have with debian...

But, I use debian on ALL of my servers. Debian on the server just rocks. Especially being able to upgrade it without ever going to the console.. Why do you have to reboot a RedHat system to upgrade it?? I never understood that.. Upgrading debian is a breeze...

Re:The problem with those reviews... by yokem_55 · 2002-10-20 14:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

The reason that Gentoo can get away with having such an incredibly "hard core" install, and yet still gain a substantial following, even from non "hard core" users (typically refugees from RPM-hell distro's), is because of the incredibly well written, strait-forward documentation that Gentoo provides. The install documentation clearly spells out how the whole installation and post-install configuration is to be done, without overwhelming the user.

--
...and IN SOVIET RUSSIA, beowulf clusters imagine 1, 2, 3 profit!!!! jokes made out of YOU!!!
Re:The problem with those reviews... by rodgerd · 2002-10-20 14:48 · Score: 2

The inability to do unattended installs, and the lack of a kickstart equivalent, makes Debian suck on servers, IMO.
Re:The problem with those reviews... by rodgerd · 2002-10-20 16:28 · Score: 2

And that's great. When it's delivered, and works with all the packages in the distro it's delivered with.
Re:The problem with those reviews... by global_diffusion · 2002-10-20 19:24 · Score: 2

word.
Re:The problem with those reviews... by HiThere · 2002-10-21 03:27 · Score: 2

But they don't really make it sufficiently clear that if you are planning to install Gentoo, you had better have a fat pipe.

Perhaps the latest CDs solve this problem. The last time I checked, they merely gave you a minimal system to connect to the internet, so you could pull the rest down. Not optimal if you have a dial-up connection.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:The problem with those reviews... by ryanvm · 2002-10-21 03:35 · Score: 2

Okay, I've tried Gentoo and I've got a complaint.

I have a spare partition set up specifically for toying with other OSes/distros. After hearing all the fuss about Gentoo, I thought I'd give it a whirl. Unfortunately, Gentoo (RC1.4) absolutely refuses to install correctly unless you've got a separate /boot partition set up.

It's my system, if I want everything crammed into one partition, why can't I? Normally, I don't do that, but for toy installs - come on. And besides, contrary to what the Gentoo docs state, not having a separate /boot partition isn't really that much of a risk. The whole point of journaling filesystems is that they're resistant to corruption when not unmounted properly. And if I do hose the MBR or the kernel for whatever reason, that's what rescue disks are for.

Source-based distros are obviously for the more advanced user. So why does Gentoo assume you're incompetent and are destined to hose the boot process?
Re:The problem with those reviews... by HiThere · 2002-10-21 12:12 · Score: 2

Nice! Pity the distribution doesn't have this as an option.

(Well, I could do the same as you, but I'm actually pretty satisfied with my current system ... I frequently try out an alternative, but so far I've always come back to Red Hat. And I'm not curious enough to go through that round-about, but I would probably have tried it if it were available on a set of CDs.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

My thoughts by EdMcMan · 2002-10-20 14:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Unfortunately, debian planet is /.d already. That was fast! Only 22 comments :) Anyway, here are my thoughts on what they said.

Debian is NOT for first time linux users! Unfortunately, the reviewer(s) definitely sounded like they were anyway. Aside from dselect being a little daunting the first time you use it, the install is very easy. Dselect is very easy to use, after you hit ? and read the help page. Otherwise, don't bother.

I'm not really sure why the people at Linuxwatch need a Debian config generator.. XFree86 4 has included two generators that work fine for me. Oh, and I have a rather odd dual head system. Geforce2 and a Voodoo 3. XFree86 -configure, and xf86cfg. Is it really so hard to type those out?

For anyone with a clue, Debian is great! There are so many things that just *make sense* and are missing from other distros. For instance, the reason KDE's application menu was so hard to use as the review stated is because applications from DEB packages are automagically shared between window managers.

Debian is something that you either love or hate. I love it. Everything from the directory structure to the logs to the default application settings are wonderful. How many distros ship sendmail with smtp auth and TLS enabled? :) If you are an advanced user don't let the review fool you. Give it a chance!

Re:My thoughts by Sabalon · 2002-10-21 02:41 · Score: 2

Debian is NOT for first time linux users!

Then people that use and love Debian should stop recommending it when people ask about Linux.

I've seen this happen tons of time on campus - someone who has just heard of Linux will ask about it and they are recommended Debian as RedHat is scarfed at by the long time debian users.

Long live the alpha archtecture! by UpLateDrinkingCoffee · 2002-10-20 14:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've been using Debian for a while on an old (circa 1998) Digital alpha workstation and it is rock solid and was not *that* hard to install. The magic that 'apt-get dist-upgrade' does more than makes up for the holes in the installation process. My biggest wish is that debian could keep up with redhat as far as versions go... I had to build my own KDE 3.0 and mozilla 1.0 from source.

My Debian experiance. by jericho4.0 · 2002-10-20 14:35 · Score: 2

Debian has a 'social contract' and an ethos that is a mirror of linux itself. Sometimes I think that means it'll never get a wickedly polished install, because hackers know how to install it and don't want to spend time on something trivial.

But then I look at the package install system, and hope springs anew.

Regardless, my Debian install is a linux-mips, root on nfs, SGI Indy, installed via netboot. Obviously not something the 'average user' is going to be doing. But the fact that I was able to do it with only a few hickups in the install impressed the hell out of me.

--
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis

Like Standard Transmission by cyber_rigger · 2002-10-20 14:36 · Score: 2, Funny

Debian is for people who like to shift the gears themselves (and occasionally pop the clutch). :^)

Debian Reasoning... by TWX_the_Linux_Zealot · 2002-10-20 14:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

...at least from my perspective: I came from Slackware. I loved slackware, except that little part about keeping it updated. I still have slackware machines, and it's a headache, having to update 20 or so different libraries and utilities in order to go from Sawfish .38 to Sawfish 1.0.1. Debian doesn't remove the hand-configuration, but gives me an easy way to keep current.

--

IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...

Hardware Recognition by omnirealm · 2002-10-20 14:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

I consider myself to be a seasoned Linux user. I have been using various distributions of Linux exclusively on my desktop for two years now.

My school's Unix Users Group runs a periodic Install Fest, where people bring in their desktops, and UUG members load Linux onto them.

Having settled in Debian myself, I figured I would be able to easily install it for someone else. While all my buddies were zipping through the RedHat 8.0 installation for others, I tenatiously stuck with Debian 3.0 for the guy who came to my station.

Things were complicated by the fact that his network card would not play nice with our switch, so I had to use the CD installation (I always prefer the net install with Debian). It took me about twice as long as the RedHat guys just to get a basic system installed and a command prompt. Then his USB mouse wasn't being recognized by the kernel at all.

Well, the guy went home, and then installed Mandrake over the Debian installation I had worked so hard to start up, because he couldn't figure out how to configure his network or his USB mouse, and he didn't want to go through the time or trouble to get it working. Mandrake just did it for him, and he was on his way with his classwork.

It wasn't until I replaced my own motherboard that I realized that you have to use UHCI for some USB chipsets and OHCI for other USB chipsets (he probably had a chipset that was different than that which came with the Debian kernel image). Mandrake and RedHat just figure all that out for you. I wish Debian would do the same.

Some of the guys on the UUG mailing list are claiming that since RedHat now has apt-get, there is no longer any good reason to keep using Debian. I argue that some of Debian's strongest points are that its developers are not blown about by every whim of the market, and when they say "stable," they mean it. Also, the unstable branch provides ample opportunity to keep up-to-date with the latest and greatest packages, if that's what floats your boat.

Well, to make a long story short, for now, I tend to encourage newbies to just use RedHat or Mandrake ... but to keep their /home directories on a separate partition for the day that they will wipe their root partition and install Debian ;-)

--
An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine

graphical installer is not the way to go by g4dget · 2002-10-20 14:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

I recently installed Woody, and the text-based nature of the installer wasn't the problem. The problems I had was that the installer was using an outdated kernel by default (2.2), that it couldn't talk to a lot of the hardware I had, and that it was trying to switch the console into some other graphics mode and failing.

Let's not waste time on pretty pictures in the installer; rather, the installer needs to get more robust and support more hardware and installation methods. Installs from USB should be easy (carry Debian on a USB drive key). Installs from RAM disk should be possible (load the entire first stage into RAM using the BIOS, then install from there), and perhaps even the default. Those are the kinds of things that make installs easy, not pretty pictures of penguins.

Re:graphical installer is not the way to go by EchelonZero · 2002-10-20 16:40 · Score: 4, Informative

After booting up the install cd, instead of hitting enter to proceed with the installer, type "bf24" and Debian will use the 2.4.18 kernel instead.

Debian really requires you to completely delve into the "Debian world" to make full use of it. It seems that whenever I need the Debian version of a particular utility, it is there, you just have to find it (which I admit, can be daunting).

Need to search for package, but don't know what the name is, or even what you're looking for? Use "apt-cache search".

Want to update the services inetd listens for without manually editing a text file? Use "update-inetd".

How about modifying run levels? Yep, Debian has that too with "update-rc.d". Oh, need to reconfigure that package you just downloaded? Try "dpkg-reconfigure ".

My point is that like any OS (or linux distribution, for that matter), you need to readup on the documentation. Try reading that Debian Handbook sometime- lots of good stuff!

I do understand your frustration though; I wish they would just make that the default kernel. :)
Re:graphical installer is not the way to go by g4dget · 2002-10-20 19:12 · Score: 2

USB installs, completely a pain because your reliant on the BIOS to boot from a USB drive
Not necessarily. I might boot off floppy and then install from USB drive. I might boot off a USB CD-ROM (which my BIOS supports) and the continue to install from the USB CD-ROM drive.
You want the BIOS to load a disk into RAM and then proceed to boot off of it? I have yet to see a bios do this
No. I want the BIOS to load the boot loader for the installer and execute it. Then I want the installer to use BIOS calls to load a few dozen megabytes of stuff into a RAM disk (similar to what LILO does), and then I want the installer to proceed with using what was loaded into RAM.
Remeber BIOS was invented to make DOS and CP/M as platform independant as possible. Don't trust it to do anything else.
Well, you and I rely on it for booting, when it loads many megabytes of stuff into memory. Why not use it more during the install? The BIOS obviously knows how to talk to my boot device, otherwise I couldn't have booted from it.
Re:graphical installer is not the way to go by g4dget · 2002-10-20 19:16 · Score: 2

My point is that like any OS (or linux distribution, for that matter), you need to readup on the documentation. Try reading that Debian Handbook sometime- lots of good stuff!
I know how to install and run Debian, and I know how to figure these things out. But that's no excuse for picking lousy defaults, and booting with a 2.2 kernel and fiddling with video modes unnecessarily are lousy defaults. A Debian install on modern hardware should take a few minutes and not require any reference to a manual. Instead, it usually requires much more time and a bit of head scratching.

The Installer by Gyorg_Lavode · 2002-10-20 14:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

The reason I've always been given for why the installer is so user unfriendly is that the developers and all debian users only run it once ever.

From then on, they just apt-get new versions.

--
I do security

Re:The Installer by Daniel · 2002-10-20 15:11 · Score: 2

I think that's folklore...the real reason AFAIK is that the installer was written back in 1996 or so, and the code is godawful; people were too busy unbreaking it for every new release to improve the installation process at all.

Luckily, there are at least two next-generation installers being worked on for sarge (PGI and debian-installer, with the latter likely being the default last I heard) They should suck much, much less. (hopefully even to a negative degree of suckage :) )

Daniel

--
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Re:The Installer by Daniel · 2002-10-20 16:50 · Score: 2

I think you misunderstood me; the folklore is that no-one cares about fixing the installer *because* no-one reinstalls, and that the suckiness of the present installer is a direct result of that.

Daniel

--
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Re:The Installer by Daniel · 2002-10-21 00:47 · Score: 2

And I'm saying that it's true, because at least in my experience, there's no need to reinstall _ever_, once you have a working Debian setup.

We have tried to replace the installer with something sensible at least once already, but the replacement was too ambitious and was delayed until after woody. I believe something similar may have happened while potato was being prepared, but I can't remember offhand.

Though if you read some other posts, you'd find out that a new, better installer is in the works for sarge (the next Debian), and the Progeny graphical installer is also available.

Other posts such as my first reply to you?

Daniel

--
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Re:The Installer by Daniel · 2002-10-21 03:54 · Score: 2

It doesn't really matter WHY the installer sucks!

It depends. I don't want people to get the impression that every Debian developer is complacent and arrogant, which is what I would read into "we never install the system, so why bother improving the installer"?

Daniel

--
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Re:The Installer by Daniel · 2002-10-21 10:38 · Score: 2

They may not be Debian developers, but it DOES give that impression.

I know, hence my comments above. I wanted to emphasize the fact that Debian users do not speak for Debian developers. For that matter, there are a couple hundred Debian developers (at least); no individual developer can claim to speak for everyone. Myself included.

The only way to correct this impression is to fix/replace the damn thing.

This is already being done -- there are two separate replacements being worked on, and one recently reached 1.0. The next Debian release will have a new installer.

Daniel

--
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!

RE: The Debian Planet review by lewp · 2002-10-20 14:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

I just don't think this guy is part of what you would call Debian's "target audience". Part of the reason I like Debian is that it doesn't make me go sorting through a huge list of video cards. I know that I need the nv driver and that I'll probably be quickly switching it to the nvidia driver once the system is up and running.

In fact, I have pre-written and tweaked XFree86 configuration files for each of my different machines available on one box via scp. There's no need to even ask me X questions in a system installer.

You may not have the option to install PHP from the setup menu, but I don't really care. I already know the name of the package to apt-get (not like the name isn't obvious) and I'd rather just type apt-get install php than go digging through potentially thousands of packages in a GUI list to find it. Hell, even if I didn't know it, I could fairly easily just apt-cache search php and find out.

On a different note, Java probably isn't readily available due to legal issues with Sun. FreeBSD is the same way, you have to manually fetch the necessary distribution file from java.sun.com. It's not like this is hard to do.

I'm not trying to troll or be a jerk. I like Debian because, as an experienced user, it gets out of my way most of the time and what it *does* do for me is truly useful. Its package system makes it extremely quick and easy for me to keep my systems up to date without burying me in a mountain of GUI widgets.

I respect the reviewers opinion, and don't necessarily have a problem with the review. I would, however, ask that he understand that there are tons of distributions out there right now. Some are geared towards people who don't want to get some dirt under their fingernails, and a precious few are geared towards those who either do or who have and are fully comfortable with it. Some of the former even have Debian underpinnings with a face he would be more happy with. Maybe there's not a problem with Debian, maybe it's just not for him.

--
Game... blouses.

Time spent configuring is time well spent. by miffo.swe · 2002-10-20 14:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

Often when you do all things by hand you end up with a much better system than if everything is done automagically. Because only you know what you want its hard for someone else to do it for you. Usually you only configure an application once and since i dont install/uninstall apps all day (isnt fun anymore, i use my apps instead) the time spent tweaking files is very small once you get the system flying.

I think there exists space for all variations of linux dists and together they provide an excellent path for some people like me to walk on. Start off with a nice easy dist and as you grow you go towards Debian/Slack/Gentoo etc. One of the many reasons that i left windows was that i felt stuck, squeezed between MS and its developers. The same apply for very userfriendly dists too. I like the control and system-knowledge it gives me when i build my own system from scratch.

I really dont think we should push all dists towards user friendly. There are disadvantages with that too as it tends to empower n00bs at the expence of experienced users. More flawors is better as long as they all follow the Linux Standard Base.

--
HTTP/1.1 400

Debian is for people that *know* by Froze · 2002-10-20 14:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

what they want!

I have to maintain a dozen RH boxes and a half dozen mandrake boxes, it sucks compared to keeping a Debian system up.

Further trying to build a dedicated server from RH of Mandrake is terrible. For security reasons a minimal install is best, but its just plain hard to get with "we know what you want" distros.

debian is also getting a complete overhaul in the installer dept. remade from scratch with a modular interface (you want gui? ok, you want dialog, ok you want webmin that will be there also) that will be able to interface with any installer layout you choose (if the interface module exists, or yo uwrite one ;-).

--
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.

Re:Debian is for people that *know* by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-20 15:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

I know what I want. A GUI installer.

Seriously, though, know how long it took me to get a relatively secure web-server running under Redhat 7.3? I admit I probably have a bit of a headstart, since I do it for a living, but guess how long? About an hour. That's it. Yes, it's a "dedicated" server. I select the packages manually (you do realize there's an option to do that, don't you?), installed it, booted it up, it ran. Detached the monitor, stopped X from loading, and away it went. Didn't take up too much space either..can't remember the exact figures, but it didn't even make a dent on an 8GB hard drive. So it's not "plain hard to get" unless you're purposely dancing around all the options that make it easy..you know, those ones that aren't present in Debian yet?

I also find it amusing that you rag on RedHat and Mandrake, then end your reply with a note that Debian is planning on IMPROVING THEIR INSTALLER! I guess someone really does know what they want, now don't they?

Hmm by parkanoid · 2002-10-20 14:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, I looked at the reviews and honestly didn't see anything wrong. Yes, it uses a nice, compact, no hand-holding installer. An installation system that does not do anything more than it needs. No autodetection routines that stuff binary drivers into the kernel. No control panels and flashy utilis that do things for you. Yeah, debian is great, what's your point?

The install sucks, but is that the point? by Kenneth+Stephen · 2002-10-20 14:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

The point of having a server OS is to get it to do useful work without having it hinder / annoy / frustrate you. The ease of install is important in getting the OS installed. Debian certainly lacks in that area. But only a novice would consider the ease of installation a detraction so severe that it overshadows the other good or excellent properties of the server. And trust me : you do not want a novice to administer a production server.

I confess that I am a Debian fan. Despite that, I am able to percieve Debian's deficiencies. The install certainly sucks. I had the pleasure of recently installing Redhat v7.3 . After dealing with Debian's install, the Redhat installer simply took my breath away. It was that smooth. However, the time came to put the OS to use. I needed a way to convert postscript files to pdf. For that, I installed ghostscript on Redhat. It did the conversion alright, but the generated document was useless to me because the fonts werent installed on the system. I repeated the same process on Debian : the dependancies took care to install all required fonts. Voila - the document displayed correctly!

Now would you prefer an OS that works easier over an OS that installs better?

--

There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.

Re:The install sucks, but is that the point? by fishbowl · 2002-10-20 15:29 · Score: 2

Most people don't seem to realize that the base system is a fairly complete server OS. You might get away with the 15 meg base system, plus the apache and openssl debs. Practically everything after the base system install is optional. If you aren't going for minimalism (as I was when I discovered this), just install the "required" debs, which are preselected the first time you run dselect and be done with it. If you don't want to bother learning how the apt system works, you really are not in a position to criticize it.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:The install sucks, but is that the point? by big.ears · 2002-10-20 16:19 · Score: 2

I must agree. I'm a big debian fan, and love how the system takes care of itself if you don't mix-and-match .debs too much. But, I have never made it through the install successfully. I either gave up completely, or came in through the backdoor via progeny or storm and apt-get dist-upgrade. I dread putting it on another computer or telling anyone I know to run it, because I'm not sure if it is possible to get there through the installer. And even when it gets installed, there is still an enormous amount of tweaking necessary, like to get a firewall and networking usable, to set up a printer, or to configure sound, 3D, USB video/camera, etc.

And the people who are saying "we don't need a stupid graphical installer" are missing the point. It isn't about graphical versus non-graphical--the current installer assumes knowledge about things that it doesn't explain, and often doesn't make clear the consequences of options. And, as the review said, it is dumb about things it should know.

I'm just hoping the PGI installer gets integrated before I buy a new computer.
Re:The install sucks, but is that the point? by WolfWithoutAClause · 2002-10-21 06:00 · Score: 2

Now would you prefer an OS that works easier over an OS that installs better?
Yes I would. Ok, my hardware is a bit non standard- (I'm using Sony Vaio). I really wanted to use debian on it, but a couple of hours fiddling with the woody install, and got absolutely nowhere.
I burnt a mandrake disk and stuffed it in my drive, and it installed no problem.
So, when the install is bad enough that even a reasonably experienced engineer can't install the software, then you know there's something wrong. Or perhaps it's the strange hardware, but then Mandrake loaded fine.
I don't care how it looks- text is fine, as long as it works. But if it doesn't install; there's something wrong.

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"

My First Distro by Nerant · 2002-10-20 14:51 · Score: 2

Back in 1999, when I first switched to Linux, (slashdot being one of the places that had informed me about it), the first boxed distro I picked up at the local stores was Debian GNU/Linux, with the free
"Learning Debian GNU/Linux" book from O'Reilly. I did things the old fashioned way: I did websearches for my hardware to make sure they were supported, and dove right into the install.
It took me around 10 mins to setup X. Sound was a bit more problematic, but #debian proved helpful.
Unfortunately, that box died, and I had to get a replacement earlier this year, but my point is : the installer isn't really hard, but Debian expects more from the user in terms of knowledge. And honestly, reliable hardware autodetection should be one of them by now.

--
Be kind. There are too many mean people out there already.

Review of Reviews by twitter · 2002-10-20 14:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

Review #1, thanks but no thanks.

I've stuck with solely because of drakconf and it's associated tools, which make configuring a Linux system a breeze. However lately I've been aspiring to ascend to guru status, or at the very least PFY, so I gave Debian a whirl.

Here's a three step plan to help you become a guru. First, go to the mountian and climb it. Simply climbing it will help, but from the view on the mountian will make you wise. Second, spend time on the mountian. This will give you time to reflect on it and feel its moods, even modify it to suit your own tastes. Third, master the mountian. Once you have learned all it's quirks, you are encouraged to modify the mountian for the benifit of others. In time, you will learn that the simple text based install saves you much grief and hearache, though I would not compare it to the Red Hat install because I don't work on Red Hat much. Everything can be better.

Review #2, allas the same thing:

There are no automatic detection routines for your hardware, no automatic disk partitioning. It took us several attempts to get everything installed and working correctly.

There is X autodetect which has worked for me in the past. As for auto partition, no thanks. I like to set myself up myself, thank you, and the guidlines are where I learned that.

Strangely, this review was more unbiased than the first which proported to be so. It correctly noted that Debian's distribution system rocks. Dselect is a great tool that works for more than simple installs. Reading the insturctions that you MUST click out, you learn that simple vi style searches work! Awsome, type a partial name and your package is found. A graphical front end to this might be nice, but nothing is cooler than being able to secure shell into a box and configure it completely with a few keystrokes, without the overhead of pictures of boxes.

The short of it for me is that Debian easier to keep going once you have it up.

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2002-10-20 14:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Get over the installer by child_of_mercy · 2002-10-20 14:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Jesus christ, when will people get over the installer???

The average windows user should never see the installer, ditto the average linux user.

Debian users don't pay attention to the installer because we see it just the once.

Linux distro revieers on the other hand never do any real work with a system, just install, install, install.

Debian runs hard and strong and updates itself.

Because it doesn't rely on tech support for funding it's set up to minmise questions by newbies, by actually installing software so it'll run.

I can't program worth a damm, but once i figured out how to edit a config file, that was as far as i had to develop my skill to get debian boxes hard at work on a number of jobs.

Other distro's look flasher installing (try doing a net install off a pair of floppies tho) but after that you're pretty much on your own.

A serious review would be comparing using the machines for a year, but thats beyond IT journalism in general, and linux journalism in particular.

--
'There is a Light that never goes out.'

Re:Get over the installer by Synn · 2002-10-20 16:49 · Score: 2

That's kind of the point. How well does RH handle going from RH 7.2 to RH 8.0? What's involved?

With Debian you install it once then routine apt-get keeps you up to date against the latest versions. It's a very clean system.

Debian hasn't focused on the install because the installer is a very small part of a Linux distribution on machines that see years of service.
Re:Get over the installer by child_of_mercy · 2002-10-20 17:52 · Score: 3, Informative

Real world users prefer not to be doing major revision updates every 6 months.

no matter how pretty the installer.

--
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
Re:Get over the installer by doug363 · 2002-10-21 00:01 · Score: 2

Most people on slashdot aren't average Windows/Linux users. I would guess that most have installed an OS before. Most use their computers to automate their everyday tasks much more than the average user, but for a lot of people, including myself, this doesn't mean comprimising ease of use.
It's good to be able to edit a config file, but there's no real reason why software should force you to -- it's just that people writing the software often don't want to write an easy to use and powerful config editor as well. It's also good to be able to specify installation options in gruesome detail if you need to, but there's no reason not to have sane defaults, or suggestions that will work for most users.
Similarly, it's not necessary to have a nice graphical installer, but having an installer that requires the user to type in non-intuitive commands to get pretty standard hardware working (e.g. 2.4 kernel for decent USB support) is not necessary either. Getting things to install from floppies is also not really necessary --- most users can get a CD burnt these days.
As you say, once it's done it's done, but if a user can't get a system with all their hardware working without a lot of hassle, then they'll give up on it outright and use another distro or OS. There's no need for Debian to lose users and potential contributors over something like an installer when the rest of the system works well.

Debian not for dummies by dh003i · 2002-10-20 14:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

haha...ok, forgive my little play on words.

Debian is not for newbies. It is *possible* for a newbie to install Debian, but only if they know their exact hardware specifications and have studied the Debian installation guides thoroughly. I installed Debian as my first Linux distro, and I'll agree with this author -- its a bitch to install. I knew my exact hardware specs and thoroughly pre-read through the install documentation (this was a graphical install guide) before starting. It was still a bitch. Then there's the setting it up so it meets your needs: another big bitch.

Hence, Debian is not for newbies. Its even confusing for experts. Now that I've used Debian for several years, I know it. But its install process is still unworthy. Do the developers try to make the install as confusing and non-sensical as possible? Is their model for installation, "Debian installer, dumb and daft by default"? A graphical install isn't necessary; in fact, graphical install's don't make it that much easier to install, and are probably a waste of valuable development time. Most users are still smart enough to figure out how to navigate through a text-based install using hte arrow keys if you tell them how to do it with on-screen help (i.e., up to move to previous item, etc).

Conclusion: Debian is not for dummies ;-). If you're a new user and want the benefits of Debian (i.e., true to the Free Software spirit, stable as a rock, more secure, great package management system, and lots of packages), then get Libranet or Lindows. Personally, I'd recomment Lindows, as it seems to have more momentum and is even being included on dirt-cheap PC's sold at Walmart. Btw, for those misinformed /.ers, Lindows does not violate the GPL. I assume that their CD also comes with an offer to ship you the source at the cost of shipment.

Conclusion: Debian for the daring, Lindows & Libranet for learners. You can get Lindows by paying an $99 dollar membership fee, after which you can have Lindows shipped to your house or download it. Don't bitch about the price. And no, they're not offering it for free download off the internet (and NO, that doesn't violate the GPL). These people actually have a business plan which will keep them in business. Personally, I think that $99 is great, since it gives you access future versions of Lindows. After two years, you're click-'n-run deal runs out, and you can purchase click-'n-run service if you still want it.

The thing I like about Lindows is they have a REAL business plan. They seem to be pursuing Lindows as an OS to be installed on computers off the shelf (refer to Walmart), and seem to be pushing for OEMs to have it on their machines off-the-shelf. They also have ways to make money through their valuable click-'n-run service. Best of all, they aren't offering their entire modified version of Debian GNU/Linux online for free download. This mean's that they're not going to become another dot-bomb. Freeloaders, don't whine; if you want something for free (as in $0), get Debian GNU/Linux.

Suggestion to Debian developers: don't waste time with a graphical install, but do make the install more intelligent and logical, with auto-detection; have good default setup. Things should be set up to a good default when you boot into Debian; i.e., 12pt fonts, the WM of your choice set up to a reasonable and useable default (I'd recommend them working on a good default for KDE, GNOME, and WindowMaker).

But don't fret too much over newbie-nicities. Commercial wrap-arounds for Debian like Lindows and Libranet will make a Debian which has great defaults and is easy for the newbies. They will spend their coding time on making reasonable defaults and an easy install. Debian Developers should spend most of their coding time on hard technical details.

--
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen

Re:Debian not for dummies by dh003i · 2002-10-20 15:50 · Score: 2

I don't know about Mandrake, but Debian doesn't run on the root.

I wasn't aware that Lindows did either, and I don't think it does. If it does, I'm sure you can get it not to by setting up an account. It is definately better not to do your daily operations as root. Then again, if you never make a mistake, root isn't a problem. Or is it? If a program you run makes a mistake and your at root, it could be serious. So if Lindows is root by default, I'd recommend fixing that for a safety net.

--
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen

Debian 3.0 Install by jhysong · 2002-10-20 15:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

I recently switched to Debian 3.0 after having used Mandrake from version 7.2 to 9.0.

While the Debian installation isn't as polished as Mandrake's I did not find it to be, as the Debian Planet review states,"an awfully stupid piece of software". The installation seemed to me to be pretty straightforward and I'm no guru. I did make sure that I knew what each piece of hardware in my computer was before I tried the install. That made module selection fairly simple. I'll admit that I was intimidated a bit by dselect and I only used it for a few packages.

Overall I'm very impressed with Debian 3.0. I tried 2.2 a while back but it seemed so outdated that I stayed with Mandrake. After using 3.0 for a few days now, I think I'm going to make this change permanent.

Re:Whatever by pivo · 2002-10-20 15:02 · Score: 2

RedHat, having one of the best X installers, has a good text mode option too. It lets you instal only what you want, doesn't force you to use or install X, etc. I use it for workstations as well as servers, it's a great installer because it doesn't waste my time.

It's irritating that so much of the debian crowd takes this "whatever" attitude, or worse, the attitue that if you don't like arcane hardware information you must be a beginner. In fact this attitude is contradictory since debians' own package management system is probably the easiest to use. For consistency, shouldn't it be difficult too? Or perhaps debians' package management system is for "grandma."

What's the problem with computers performing tedious tasks on behalf of humans? Isn't that why they exist? It's good to know your way around your hardware, but it's dehumanizing to repeatedly perform tedious work that computers can do automatically.

Vices of its virtues by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-20 15:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was struck by two things that were repeated in both these reviews. They both complained that Debian's installer doesn't try to outguess your hardware; and they both used exactly the same phrase to describe Debian's install aside from the lack of comfort: rock solid.

I see cause and effect at work here. Let's add a third data point: consider Windows, with its wizards, its helpful way of deciding for you what needs to be done... and of course its simply wonderful stability, as well as the whole issue of talking a WinWizard out of doing things its way when that's not how you want it done.

That, dear slashies, isn't a coincidence. It's a trend line.

/home partition by Kenneth+Stephen · 2002-10-20 15:06 · Score: 2

Its always a good idea to have /home on a different partition than your OS essentials. For one thing, when you do a backup, you have a lot of options when it comes to backing up a distinct partition. You can do separate backups for your system directories and user data (home directories). That way, if your OS ever goes South you can reinstall just the OS without sweating over what happens to user data. Conversely, if your user data needs to be recovered, its easier to restore without sweating over whether you'll kill the entire system.

--

There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.

Missing the point... by Chandon+Seldon · 2002-10-20 15:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

First, there is more to a distribution than the install procedure. Both of these reviews review "Installation and first 10 minutes" which, while being a small part of the user experiance of a Linux distribution, isn't anywhere near the whole story.

In trying to review Debian the same way they review other distributions (which perhaps *only* improve their install system between releases, so as to get better reviews), both of these critics have done Debian a great disservice.

I've been running Linux for about 4 years now, and I've used the install systems for most of the major Linux distributions (Red Hat, Mandrake, Slackware, SuSE, etc). Over this past weekend, I installed Debian on 5 computers. I can absolutly assure you that I would be completely stalled at 3/5 with any other distribution's install system. It's awfully hard to install from CDROM when a machine has no CD drive.

Now, for a newbie I can see that some of the options in the install might be intimidating, but it's all pretty easy if you actually printed out the install document like the website told you to...

Any reviewer of debian that doesn't even manage to notice the fact that Debian can automatically fetch from the internet and install over 8710 different software packages and have virtually any valid combination of them work together perfectly is perhaps not actually interested in reviewing Debian.

--
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.

Gentoo Evangelist by Bios_Hakr · 2002-10-20 15:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Now hold on a second there. Whenever someone mentions RPM, somebody throws up an apt-get comment. Whenever KDE is mentioned, Gnome is also in the discussion. Emacs and Vi, linux and gnu/hurd, Intel and AMD.

You cannot have a discussion about a thing without mentioning the competitors/alternatives. Apt brings a lot to the table, so does emerge and rpm. A discussion about Debian IS a discussion about apt. And belive you, me, we Mandrake folk had to put up with a lot of apt-get comments over the years, so you Debian types can bite the bullet and listen to what the Gentoo evangelists have to say.

Now, in all seriousness, in a Debian discussion, any comment that is not about Debian should be modded down as off-topic. Likewise, all comments should be about the core story. But the truth of the matter is this: The moderators have spoken. They (me included) want different points of view in every story. Listening to and being around people who disagree is what makes sites like this popular.

--
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.

Re:Gentoo Evangelist by Sanity · 2002-10-21 07:25 · Score: 2

Now, in all seriousness, in a Debian discussion, any comment that is not about Debian should be modded down as off-topic.
Please don't say that you are actually encouraging the rediculous over-use of "Offtopic" moderation?
Negative moderation should be a rare occurance on Slashdot - and should be used extremely judiciously.
Re:Gentoo Evangelist by Bios_Hakr · 2002-10-21 11:16 · Score: 2

Something is either on topic, or off topic. No two ways about it. The mention of "emerge" in a discusion about a Debian review is, quite frankly, off topic. It should be modded as such.

--
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.

Re:Gentoo versus Debian by heretic108 · 2002-10-20 15:11 · Score: 5, Informative

Check out Gentoo Linux [gentoo.org].

I tried it, went back to Debian

The only downside is it will take a while to build X, or any other large package(Gnome, KDE, etc).

You can say that again. On average, a package takes about twice as long to download in source form than in binary form. Also, source takes about as much time again to build. So all up, you're looking at about 4 times as long to install a given Gentoo package as the same package on Debian.

While Gentoo takes you close to the bleeding edge, and while its build system is well put together, it is a far more complicated process to set up a system to your tastes than it is with Debian. You need to know a lot of esoteric internals with some key packages, and are left in a position of often having to beg for help on the #gentoo irc channel.

After going back to Debian sid, I was surprised to find that Debian goes from power-up to usable desktop in 2/3 of the time Gentoo takes (which is 1/2 the time Mandrake takes).

In conclusion, there is no bliss which compares to an installed and working Debian desktop. The installer might not be pretty, but once you're up, you can trust apt-get to add anything you want, to a state which actually works.

--
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...

Afterthought for my mom. by twitter · 2002-10-20 15:13 · Score: 2

I would recomend Debian to my mom. I'm going to have to install and maintain it anyway, I might as well give her what I think is the best, and what I know best. That and it's easier for me to maintain a Debian box in another city than other computers. I try out apt-get upgrade here first. When something does not work out, I fix it, then I can run that same upgrade on hers. Easy.

I know, I know, Red Hat's dual boot rocks. Chances are, she won't be looking for a new OS until WinME dies. At that point, I'll be able to chose between installing Debian or installing Red Hat AND Windoze. She really does not need the windoze, and I've got better things to do.

To summarize, while the second review is right to not recomend Debian to someone with zero nix experience and zero support, it's wrong to anyone to conclude Debian is not a distro for everyone. My wife has no problem simply using Debian for all the usual stuff. It's not hard to use, and it's easy to maintain.

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

Dselect rocks. by Gendou · 2002-10-20 15:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

To be honest, I would imagine that few if any people use dselect - it's horrible.

I do, and I don't think it is. apt is only useful when you know the exact name of the package you want to install. There are other tools to look through the package list, but I haven't tried them, because dselect works.

Need to know what packages are available? Why? That's what the Web is for. If you know what program you want, you know the name of it, and you can nine times out of ten apt-get install it.

What if you don't know the name of the program you want? What if you don't even know what program you want? What if you don't even know what KIND of program you want?

I've discovered hundreds of programs that I never knew existed, while looking through the dselect list, that wound up enhancing my life greatly. Sure, you can decide what you need/want to do, then find a program that does it, but are you really omniscient when it comes to what software is out there? Literally hundreds of times, I've seen a new package and thought, "Hey, that's killer-radical, I never would have thought that something like this would have existed." If you don't know it exists, how can you search for it?

Running apt-get update and seeing that the package list is larger than it was last time is always like Christmas morning for me: bright, shiny, brand-new packages under the tree, and I don't know what's in them, until I open them and unwrap the surprises inside! They are surprise gifts that I receive at least several of every week! Dselect even puts all your presents (new packages) at the top of the list so you can tear into the new toys waiting for you and decide what you want and what you don't.

Running my weekly apt-get update and then tearing into Dselect like a kid on Christmas is always the highlight of my week, because I usually get at least 2-3 new packages that I actually want to play with. Sometimes the new toys they give me will occupy me all night long. Sometimes a new package that I'd never have found out about with dselect will radically change my life, and always in a good way. Because I see every new package that comes through the system, I always know more about more packages than anyone else I talk to, and I'm always able to tell my friends, "hey, guess what new really cool software is out there now?"

Assume that for every person, there is one package that, if he knew about it, he could use it to radically change his life, find real happiness, acquire great personal fortune, etc. What if he NEVER finds out about it, because he doesn't know what the nature of it is and he doesn't know what to look for? What if he NEVER finds it, because he silently downloads its package listing with an apt-get update but never looks at the description? His life has been impaired, possibly forever, out of ignorance.

I can't take that risk. I'm not willing to accept the risk that a package will appear on my package list that could revolutionize my life, and I never find out about it because I never check the list.

If you never use dselect, you don't know what you're missing. You might be missing nothing of value to you, you might be missing something of minor value to you, or you might be missing out on EVERYTHING.

Re:Dselect rocks. by Malcontent · 2002-10-20 15:37 · Score: 2, Redundant

"What if you don't know the name of the program you want? What if you don't even know what program you want? What if you don't even know what KIND of program you want?"

apt-cache search whatever

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Dselect rocks. by tps12 · 2002-10-20 15:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Assume that for every person, there is one package that, if he knew about it, he could use it to radically change his life, find real happiness, acquire great personal fortune, etc. What if he NEVER finds out about it, because he doesn't know what the nature of it is and he doesn't know what to look for? What if he NEVER finds it, because he silently downloads its package listing with an apt-get update but never looks at the description? His life has been impaired, possibly forever, out of ignorance.

Okay, I'm sold, where's a mirror?

Wait, dselect does support women, right?

--

Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Re:Dselect rocks. by Gendou · 2002-10-20 15:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

apt-cache search whatever

Search for what, exactly? What if you don't know what the "whatever" is? What if you don't know what to search for? What if you just want to find a cool package to play with, and no particular care for what kind of package it is? What about all the cool packages that you'd never even think to search for? What if you know something is missing from your sysetm, but you don't know what it is? That was my point.
Re:Dselect rocks. by G-funk · 2002-10-20 16:01 · Score: 4, Funny

Sometimes a new package that I'd never have found out about with dselect will radically change my life

In which case you should probably get out more ;-)

--
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Re:Dselect rocks. by FrozedSolid · 2002-10-20 16:24 · Score: 5, Informative

dselect's interface leaves some to be desired. I don't see the validity of your point, dselect has a HUGE database of packages in a non-intuitive text interface, if you don't know what you're looking for, I don't see how dselect helps at all.

Am I missing something?

--
When all freedom is outlawed only the outlaws have freedom
Re:Dselect rocks. by Gendou · 2002-10-20 16:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

>> Sometimes a new package that I'd never have
>> found out about with dselect will radically
>> change my life

> In which case you should probably get out
> more ;-)

I won't deny it. Sigh.

But don't they say "follow your bliss"? If you get off on learning about new and exciting Debian packages, isn't that just as valid (for you) as sex is for someone who gets off on sex?

Whatever makes you happy is the right thing for you. Different things make different people happy. People say "get a life" or "you are uncool" just because they have different sets of interests. Someone who does nothing but but hang around getting drunk with his friends may look at a person who has few friends and never gets drunk, and say "get a life!" to that person. But maybe the accused person enjoys working heard, learning, accomplishing things, etc. more than he likes carousing and boozing. Maybe when he looks at his accusor and sees that his accusor is into nothing but hedonism, he'll say "no, YOU get a life!"

Which one of them is right? Neither are. They're both doing what makes them happy, even if what they do are polar opposites.
Re:Dselect rocks. by mewse · 2002-10-20 17:50 · Score: 3, Informative

One word:

aptitude.

Because every package maintenance tool needs a built-in implementation of minesweeper.
Re:Dselect rocks. by Malcontent · 2002-10-20 18:22 · Score: 2

Actually apt-cache search is very powerful. If you type in whatever you are looking for chances are you will get lots of hits.

If you have even a faintest idea of what you are looking for you can find it. If you want just to play with something I think the debian web interface to packages is much cooler and easier to use. To each his own I guess.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Dselect rocks. by Phouk · 2002-10-20 19:11 · Score: 4, Funny

But don't they say "follow your bliss"? If you get off on learning about new and exciting Debian packages, isn't that just as valid (for you) as sex is for someone who gets off on sex?
You could try it out sometime, and then tell us about it: "Debian and Sex Compared - The big review for those who know only one or the other."
It's sure to be featured on Slashdot.

--
Stupidity is mis-underestimated.
Re:Dselect rocks. by sg_oneill · 2002-10-20 19:33 · Score: 2

Say you want a webserver
apt-cache search webserver will get you , like 2 pages of em. Then you go apt-get install and the name. you might then chose apache because it's on the top of the list and type
apt-get install apache
or
apt-get install apache-common
That's it.
Want a game to nut with? Type apt-cache search game. Want something to program in friggin forth with? apt-cache search forth. So on.
Want to get a beer? apt can't help you there..... Or maybe it can.

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Re:Dselect rocks. by thelexx · 2002-10-21 03:01 · Score: 3, Informative

Well, it breaks all the software into fairly logical groupings. Want sound stuff, check out the sound section. Also, it provides detailed enough descriptions to figure out if you really want something or not, whether it has been replaced with another package, etc.

A graphical dselect would be nice, but text-mode tools are absolutely required. Makes no sense at all to install a graphical environment on a dedicated or headless server, let alone require one to be able to admin the box.

--
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999

Catch 22-and-a-lobe by MegaFur · 2002-10-20 15:20 · Score: 5, Funny

Debian: not for newbies. Higher learning curve than others. Worth learning if you want more control over your system.

I do want more control over my system. But how the hell am I supposed to learn Debian if I can't install Debian?

I guess the only viable solution would be to to find a Debian expert and rip off their head and eat out their brain, there-by gaining their knowledge and experience.
...

Oh wait, that was the comic book solution. In the real one I have to substitute "ask them lots of questions" for "rip off...their brain". Much less exciting and much slower. Oh well.

--
Furry cows moo and decompress.

Re:Catch 22-and-a-lobe by Wylfing · 2002-10-20 15:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

I do want more control over my system. But how the hell am I supposed to learn Debian if I can't install Debian?
Well, perhaps you learn the way we all do, by acculturation and experimentation. You just hang around Debian long enough and get cool with it. Like superparent said, you fall into a Debian Zen and it all makes sense. I reject the premise that you can't get a box up and running with the current Debian installer. The only special knowledge you need is what chips your hardware is running -- easily determined with a quick Google. All other install options tell you explicitly what to choose if you don't know what to do.
After you get running, however, you will have to tinker. No doubt about it. If you don't want to tinker, don't use Debian. I strongly recommend Mandrake or Red Hat. (They are both easier than Windows for installation.) It's like, I build my own machines because I want to tinker with the hardware. Others don't, and they buy a Dell or a Sony off the shelf. It's the same way with the distribution you choose.

--
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Re:Catch 22-and-a-lobe by isorox · 2002-10-21 01:15 · Score: 2

My first real distro was redhat 5.2 (I'd tried suse about 6 months before but X didnt have drivers for my SIS6326 graphics card). Install went OK, followed a nice fat book I got "Mastering redhat 5.2" or something. Set up lots of partitions, everything was fine.

Year later my system was getting a little dead from too many --force-deps. I installed Debian 2.2 when I went to uni, September 2000. IIRC it was no harder then the redhat install. Since then I've installed debain on a few other machines, no problem.

Modern distros like Mandrake and Redhat 8, 9 or whatever, have cushy graphics, but I ran 5.2 in text mode and didnt have a problem, even coming from a windows background. Possibly because before windows I'd had a dos background all the way back to dos 5

Lack of RAID Tools by Bios_Hakr · 2002-10-20 15:20 · Score: 5, Informative

My first distro was Debian. I love the apt system. I cannot, however, live without software RAID.

After booting the Woody CD, I tried "modprobe md", only to discover that it isn't supported. I went on the assumption that it was compiled in, but alas, "mkraid" was nowhere to be found. The only real option was to install to a /dev/hda1, then move that to /dev/md0. Too much work for too little return. If your distro doesn't support my needs, there are hundreds more that do.

I'd also like to see a source compile option added. If apt was combined with Gentoo's emerge, Debian would be almost unstopable.

--
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.

Re:Lack of RAID Tools by rmull · 2002-10-20 16:49 · Score: 3, Informative

> I'd also like to see a source compile option
> added. If apt was combined with Gentoo's
> emerge, Debian would be almost unstopable.

Check out apt-build. It does exactly what you think it does.

--
See you, space cowboy...
Re:Lack of RAID Tools by stevey · 2002-10-20 18:33 · Score: 2, Informative

Building from source is already supported:
apt-get builddep gtetrinet
apt-get --build source gtetrinet
I'm not sure if the first command is redundent or not to be entirely honest - the intention is that it will install all the packages required to build the new package. (-devel packages, etc)
Re:Lack of RAID Tools by martinde · 2002-10-20 20:25 · Score: 2

> Check out apt-build. It does exactly what you think it does.

Ummm, there is no such package. If you mean "apt-get --build source " as another poster mentions, it's not the same - not by a long shot.

- It's not sticky - i.e. it won't compile from source on the next upgrade.

- There is no system-wide configuration of compiler flags to use - stuff like --arch=athlon-xp

(My understanding is that Gentoo can do that stuff, but I've not tried it.) I love Debian as much as the next guy, but I'd like to see these capabilities in Debian too.
Re:Lack of RAID Tools by WWWWolf · 2002-10-20 21:29 · Score: 4, Informative

I'd also like to see a source compile option added. If apt was combined with Gentoo's emerge, Debian would be almost unstopable.

Back when I was a newbie, them old beards told me that Pre-Packaged Kernels are Satan's Work. So I have compiled my kernels by hand.
And Debian does support rolling your own kernel. There's nothing to stop you from downloading a kernel source and building it.
In fact, it already comes with the kernel source and header packages, AND in package kernel-package, you'll find the real gem: the make-kpkg tool.
With make-kpkg, you can configure and build the kernel, and it makes it a perfectly ordinary Debian package that also manages the /vmlinuz and /vmlinuz.old symlinks in root directory - AND also optionally the bootloader menu list (at least in case of GRUB). It also does this for all debianized kernel module source packages! ALSA? You got it. Crushed by the vicious tyranny of NVIDIA binary drivers? You got them. Make-kpkg rules. It rules.
Re:Lack of RAID Tools by Daniel · 2002-10-21 01:30 · Score: 2

Ummm, there is no such package.

There is, but it's only in unstable right now.

Description: Frontend to apt to build, optimize and install packages
This is an apt-get front-end for compiling software optimized
for your architecture by creating a local repository with built packages.
It can manage system upgrade too.

Daniel

--
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Re:Lack of RAID Tools by martinde · 2002-10-21 02:56 · Score: 2

> There is, but it's only in unstable right now.

Doh! That's what I get for checking these things out at 4AM - I didn't select "unstable" at http://packages.debian.org, sorry 'bout that.
Re:Lack of RAID Tools by rickmoen · 2002-10-21 16:56 · Score: 2

After booting the Woody CD, I tried "modprobe md", only to discover that it isn't supported.
Woody installation images with software RAID support:
http://www.physik.tu-cottbus.de/~george/woody_xfs/
http://people.debian.org/~blade/XFS-Install/

Problem with reviews of distros by blakestah · 2002-10-20 15:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

The biggest problem with reviews of distributions is that they are really reviews of installers. Debian's installer is quite usable, but it is not exactly pretty and streamlined.

But a Debian box only ever needs to be installed once. After that, apt-get update; apt-get upgrade will be all you need to do. Forever. Sure, there will be the occasional hiccup. But they are very very rare. With RedHat or Mandrake or SuSE you get to install de novo yearly. What fun !

So that is the largest point missed - the joy of MAINTAINING a Debian box once installed. The other thing distribution reviews always miss are the startup scripts, including hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly cron jobs. Here, again, Debian shines like a thoroughbred compared to the competition. It almost seems like it is created to make administering boxes easy for someone qualified to be an administrator.

I think that last sentence is probably most descriptive of Debian. It almost seems like it is created to make administering boxes easy for someone qualified to be an administrator. But a review written by someone not so qualified will miss out on many of the finer points that are the distros best attributes.

Debian's dastardly by dh003i · 2002-10-20 15:23 · Score: 2

Debian's a hard-core GNU/Linux distro. Not as hard-core as Slackware or Gentoo, but pretty hard-core, none-the-less. Its developers focus on stability and technical excellence, not hand-holding install and configuration processes.

That said, Debian developers could make things a little bit more intuitive, with the install and autodetection; nothing fancy, but just an intuitive install. Something noteworthy is that graphics card drivers should be by Manufacturer (i.e., Nvidia, ATI), then by Brand Name (i.e., GeForce, GeForce2, TNT, etc); then by the specific driver, with a good stable one selected and recommended by default. Fortunately, eventually Debian will ship with the Progeny Installer (at the rate at which things in Debian move from Unstable -> Testing -> Stable, that'll be sometime around 2010 ;-). But when it arrives, it will, like everything else about Debian, be rock solid. Debian could also work on some good defaults. Sound should be there when you first start up WindowMaker. Screen font size should be 12. WindowMaker should be well-configured by default. And so-on, and so-forth. This stuff will happen *eventually*; Debian developer's first priority is stability and technical excellence; superficial issues such as these (which are manageable for Debian's intended expert audience) are on the back-burner.

If you want an easy-to-use, easy-to-configure, easy-to-install, great-defaults Debian *right now*, then pay for Lindows or Libranet (I suggest Lindows). Lindows has glowing reviews for ease of use, and seems to solve all the problems these reviewers harp on.

--
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen

Re:Two reviews? by mAIsE · 2002-10-20 15:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Debian is a group of technical users that maintain a technical distribution.

It is a very large problem that is not atypical of the open source crowd; that will guarantee that there will always be room for commercial entities to put the polish on open source projects.

Don't forget, Debian is REALLY FREE by dilute · 2002-10-20 15:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Hope this isn't redundant, but its worth pointing out that Debian goes out of its way to stay free. And it is rock solid stable. These two things mean a lot if you're going to use Linux long term. The "free" part, apart from philosophical issues, means you won't get hit in the future by some software vendor with its hand out demanding to get paid for an "upgrade" of formerly "free" software (this happened too many times with other distros). The stable part means, quite simply, that you can get work done. Debian does not have a monopoly on stability, but it is very stable, especially after being upgraded over a period of time (it STAYS stable).

I don't know why everyone whines about the install. The install isn't bad if you've installed a few distros before and accept most of the defaults. Oh, yes, be sure to select the 2.4 kernel flavor of installation and a journaling file system (e.g., EXT3). Anyway, they're revamping the install. If it's too much for you, use something else.

Red Hat is OK, but I was burned one too many times with RPM dependency conflicts. This kind of thing is very rare in Debian, if you take care to maintain your system "the Debian way."

Yes, I'd like to have xfree 4.2, KDE 3, Gnome 2 and the other latest stuff, and they're all available for Debian if you want to install experimental and unstable packages, but I don't, at least not on a production system. There's nothing missing from the stable and testing distributions that keep me from doing most of what I want to do.

Guess I sound a bit like a true believer, but damn, I like being able to turn off my entire network, say for a weekend out of town, and then turn it on and have every machine come up the way it's supposed to with no fooling around. And know that the whole thing will remain free for the foreseeable future.

Re:Don't forget, Debian is REALLY FREE by bogie · 2002-10-20 19:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

"Don't forget, Debian is REALLY FREE "

So is Redhat, always was, always will be.

"Red Hat is OK, but I was burned one too many times with RPM dependency conflicts"

Apt-rpm. Although I certainly can relate to problems that used to occur years ago.

I am happy Debian is around, but I wish people would stop trying to use Redhat as some sort of scapegoat everytime they need a negative reference to compare their distro to. It's patently unfair considering A)how much they have given back to the community and B) how they continue to put out a Free highquality distro year after year. Someone's got to be number one, no need to begrudge them anything.

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Re:Don't forget, Debian is REALLY FREE by thelexx · 2002-10-21 02:55 · Score: 2

"So is Redhat, always was, always will be."

No, he meant Free. As in All Open Source and That Which Isn't Is Clearly Segregated. You don't want to install ANY non-OSS software? Debian makes it easy.

"Apt-rpm. Although I certainly can relate to problems that used to occur years ago."

Considering that RH got apt FROM the Debian crew, you may want to choose another example!

--
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Re:Don't forget, Debian is REALLY FREE by rhavyn · 2002-10-21 08:31 · Score: 2

Red Hat is also Free. Try to find any non OSS software in the downloadable version. Try to find any non OSS software on anything but the clearly marked Applications CD in the box set. Red Hat releases all the software they right under the GPL or LGPL (this includes their installer and all their utilities). You don't want to install ANY non OSS software, just don't install anything on the Applications CD. Red Hat even ripped all the mp3 utilities out of the distro, and Red Hat and Debian were the only 2 distros that wouldn't distribute KDE during the Qt licensing problems. Yes, Red Hat is the other completely OSS distro whether or not debian followers like to admit it or not.

And, OMG code reusage. Well, Red Hat doesn't support or suggest that you use apt-rpm, they have up2date which ties into the Red Hat Network which does the same thing (tho it is limited to the packages that Red Hat distributes). It's free for one system tho there are tricks to use it with multiple systems. apt-rpm is something connective did for their distro. Anyways, perhaps debian should try reusing some Red Hat code and use their installer and config utilties.
Re:Don't forget, Debian is REALLY FREE by dilute · 2002-10-21 13:24 · Score: 2

Debian has some distro-specific tools and scripts for doing things like compiling and installing the kernel, modules, and other source packages. They are easy to use (once you read the FAQ), and work very smoothly. To get the most mileage and have the fewest problems, you use these tools instead of the usual make config, make and make install. It helps keep everything from becoming unhinged. You just have to learn a few new tricks, that's all.

Of course, sticking within the distribution proper sure does work if you don't want to have to think too much. There are about 10,000 packages provided. Look here for a list.
Re:Don't forget, Debian is REALLY FREE by rickmoen · 2002-10-21 17:30 · Score: 2

Your point is mostly well taken, but, since you asked:
Red Hat is also Free. Try to find any non OSS software in the downloadable version.
pine-4.44-13.i386.rpm
...but that's the only one I was able to spot, on a run through the package list. xv, acroread, Netscape Communicator/Navigator, Sun Java stuff, Realplayer, are all gone, replaced by open-source codebases developed, in some cases, through Red Hat Software's sponsorship. I'm impressed.

I like it this way by Uhh_Duh · 2002-10-20 15:26 · Score: 5, Interesting

Debian is not for the faint of heart. As a long-time UNIX admin, I'm a big fan of having the fluff removed from the installation. I love FreeBSD for similar rasons.

I'm glad there's still a linux distribution that doesn't make all the decisions for me.

Isn't that why linux people hate microsoft?? Have we come full circle here and we need our hand held?

I understand a newbie wanting a GUI to get Linux up and going. But Debian has NEVER touted itself as the OS for such. It's for people who are serious about using Linux in production environments.

--
-- People who hate Windows use Linux. People who love UNIX use BSD.

Debian's difficult by dh003i · 2002-10-20 15:31 · Score: 5, Informative

I wonder where this apparent perception that Debian GNU/Linux for newbies (on the part of the reviewers) comes from. Debian is not for newbies. What, do these people think that because Debian sounds friendly, its somehow for newbies?

No, its not. Debian-based Lindows and Libranix are for newbies.

Debian is for experts. Anyone *can* install it and get it set up to their liking, but it won't be fun. It will require knowing your exact hardware specs, exactly what you want, and reading alot of manuals. The only people who will easily navigate their way around installing and configuring Debian are people coming from Slackware, Gentoo, OpenBSD, minix, or other hard-core UNIX-like OS' even more hard-core than Debian.

--
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen

Debian... needs to be like Slack. by strredwolf · 2002-10-20 15:43 · Score: 2

I've tried 3.0 on a laptop. And I can tell you, it's no Slack 8.1. The installer sucks in comparison, and really needs to be dry-run about five times before you know what to do.

Plus, forget about doing dselect. Use aptitude instead. It's the closest to Slack's pkgselect (even though I wish Slack had dependency tracking).

Also, there's a limit on software unless you want to compile it. With "xv", you have to compile it, and it looks complicated enough.

--

--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";

The installer is important by Erskin · 2002-10-20 15:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

Lots of views are expressed here, but as I just installed woody, I think many of you have missed some simply points:

If you can't get past the installer, the rest of the OS doens't matter. You'll never see it.
dselect is insufficient. It may be powerful, but when I have to WADE through 8600+ packages manually, one at a time, something is wrong. It shouldn't take me a DAY to just pick my packages.
Grabbing the release via jigdo on my Windows box (all 7 bin CDs) and tyrign to instlal the first time rsultied in SOMETHING causing all my selceted packages to be 'corrupt' in somebody's eyes.. (I suspect the hardening packages). Purchasing someone elese's burnm of the images revealed my CDs were fine, and I had to REPEAT the entire process from scratch ot get the OS to install.

I love the concept behind Debian. I want to have control over my system and over the TYPE of software I install. Debian will let me, but it punishes me for trying. I expect I'll be installing another distro shortly. I need to use my computer, not spend type getting it ready to be used.

Obligatory claim of competence: I started with slackware on floppies back in the 1.2 kernel days. I installed via floppies to bootstrap. I am not totally clueless.

--

Erskin
geek.

Re:The installer is important by Synn · 2002-10-20 17:09 · Score: 2

If you can't get past the installer, the rest of the OS doens't matter. You'll never see it.

If you can't get past Debian's installer, then Debian isn't he OS for you. Use Mandrake or Red Hat.

I mean really, why does one distribution have to do it all?

dselect is insufficient. It may be powerful, but when I have to WADE through 8600+ packages manually, one at a time, something is wrong. It shouldn't take me a DAY to just pick my packages.

Then don't use dselect. I haven't used dselect in years. All you need it apt-get.

I love the concept behind Debian. I want to have control over my system and over the TYPE of software I install. Debian will let me, but it punishes me for trying. I expect I'll be installing another distro shortly. I need to use my computer, not spend type getting it ready to be used.

What concept behind Debian do you love? It's intelligent layout of config files. The way config files are all easily hand editable? The solid default setup for all the linux services? The strict policy control that keeps 8700 packages working together without conflicts? The ability to have a Debian box running for 3 years and trivially keep it up to date with the bleeding edge Linux scene without ever doing a reinstall? The use of /etc/alternatives? The X window menu system structure that allows packages to add/remove themselves from it cleanly?

If all you need is a workstation OS to play games or write a report on, then definately choose Mandrake. It was built for that.

Debian was built around other concerns.
Re:The installer is important by dzym · 2002-10-21 00:58 · Score: 2

That's about as troll-ish as I ever expected to see a post on slashdot, and it isn't even about Microsoft. Ok, here's a number of replies.
If you can't get past the installer, the rest of the OS doens't matter. You'll never see it.
Yep, this is true. Which is why the Debian installer goes for the lowest common denominator instead of trying something fancy and high-faluting like, say, the Mandrake installer, which when I used it last kept dumping core after package selection.
dselect is insufficient. It may be powerful, but when I have to WADE through 8600+ packages manually, one at a time, something is wrong. It shouldn't take me a DAY to just pick my packages.
Then don't use it. There's aptitude, deity, or just plain apt-get with some judicious usage of debfoster or deborphan. Who says you have to use dselect? And as for manual wading-through of packages--that's what the task metapackages are there for. Want to install a standard server setup? Here's sshd, apache, ftp, etc. Want to install a desktop environment? Here's the entire set of XFree86 standard packages. Want gnome? Want KDE? Same thing. Dselect SHOWS YOU all this.
Grabbing the release via jigdo on my Windows box (all 7 bin CDs) and tyrign to instlal the first time rsultied in SOMETHING causing all my selceted packages to be 'corrupt' in somebody's eyes.. (I suspect the hardening packages). Purchasing someone elese's burnm of the images revealed my CDs were fine, and I had to REPEAT the entire process from scratch ot get the OS to install.
Are you nuts? The 7 CDs contain the packages for all the different arches--which you'll never need as a regular user. Stick with just downloading and burning the first CD--install the rest from the 'net. Or go one step further--install only the base package (which at last check is a mere 30-odd megs or so) and do the rest from the 'net. You've got the bandwidth to burn, since you dl'd all 7 CDs without batting an eye, so this method shouldn't faze you at all.
Re:The installer is important by Erskin · 2002-10-21 09:46 · Score: 2

That's about as troll-ish as I ever expected to see a post on slashdot, and it isn't even about Microsoft.

Well I suppose I've made an acoompliment in some regard at least :)

Which is why the Debian installer goes for the lowest common denominator instead of trying something fancy and high-faluting like, say, the Mandrake installer, which when I used it last kept dumping core after package selection.

The lowest common denominator by what quality? I honestly don't follow this one. The installtion seems aimed for the LEAST common denomniator, those skilled with Unix with familiar with Debian already. I fyou mean by hardware, I never said I needed a fancy GRAPHICAL solution, just a solution :)

And as for manual wading-through of packages--that's what the task metapackages are there for. [...] Dselect SHOWS YOU all this.

I still have to wade thorugh the other packages to get to them. If there were other better package installation utitlies, then why can I pick the package utitly i want to use when I'm installing? tasksel is a nice start, but I need something in between dselect and tasksel. Or PERHPAS just a batter way to sort through the dselect informaiton.

Are you nuts? The 7 CDs contain the packages for all the different arches--which you'll never need as a regular user.

1) Yes I am nuts.

2) I'm also paranoid, that's why I want a local copy of any data I may depend on.

3) While I didn't find nice ISO images sorted by architecture, I would like to.

That being said my last comment was pretty much flamebait, .. sorry about that. I should have tagged it as such.

--
Erskin
geek.
Re:The installer is important by Erskin · 2002-10-21 09:56 · Score: 2

What you really should do is have some minimal set of packages you want.

I certianly had no idea I was getting into QUITE that many packages when I started.. (which speaks well of the package base Debian has, and poorly of either me for not seeing, or dselect for not clueing me in...)

I was also going for a VERY minimal install. I guess I felt like there wasn't a good weay for me to know WHAT was a available. I really like the idea behind tasksel, but it's too broad fo rmy usage.. I'm no unix wizard, but I am _way_ beyond newbie here..

Either way, thanks for the advice.. I'll certainly take a new approach the next time I try a fresh install. I proabbly also bit off more than I was ready to swallow when I tried to add the hardening stuff in the first pass. Maybe it's time I setup a LOCAL area network instead of "a couple machines with IP addresses on a hub..." and played with something where I can worry about paranoid level security AFTER I get the base system installed with the apps I need.

You know, the more I think about this, the more I think it's a general problem. Linux distro's come with TONS of software. I mean TONS... Even if you took the libraries and development stuff out of the picture, the list of pure end user applications and support utilities is still too much to put on a single page. Perhaps that is what gives me the most trouble with dselect right now.

Disclaimer: I am ignorant on current installation systems for almost EVERY distro except Debian, as I've not installed Linux for some time.. (funny how when it works you don't need to, eh?) so other distro's may solve these percieved issues of mine or not.

Side note: I am currently playing with alternate package managers, now that I've got he system up and running, as well as the other packages for simplifiying package management.

--
Erskin
geek.
Re:The installer is important by Erskin · 2002-10-21 10:06 · Score: 2

The installer is what it is, an installer. It is not an assistant. It has ALL the tools I need to install a production system. This is, after all, what Debian intends its stable distro to be used for.

This can get into semantics of what a production system is and what consittues assistance, but...

I guess I'm only trying to say that I cannot use dselect to easily comprehend what packages are available, and I expected to be able to.

dselect offers the most amazing selection of software I have ever seen available from my terminal.

I agree.. that's one reason why I like dselect and Debian. It gives me that choice.. just currently it does it in a bit of a spammy manner, IMHO.

The installer clearly states that tasksel will install the major packages you need from the selected theme.

tasksel was too vague/general in it's options for me. I suppose needed (need?) something somewhere between tasksel and dselect to get me started.

Try the net install iso. It is less than 50mb.

Thanks for the tip anwyayz, but I have no problems with downlaoding the 7 CDs.. (i guess I wasn't too clear on that one ;) As a matter of fact I was proably just flaming more tha I shoudl have and (in retrospect) should have said so. Sorry about that. What I DID find annoying was that I somehow managed to take what shoudl have been no problem (Debain has GREAT package dependancy handling yadda yadda yadda) and managed to install SOME subset of packages to make furhter package installs fail.

Now that I've admitted it on /. I suppose I am morally obliged to see if I can reproduce the situtation for the benefit of everyone and make sure the nice vdevelopers know about it if it IS a real issue... *sigh* well I'll add it to my list... :)

But, I am persistent. For people like me, there is all the help I need from the greatest asset of Debian- the community.

I'll admit I'm slow to go to the community for answers (at least the interactive bits... the onlien references I am all over...) But I don't understand why having to be persistant should be a design goal fo the ditribution... And if it's not, the developers might want ot know if it's happeneing so they can decide if they care. That's all.

--
Erskin
geek.
Re:The installer is important by Erskin · 2002-10-21 10:25 · Score: 2
If you can't get past Debian's installer, then Debian isn't he OS for you.

If that's the design goal for Debian, that's fine by me.. just thought you might want to know what your prodcut looks like from someone you are (apparently) intending to exclude.

I *want* to use Debian becuase it have the best package system aroudn (or so I'm told and my experiecne with RPM shows me), because it has the potential to let me grow and learn the full complexity of Unix, and because it allows me the ption to choose in terms of types of software (free/non-free/etc.)

I trust the ideals and the motivces behind Debian more than other commercial entities.\, and I want ot supor that sort of option to be out there.

Then don't use dselect. I haven't used dselect in years. All you need it apt-get.

I did use apt-get, for several packages when I wanted that were in the unstable distribution. Regardless, apt-get does not address my concern (admittedly poorly stated at first) of having some way to comprehensively understand _what_ packages are available.

What concept behind Debian do you love? [...]

Yes.. and others. Such as the (at least purported) motivationd of the developers and their philosophies. Their stated values of stability and openness and control for th end user. IN a real senes, I (perhaps foolishly to trust at all one might say) trust them not to have some secret agenda out for my pocketbook. That's why I try to support them. I wouldn't bother offering feedbakc if I didn't think what they offer has value. I just think it could be better.

(And before someone shouts: Then Make It Better! know that I do what I can with what time I have. Part of which involves piping up when I think I've noticed something.)

If all you need is a workstation OS to play games or write a report on, then definately choose Mandrake. It was built for that.

I didn't state my needs, but since you mentioned,.. :)
- I write papers anywhere.. I can boot a C= 64 emulatoer and run GEOS if I need to and still have more than enough power and flexibilty.
- I don't use Linux for games. It can't compete, much to my chagrin. (At least not yet.)
I am looking to use my box to provide a development enviroment so I can get back ointo writing OSS projects again, teach others the joys of Unix and programming, and provide services for interactrive collaboration with some collegeus of mine. Also, I want the resourcefulness of having a Unix box avialable for when I need ot get things done that REALLY ARE SIMPLY but every other OS makes awkward becuase it didn't fall into one of thier predetermined buest guesses of what the end user wanted to do.

I want ot be ABLE to get into the dirty underpinning when I need ot do something nobody planned on, but tha tDOESN'T mean I want to have to do it for tasks that ARE commonplace nowadays.

To take it to an extreme, why not just have the machine boot up into an echoless display where you can type 1's and 0's in straight to the processor? Ultimate power, right? Ultimate flexibility?

It's an art to draw the line between abstraction for ease of use and flexibilty which necessitates complexity. I just think the Debian install could do better.

Debian was built around other concerns.

The ones that attracted me the the concern for a free (as in libre) distribution of Linux.. the kind that values quality, stability, and providing the end user with software to take advantagre of his/her hardware, as opposed to simply making profit. I don't see why that means it has to be some sort of white tower that excludes anyone who isn't 133t enough (or has enough time to get there). I think there are more peopl than a select few who could benefit form the concerns Debian addresses, and I feel like a more functional installer would help that happen.
--
Erskin
geek.
Re:The installer is important by Daniel · 2002-10-21 12:11 · Score: 2

If that's the design goal for Debian, that's fine by me.. just thought you might want to know what your prodcut looks like from someone you are (apparently) intending to exclude.

Please don't use the possessive; as far as I can tell the previous poster is not a member of Debian and does not speak for us (the two are seperate; few if any Debian members can truthfully claim to speak for the organization)

Some members of the Debian development community do share his views (I can think of one or two prominent examples), but I don't believe that they are anything like a majority. (see caveat above, however :) )

Daniel

--
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Re:The installer is important by Erskin · 2002-10-21 14:43 · Score: 2

Please don't use the possessive. [...]
the previous poster is not a member of Debian

Quite right. Sorry about that.

--
Erskin
geek.

Well... by (eternal_software) · 2002-10-20 15:44 · Score: 2, Informative

This about sums it up:

kwrite decided it wouldn't display documents it opened and konqueror decided all pages should be 2000 pixels wide, even though the window was about 800.

Sound didn't work, and consequently the KDE bootup screen stalled for ages at the window manager stage while arts slowly died, then popped up a No Sound message box. None of the PPP connection tools worked when not used by root. None of the hard disk partitions were configured (even though they had been recognised by the piece of code that set up LILO). My CDRW at /dev/hdd wasn't set up, not even as a plain CD-ROM. The menus were all over the place. The fonts in GTK apps were hideously big. XftConfig wasn't set up to disable antialiasing for standard size fonts, nor were the workarounds for symbol and console fonts (mentioned here) included. Another bug.

It was a mess.

Newbie rant by Rebel+Patriot · 2002-10-20 15:58 · Score: 2

I hear a lot of bitchin' about installations and configurations that newbies can't do. These rants are generally given by people who have some experience with *nix and Linux in particular. They assume that the newbie will be unable to do something, and bail. If the point of a review is to see what newbies can or can not do with the installer, why the hell don't newbies install the distro and tehn write the review? Why must it always be some second party speaking of a third party's capabilities, or lack thereof? Please people, stop the newbie this and newbie that until you actually find a fuckin' newbie and ask him/her.

Thank you.

--
Slackware forever. Honestly, what else would you trust when it absolutely positively has to be stable, secure, and easy

How is debian compared to gentoo? by Billly+Gates · 2002-10-20 16:00 · Score: 2

I have a question?

I do not have alot of time to do a linux installation. Is the debian installer similiar to gentoo in terms of configuring this file there, and write that file over here or is it more automated?

My only issue it seems with debian, assuming the installation is easier is that there are no master make files. For example with gentoo I can update the /etc/make.defaults file and include gcc 3.2. After this, when I do an emerge vim, it will be compilied with gcc 3.2 rather then 2.9.5x. The latest version of gentoo comes with a much better c++ compiler but it also comes with perl 5.8 which is too incompatible with perl 5.6.

--
http://saveie6.com/

disable kudzu and linuxconf by moogla · 2002-10-20 16:07 · Score: 2

Then everything seems to fall into place. I have a lot of systems that were redhat or mandrake that I "declawed". How often do I need to change network cards or add new tape drives? I find it easier to edit that kinda stuff by hand. Redhat also is nice enough to have a semi-sane arrangement for various configuration files in /etc (/etc/sysconfig comes to mind).

--
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE

Re:disable kudzu and linuxconf by barawn · 2002-10-21 00:03 · Score: 2

I definitely agree - but this isn't the default, and most people "complain" that Red Hat's autoconfiguration "doesn't work". If they knew how to actually make the changes, then they would probably say "Oh, wait... this is easy. Why do I need a tool to do this?" instead of complaining that Linux sucks and you can't get anything to work.

Debian doesn't have autoconfiguration tools "by default". By default you have to do everything by hand. If you want a simple tool to configure something, you can get it, but it's not default.

The other thing that bugs me is that the automagic Red Hat tools don't tell you what they're doing. Kudzu doesn't tell me "Oh, I'm going to change this and this and this, is that OK with you? Do you have any better suggestions?" It's too braindead. The Debian tools are a little better, but not terrific - the difference is that they're not the default. So, I know how to add a new network card by hand in Debian (and Red Hat too, but that's because linuxconf never actually worked for me) - and I also know how to automagically do it, too.

Personally I like Debian's splitup of modules.conf into files inside /etc/modules - recently all the charsets, and billions of other small modules have really crowded /etc/modules.conf, so it's nice to split them up and have them be easier to deal with.

(The other thing that ticked me off is when Kudzu used to claim that it was configuring something, when in fact it didn't bloody well do ANYTHING. Sound cards come to mind - if you don't know how to configure it, suggest things for the user. Definitely don't act as if the bloody thing's already configured. Grr.)
Re:disable kudzu and linuxconf by HiThere · 2002-10-21 03:21 · Score: 2

Doing everything manually works ... but only if you have terrific documentation.

I can't count (because my memory's fuzzy) the number of times I've had a problem with connecting to the network, chased through the documentation, and ended up with a line that said "Check at http://... for further information." This doesn't work!!! And dummy driver files or monitor specs. I guess that the guy that packaged the CDs didn't realize that this beta didn't include the monitor specs. But Debian is the ONLY distro that I've ever needed those specs for (I ended up guessing, and I must have guessed safely, but gee!). And it's not like I had an unusual monitor. A ViewSonic G77 or a Sony Trinitron 100ES (it didn't have either).

If you want to quibble, the Debian docs do say that you need to have that information on hand before you start. But it's the only distribution I've ever encountered (well, since one of the Red Hat 5's) where you needed the information.

OTOH, I will grant that when Red Hat breaks, it's quite difficult to figure out where. For a lot of the parts, there doesn't seem to even *be* any documentation anywhere! And Mandrake is worse. At least Red Hat publishes these huge volumes that claim to tell you about the Red Hat internals. Problem is, they don't consider Gnome and KDE to be Red Hat Internals. So when something is at the edge of Red Hat and Gnome (or worse, is an interaction between Gnome and KDE) there just *ISN'T* any documentation. Except the code. UGH!

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

The writing is usually so bad the spelling is moot by aquarian · 2002-10-20 16:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

The spelling is the least of the problems these websites have. Most of them are so badly written in general that they're a real chore to read. The worst are the hardware sites like Anandtech, with pages and pages of stuff that a good writer could express in a couple of paragraphs. Reading these sites is like listening to a 14 year old blab on about his model airplanes or something.

I like debian, but... by Siniset · 2002-10-20 16:30 · Score: 2, Informative

I think the reviewer, while misguided in his criticism of debian, is not off the mark in feeling that debian needs a major overhaul (at least for the desktop). I've had a couple of friends who have sworn by debian as the way to go, but I have to say gentoo is the "expert" distro that has me the most excited? Why, because I get the feeling that the gentoo people are putting an emphasis on keeping their packages up to date. I think it's laughable that debian still uses a 2.2 kernel by default for desktop installs. Ugh. I like to live on the bleeding edge. Have the time I'm not even sure what the improvements are, but if there is a release out there with a higher number than the one I'm using, I'll begin eyeing it hungerly. I understand that debian is designed with stability in mind and that's fine. And if they wish to continue with that as their primary focus, then they will continue to be a server disto (which is fine, too). The fact is, we don't need 15 different "expert" distros for workstation and desktop users. One final note. Great work, debian people. It might have sounded like I hate your distro, but I don't. I'll keep logging into the debian server they got at school, and keep laughing at the people getting frustrated who are stuck on the solaris server.

Even a chicken could install Debian.... by NetFusion · 2002-10-20 16:35 · Score: 2, Funny

It has been said even a chicken could install Debian since most of the work requires just tapping enter. These reviewers must not satisfy the minimum species requirement. Please replace user with more evolved lifeform and try again.

Debian is for newbies? by Tenaka+Kahn · 2002-10-20 16:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

All I can say is I'm dumbfounded!

My first foray into linux was RH 6.2. I was running a P-100, 16mb RAM, 2mb PCI video card, 2GB hdd. Lets just say I had 1gb free(!), a GUI I couldn't get rid of and a cmd line that was unresponsive... It was 6 months later I tried again....... It was then another 3 months later with a friend who liked Debian sitting beside me that I tried again. The Text mode installer was intuitive and after the install, the box was like new, it flew!

I haven't looked back since.

I found RedHat TOO black box in approach, "stuff goes in", "things happen", "stuff comes out". I really don't like that, I had no idea what the OS was doing.

With Debian, I found it crisper, faster, more informative, and those damn dependancies, gone *bamph*.

I'm still a newbie, probably always will be, hell, I don't understand regex, I don't intend to. With that said though, I thoroughly reccomend Debian to all my friends.

So, thanks Panix, for the intro to Debian :-)

Perhaps Debian isn't meant to be "finished" by aquarian · 2002-10-20 16:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm wondering if Debian was ever really meant to be a finished, polished, complete distribution- instead, maybe we should consider it raw material from which more polished distributions can be built- like Linux itself. Debian just takes Linux a little further- then leaves it for others to finish.

I say this because there have been some really nice, slick distributions based on Debian. Corel was the first I can remember. It wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but it had a slick installer that did everything automagically, and some desktop enhancements to make it easier for the average Windows user to handle. Storm Linux was another that was pretty nice- again, a slick installer almost anyone could use, plus some nice system management and configuration tools, similar to Mandrake's. Now, Libranet seems to be doing good things with Debian also. You can read about Libranet here. Finally, I tried Knoppix the other day. It's a neat distribution that runs live from a CD, so one can try Linux without actually installing it. It has all the basics, and a nice KDE desktop. It's incredibly slick- installing, configuring, and loading itself from a CD faster than any of my Linux machines have ever booted. It detected all the hardware and ran perfectly on my laptop, with the nicest KDE desktop I've seen. I've been a Win2k hostage lately, so I've been loading Knoppix to netsurf and use some of my favorite programs, like Lyx. I urge everyone to try it, just for kicks.

All of these distributions are Debian, with the finish work being done by someone else.

So maybe we shouldn't think of Debian as a finished distribution, but as a toolkit- raw material for other distibutors to work with. Some have, and have done a good job.

Re:Perhaps Debian isn't meant to be "finished" by wandernotlost · 2002-10-20 17:02 · Score: 2

That's an excellent point. Debian isn't really meant to be a polished OS. It's meant to serve the developers that create it. Since it's not a company, there's little drive to get more users, and thus no drive to polish the install process, etc., other than to make it more useful for the developers themselves.

This leaves that job to the 3rd parties, who add the polish for those who want it to an excellent base, furnished by those happy developers.

Everybody wins! I love open source! :)
Re:Perhaps Debian isn't meant to be "finished" by epine · 2002-10-20 17:26 · Score: 2

Yesterday at 6:00p.m. I had a box of parts. By 9:00p.m. I had a working system with the Debian base install and OpenSSH configured with my public key installed. By 10:00p.m. the machine was installed and working fine in our server closet in our small office downtown and I could access the machine remotely via SSH to complete the configuration.

Most painful step: it took a full hour to install the giant PAL 8045 heatsink with exactly the right amount of thermal paste. Second most painful step: discovering that the 18" IDE cables wouldn't read from the hotswap IDE controllers to the right IDE connector, having to pull the whole thing out and lowering it one slot. Pain caused by Debian? One of the two floppies I used to boot the machine failed to format on the first attempt.

Both my network interfaces came up automatically, my hot swap IDE RAID was detected automatically, my network install worked automatically. I created all my partitions and mount points without ever leaving the installation script. The average table or chair from IKEA take longer to assemble.

I think the real complaint in that review is that Debian comes as unfinished pine and he was expecting a dark walnut stain and then he makes it sound like Debian amounts to chopping your own trees.
Re:Perhaps Debian isn't meant to be "finished" by autechre · 2002-10-20 19:13 · Score: 2

I can live with that. I run Debian (unstable for my _home_ desktop, stable for all production servers), but I also run Mozilla which, according to mozilla.org, is not intended for the end user :)

--
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.

Re:Clearly he has never install OpenBSD...wha...? by Boingy+the+Boingster · 2002-10-20 16:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

If it wasn't for OpenBSD's easy install I might still be using Windows.

I tinkered with Mandrake and Redhat for a while as Windows alternatives but didn't have great experiences. Then I stumbled on OpenBSD, did an easy slick ftp install and presto! Bye-bye Bill. The installer's fast and takes less brain cells than Linux.

(Don't get me wrong, though. I don't mean to put down Linux. I'm writing this on Redhat.)

Like Standard Transmission -- in a station wagon? by fw3 · 2002-10-20 16:58 · Score: 2

Nothing against stationwagons, I have an '86 volvo that I'm very happy with. of course it's also easy to work on.

The ducati on the otherhand is a little hard to maintain, but worth the effort.

For my $0.02 Debian looks like the worst of both worlds, arcane to manage, and not very fast, I prefer and useobsd & slackware. Ymmv of course, sane people who I respect use and like deb.

--
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD

Poorly focused reveiws by Vantage13 · 2002-10-20 17:08 · Score: 2, Redundant

Is it me or do most OS reviews these days seem to miss the mark?

I'm sure installers are nice and all, but when it comes down to it that should be the least significant part of actually *using* an OS.

6 months or 12 months down the road if you ask the RedHat reviewer who raved about the installer, or the Debian reviewer who complained about the installer how their systems were doing, i'm willing to guess that the Debian one is

a) still quite up to date and
b) hasn't had any stability problems at all.

Whereas the other one

a) May have been re-installed with a newer release and
b) May be experiencing dependancy hell.

Taking all this into consideration it seems absolutely ridiculus how much attention is paid to the installers during a review. Besides what percentage of Windows users have actually installed their own OS? So if typical end users are not the ones installing it, what does it matter what the installer is like?

I'd like to see reviews based on how well the configured machine operates from the day after the install on. I think that's far more telling about the quality of the product than judging it on the installer itself.

Re:Poorly focused reveiws by geekoid · 2002-10-20 20:00 · Score: 3, Funny

"Besides what percentage of Windows users have actually installed their own OS?"
100%...eventually. ;)

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

WIMPS! by peeping_Thomist · 2002-10-20 17:18 · Score: 2

Debian isn't that hard to use. I'm not a comp-sci major or anything, and it
didn't take me long to get comfortable with Debian. It's a very well-designed
system. Yes, you have to have information about your system in order to
install it; so what? If you can't handle the fire, get out of the kitchen.
And stop whining!

Newbies!

--
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton

But why waste your time if you don't have to? by bogie · 2002-10-20 18:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Start off with a nice easy dist and as you grow you go towards Debian/Slack/Gentoo etc"

While I am all "grown", I feel no need to migrate to a less polished/harder to use distro. I can install and use literally any distro and I certainly don't need a a GUI to get my work done, but why stay in the stone age?

Advances in installs and config tools happen for a reason. There is nothing "better" about something being harder to use or master period. All products should be user friendly. Your forgetting that Computers are here to serve us, not make our lives more complicated.

Real progress is a newbie and an expert being able to accomplish the same task and letting the OS do the work. If I could wave a magic wand and make settings up a safe and solid web or database server as easy as falling off a log, you can bet your ass I would. If the tools you give someone are done correctly there is NO wrong way of doing something, it just works.

There will always be a place for hardcore users who want to "get under the hood", but real progress comes when you no longer have to do that and using a product becomes as easy as flipping on a light switch.

That is why I prefer the "easier to use" distros. Currently they may be making some sacificies in order to promote ease of use. But you know what? They are on the right track and I'd rather help them achieve their goal of becoming "light switches", as opposed any distro which requires a user to spend time mastering it as opposed to simply using it.

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch

Re:But why waste your time if you don't have to? by Clover_Kicker · 2002-10-21 00:43 · Score: 2

Bogie sez:

>While I am all "grown", I feel no need to migrate
>to a less polished/harder to use distro. I can
>install and use literally any distro and I
>certainly don't need a a GUI to get my work done,
>but why stay in the stone age?
>
>Advances in installs and config tools happen for
>a reason. There is nothing "better" about
>something being harder to use or master period.
>All products should be user friendly. Your
>forgetting that Computers are here to serve us,
>not make our lives more complicated.

Did you read the post you were replying to?

miffo.swe sez:

>>Often when you do all things by hand you end up
>>with a much better system than if everything is
>>done automagically.

[SNIP]

>>I like the control and system-knowledge it gives me
>>when i build my own system from scratch.
Re:But why waste your time if you don't have to? by HiThere · 2002-10-21 03:37 · Score: 2

While I am all "grown", I feel no need to migrate to a less polished/harder to use distro. I can install and use literally any distro and I certainly don't need a a GUI to get my work done, but why stay in the stone age?

Advances in installs and config tools happen for a reason. There is nothing "better" about something being harder to use or master period. All products should be user friendly. Your forgetting that Computers are here to serve us, not make our lives more complicated.

Well, I prefer Red Hat and Mandrake myself. apt-get is pretty nice, but you don't need to leave Red Hat or Mandrake for that.

However, there is a way in which the text-based tools are better (at least if you have good enough documentation). That is that you can fix a broken system. Usually these days I just do a re-install, which is a drag, but not too bad if you keep /usr/local and /home. And remember to back-up /etc. But it sure isn't the optimal way to do things. If there were decent documentation it would be possible to just fix the part that was broken.

Still ... I've never broken my system as badly on Red Hat as I have on Debian. One careless click in dselect, and a huge host of files got removed. And I didn't see any way to undo or cancel safely. 'Twas a memorable experience.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:But why waste your time if you don't have to? by RealAlaskan · 2002-10-21 08:32 · Score: 2

Advances in installs and config tools happen for a reason. There is nothing "better" about something being harder to use or master period.
True. I don't think that has anything to do with Debian, really.
People keep saying that the Debian installer is HARD, but I'm not sure I believe it. I switched to Debian Potato for my laptop about a year ago, and recently upgraded to Woody. I've installed Woody on another box, also. I didn't find the Debian installer any harder than the Redhat or Mandrake installers. It is different, but no harder.
Text mode is neither harder nor easier to use than GUI. What makes for an easy installation is great hardware detection and sensible defaults. Everything just worked [1], so I guess the hardware detection was good enough. When I didn't know what to choose, I took the default, and have been happy with it.
One point that I haven't seen anyone make yet is that with Debian, it really doesn't matter whether you install some un-needed packages, or forget to install some that you do need. As long as you have apt installed, you can get (or remove) whatever you need. With Redhat, I learned to install EVERYTHING, because installing one thing later can lead you into RPM-dependency-hell.
... I prefer the "easier to use" distros.
Now you're changing the subject! Debian has the same applications as the other Linux distributions, and thus should be equally easy to use (assuming those other distributions have apt). Actually, it is easier for me, since I bump into fewer bugs in stable than in Mandrake or Redhat.
[1] Everything just worked except sound, of course, but that never worked out of the box for me with Redhat or Mandrake, either, on any of my machines.

--
See what I've been reading.

Installer sucks, but... by willfe · 2002-10-20 18:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

I use Debian's installer approximately once per machine, for approximately twenty to sixty minutes of its operational runtime depending on its network connection. It installs the platform, and is never seen again. From then on, the machine runs Debian. Life becomes good. :)

I can forgive Debian's installer for being painful and outdated, since there are several versions of it available for download to support features that aren't available out of the box, and because it installs the single most reliable and best-performing Linux distribution in the world.

Red Hat 8.0 may be easier to install, but try compiling PHP 4.2.x with the compiler suite it ships with. Then try getting a 2.96.x series GCC installed on the box without just building it from scratch.

Yup, gimme my painful installer. It took all of twenty minutes to learn (simple is good, right? :) and it gives me a wonderful system that just works. Keep your shiny installers and bunk distros until they can produce a working system, not just an "oooh, purdy, it booted into Linux!" install.

Oh, and those who complain that apt is only a good package manager when you know the name of the package you're after obviously haven't ever tried apt-cache search.

--
Read my stuff.

Re:The writing is usually so bad the spelling is m by aquarian · 2002-10-20 18:53 · Score: 2

Um, don't you mean 'poorly written'?

No. "Poor" is a polite euphemism preferred by your third grade english teacher, who was also trying to get you to say "please" and "mister." Now that we're adults, we can come right out and say "bad," "badly," and "go away, you fucking nebbish."

Install once, update for life. by NetFusion · 2002-10-20 18:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

An alien ethos to non-debian users that require cds to upgrade thier systems to the next big number everytime. After a decade of windows/linux reinstalls most users consider the os installer to be a killer app for thier system, since they seem to spend allot of thier computing lives using it.

PGI! PGI! PGI! PGI! by steveha · 2002-10-20 19:04 · Score: 4, Informative

If you think Debian is hard to install, you need to know about PGI.

PGI is the Progeny Graphical Installer. It is slick and easy to use. If you run it, it will set up your computer with a perfectly good Debian system.

You do not need to run the official Debian installer to get a valid working Debian system.

The official Debian project does not need to integrate PGI before you can use it. You can use it now.

Note that Debian supports a huge number of architectures, but PGI is only available for x86 and ia64 (Itanium). I'm sure future versions of PGI will add support for other architectures.

Now, here is the part where I was planning to tell you how to get PGI. But I'm all confused now and I can't tell you yet.

It used to be that there was an ISO image of a PGI installer CD-ROM, available for download. You would just download it, burn it to CD, and boot from the CD.

Now, PGI has released their 1.0 version, and the downloadable ISO image is gone. Instead there are the tools to create your own PGI install disk. While this is totally cool, this makes it hard for me to tell you how to get a working CD image.

I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that if you take the sample "configlets" from the PGI distribution, and build a PGI disk image using that, you might get the equivalent of the ISO image they used to offer. I'm planning to look into it, but by the time I figure this out, this news story will be long since gone from the Slashdot front page. So it goes.

It probably won't be long before you will be able to choose from several PGI-based installers (for free). But right now I'm not sure where to send you for an ISO image.

steveha

--
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely

Keep users out of the installer! by xixax · 2002-10-20 19:18 · Score: 2

My GF users Debain and has never touched a CLI let alone installed *any* OS. How many Joe Average users install their OS anyway? If they do, it will be a product specific recovery disk, so the whinge in the original article about installation difficulty is a moot point anyway.

And professionals? Anyone installing an OS more than a few times a year needs consistant hardware and a drive imaging program. Different nichess? Do a base install image and an run a script with apt-gets in it.

This preoccupation with the installer is ridiculous.

Xix.

--
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"

Gentoo is great unless you want to upgrade by Wee · 2002-10-20 19:39 · Score: 2

Check out Gentoo Linux [gentoo.org]. It uses a package system called Portage that is similar to FreeBSD's "Ports" system. Basically, you run "emerge apps- editors/vim" to automatically build Vim for you, it will also download and build any dependancies required too! The only downside is it will take a while to build X, or any other large package(Gnome, KDE, etc)

I'll throw my hat in: I'd love to use Gentoo. Except they have a fairly spotty upgrade path. It's like a couple scripts written by a few guys who felt like doing something constructive one day. Might be integrated somehow at some point. Install the soon-to-be old version at your peril. Super.

I want to use Gentoo and Portage (both at home and at work). I really do, believe me. As a concept it sounds like a godsend. But I can't use Gentoo, at least not at work. Portage sounds great, until something which isn't included get installed, or someone needs the new version of the OS, or whatever.

I don't have time to mess with it at home. The days of tweaking an OS, as oppposed to actually using an OS, are long since past for me. I still have 13 floppies with Slack on them if want to spend time configuring instead of doing...

-B

--

Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

And whats more by Sanity · 2002-10-20 19:48 · Score: 2

Debian's installer is simple, easy-to-use (for those that know what they're doing), and gets the job done.

This sentence completely sums up what is wrong with what you are saying. Something is not easy-to-use if you need to add the condition that people need to know what they are doing.

That's just uninformed, one-sided bullshit.

No, that statement is uninformed (since you have no idea of the extent of my experience with Debian), and your entire post is, by your own admission, blatantly one-sided.

Re:And whats more by Isle · 2002-10-20 23:21 · Score: 2

No he was right, you are just too narrowminded.

It is easy to use for the people it is designed to and for them it is EASIER to use than a newbee focused graphical installer would be. Ease of use is not just for new users, it can also be of use for experienced users, and these two can divege because the experienced users can easierly handle more power. And more direct power means they have to do less wierd tweaking later on.

Debian versus Redhat by caluml · 2002-10-20 21:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've run RedHat since day 1, and I'm used to the way it works. Conversely, I find that Debian has strange ways of doing things.

All this shit about installing tonnes of crap in the default install is rubbish - nowadays at least.

Why doesn't Debian support Compaq Smart array controllers on it's boot floppies? There's not really any reason. (And don't give me that space issue).

Debian is good for stuff you want to run, and jsut type apt-get update && apt-get upgrade once in a while, but to most people, RedHat is Linux. How many times have you heard someone say "Have you got Linux 7.3?"

Get people using Linux for Gods sake. Then they will learn. Then you can give them unfriendly but powerful tools. But don't dump them off at the deep end first.

Mod me down, I don't care.

--
Get your own free personal location tracker

Shoulda done his homework... by seanmeister · 2002-10-20 23:48 · Score: 2

I found KDE trying to tell me that the Irish currency was the pound, something which hasn't been the case since the Euro was introduced in 2000, two and a half years ago .

Man, this guy REALLY doesn't know much about Debian, does he? The Euro hasn't even made it into unstable yet!

Re:Shoulda done his homework... by Lion-O · 2002-10-21 00:37 · Score: 3, Informative

The Euro hasn't even made it into unstable yet!
Actually it does, and for quite some time too. `apt-get euro-support`. I even got the euro symbol on my console for quite some time now.

Re:Interesting review -- The real world. by telecaster · 2002-10-20 23:51 · Score: 4, Informative

We've been using Debian for about 2 1/2 years. We currently run about 15 servers on Debian 3.0 at the moment in an LVS situation--very scalable, very stable.

Prior that we were a Red Hat shop. Since our software is high-performance e-Tailing tools for the Catalog and Mail Order industry we made the "switch" (heh) from Red Hat to Debian because of three words: Stability, Stability, Stability.

Was Red Hat stable? Yes, was it as stable as Debian, maybe. But it was clearly "apt-get" that really sold us as we're consistantly RPMing the crap on our existing RH 6.2 machines, it became clearly a time suck to keep up with patches/updates enhancements of all the software in RH and all the software that we used in our application.

I think its fairly clear that people (outside the Debian circle) are souring on Debian because they don't include the latest release of KDE 3.x, or the installer is clunky, or the package management system isn't like XP or Red Hat. But in the REAL WORLD, we could care less about that stuff.

Hell, I don't think i've ever installed Debian as a desktop as its own beast, if I wanted a distro for a desktop using Debain, I'd go over to Libranet or even Xandro's/Lindows.

But to me, thats stuffs unimportant for my business, so I'm not intrested in it. Debian 3.0 is perfect for a small to mid-sized busines running Linux as an application server or database server. Trust me, its perfect.

First of all, our needs seem to be the needs of a typical Linux shop (server based installations, running Apache, PHP and Java). We aren't a company that believes the desktop for Linux is that radically important. Maybe this is why we chose Debian in the first place -- the graphical wiz-bang installers for us sucked because we would throw marginal video cards into our machine -- text mode, thats what we wanted. Sure, some pundits could "ding it" for not including some later packages (i.e. gcc, latest kernel etc.), but thats not really what you'd want for stability, would you? If you really want those packages -- Just point your sources.list over to some mirror and "apt-friggin'-get" it... I don't understand the fuss, but hey, people love to belly ache.

I believe that Debian fills the holes that other distro's (RH, Mandrake, Suse et. al) seem to leave -- a rock solid distro with a simple text based installation with a great package management system. If your running a large server installation, why would you need anything fancier? I think Red Hat in particular try's to concentrate on the server, but i'm not convinced -- plus, damn to its too expensive, if I wanted to spend that kind of money, I'd run XP Server... Mandrake's cute, and Suse' looks interesting -- again all desktop stuff... Not really where Debian fits in.

Hey look Debian is not a Ferrari, but hell, to me its like that old 1980 Mercedes 300D that you can't stop running and you can STILL get new parts for... ;-) Its a workhorse -- its "Diesel babe". Thats what Debian is... we need these distro's out there folks. The flashy, shrink wrapped glizty ones are good to keep Linux chasing Windows in the hopes of catching it, but in the REAL WORLD we need the distro's you can pull of the net' install, and have it work... whats wrong with that?

My experience by yogi · 2002-10-20 23:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've recently got woody working at home, and had a very easy time of it. What made it easy was an offhand comment about the installation program in a debian newsgroup. Only install the bare minimum at the start ( I installed the base system and X ), and then apt-get everything else when you need it. This is totally unlike other installs I have done, where I just loaded everything I might possibly want at some point.

I installed potato that way from a CDROM, read the APT howto, and upgraded to woody from the net with no problems. If I need to install something that I want, apt-get will retrieve it in no time.

X worked right out of the box, and Windowmaker.

Debian does have a learning curve. There is a "Debian Way", and it is not the Redhat way, or the SuSe way, or the Mandrake Way. Read the website, and understand the thinking behind the distro, and how to maintain it. You need to learn about APT before you can grok Debian. When you do, system maintenance and upgrades become easy.

Debian Planet story by Baloo+Ursidae · 2002-10-21 00:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Here's my response that I posted this morning to the maching thread on Debian user.

Installation:
He makes comments extensively on SuSE, Red Hat and Mandrake, but shows no real understanding or explain his issues with the Debian installer other than that it "is the worst installer [he's] had to use." He also implies the base install is too simplistic.

Not to be overly critical, but he seems to have no real grasp at the concept of being bloatless. Installation requires the lowest common denominator.

My beef with the Debian installer is that it won't make a best guess on partitioning. Seperately but related, X doesn't attempt any autodetection, even the minimal stuff in XF86Setup from XF86 3.3.6.

Setup:
He complains that the setup refers you to documentation that is not yet installed. My understanding is you are expected to have a copy of the installation manual handy and at least have some idea what it's telling you. Yes, the menu options should be clearer, however, I disagree with the idea that software should babysit the user and hold them by the hand.

The writer clearly shows lack of clue and ability to RTFM with his comment about module selections.

Package Selection:
I just have to plain wonder if this guy has taken a good, long look at dpkg and apt-get.

I do agree with his beefs about the annoying help screens at every turn in dselect. Worse yet, I've been hitting space to clear the damn thing since bo, only to have them change it to enter this revision. Why can't it be both?

I've never heard of, or experianced, the kind of funkitude with failed packages cancelling the whole apt-get download like he claims.

The Installation Overall:
I'm with him right up until he suggested hiding things behind "Advanced" buttons. Sorry, but I don't see how making the installation less intuitive and more complex somehow magically makes the installer droolproof. I also don't agree with the idea of using branded names instead of driver names. Maybe have a help option that explains the branded names to the drivers, and definately an autodetect option. Don't sacrifice efficiency for those who know what they're doing in favor of those who can't be bothered.

I agree with the idea that dselect needs to be redesigned, however, making it more like a GUI will only confuse users expecting it to work just like a GUI, and will actually make dselect more painful to deal with than vi, instead of slightly less painful.

The Configured System:
I'm just going to summarily dismiss all bitching about KDE. KDE sucks. Gnome sucks. CDE sucks. Cocoa sucks. Microsoft Explorer sucks. All these systems are too baroque, adding unneeded complexity for the user to wrap thier brain around instead of presenting them with the actual system. Sorry, but mv, cp, ls, find, and a newbie oriented text editor aren't that hard to learn how to use. I mean, my compuphobic art-geek sister can figure it out. Hell, my WinBigot(tm) roommate was even able to figure out that much.

Debian has pretty complete documentation of configuration files in the comments in those files. I haven't had to look in man section 5 in a very long time, around the time I had to reinstall due to accidentally deleting /usr back in early 1998 thanks to improved documentation in comments. Control panels are thus very much dead-weight.

Conclusions:
I have to seriously question whether or not he knows what he's talking about about RPM. I've used RPM recently. It's still painful to use and terraparsecs behind apt-get *still*. Even with urpmi. apt-rpm segfaults on machines with low RAM. Package names are *still* not standardized. Versions still conflict badly, and upgrading the system is still a "fsck me harder" experiance.

I strongly disagree with the idea that we should create yet another method for configuration. No. Webmin works. Linuxconf works. $EDITOR works better, and the config file comments usually have more helpful information than webmin and linuxconf do, and it's usually faster.

The Debian Desktop idea is almost a good one, but then again, that's why themes.org exists. Why duplicate that effort here?

Granny proof: No. I'm all for accessiblity, but you should never stop learning. Plus, trying to granny proof anything leads to bloat and a shitload of bugs. Need proof? Look at Gnome. Look at KDE. Look at Nautilus. Take a long look at Microsoft Explorer. Notice how they all fail at that goal, and notice how buggy and bloated they are. This is not an honorable or obtainable goal, time would be better spent trying to find lost cities of gold.

--
Help us build a better map!

Re:Clearly he has never install OpenBSD (OT) by Clover_Kicker · 2002-10-21 00:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

>I remmeber OpenBSD install. . . over ftp. Half an
>hour finding documentation on partitioning info.

You should have bought the CDs :)

The CD comes with an annotated transcript of a typical i386 install. That may not sound helpful, but it makes the install very easy.

People don't like Linux by Lion-O · 2002-10-21 01:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

I guess I missed the entire show but what the heck, I'll write something up anyway.

It is my belief that most people simply do not like Linux anymore. At least not the Linux environment in its true form, instead they rely on extra software to take away all the hassle which comes when you administrate a Linux system (yast, linuxconf, etc.). Allthough I don't claim this to be a bad development (personally I think it is though) it is becoming pretty clear that just because of this development people completely loose track and focus of what Linux really is.

When taking a closer look at Debian GNU/Linux you will see its a completely free distribution which is composed of Linux software. Software like XFRee86, KDE, but also shells, shell utilities, and so on. Allthough Debian has provided in some installation guide most of it is done the Linux way, apart from compiling your own software that is.

There is a lot of complaining about the way Debian is installed but I truly wonder if any of these complaining people have actually bothered to, for example, grab a copy of XFree86 directly from the XFree site in order to set that up ? Because that is exactly what you get when you use Debian, you'll get Linux in its purest form. The Linux OS with access to all the major software packages out there. And yes, perhaps the Debian team could have put some more effort in the installation process, perhaps.

But have we allready forgotten that Linux isn't Windows ? Who cares about the harder / rougher installtion process, once its installed then you'd normally don't have to bother with installing for the next 5 years. And the configuration part... True, it doesn't give you nice hardware detection and all of that. Instead effort and attention has been put in other aspects. For example the option to keep your system running for those 5 years I mentioned above, even when you do want to upgrade to the next release. And I don't mean pop in the CD and select upgrade, I mean keep your server running while the next release is being downloaded and/or installed. Try that with RedHat or SuSE :)

In conclusion; I think people are losing focus to what Linux really is. Its nice that there are companies out there investing in Linux and developing nice tools to make configuration and installation easier. But this development does not take away the mere fact that Linux itself is still a Unix based environment which is (and should be) configurable using vi at all times.

And when a certain distribution gives you just that then its a little bit disturbing, IMO ofcourse, when people start complaining about how hard it is to install and configure. Because in the end it seems these people don't realize anymore that they are complaining about Linux itself.

Re:People don't like Linux by MikeBabcock · 2002-10-22 01:11 · Score: 2

You ask about setting up XFree86 directly from the XFree86 site. I've done this a few times in fact; the first time I thought it would be daunting. After all, the instructions say to download these 1o or so .tgz files, and two programs, make the two programs executable, and then run one of them.

However, by taking the default answer to every question, I had a working X system every time. XFree85 -detect did the rest, and I was done. This is a far cry from the description of installing Debian.

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)

And just a reminder... by mbourgon · 2002-10-21 01:08 · Score: 3, Informative

Xandros, based off Debian, ships this week. If it's done correctly, it'll offer all the Debian goodness, with an actual ease-of-use for end-users. I am looking forward to it, to see what they've managed to do with Corel Linux.

"Xandros Desktop 1.0. The product, due to be released on September 30, 2002 and available for purchase within three weeks after that date, is built upon Linux kernel 2.4.19, XFree86 4.2, Debian 3.0, Corel LINUX 3.0, and enhanced KDE."

--
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples

Why is everyone dissin' debian's install process? by _aa_ · 2002-10-21 03:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

It is not impossible to use. No other installation system I've used gives you as many options for data sources as debian does. The network installation alone, in my opinion, makes it my choice distro. When I use bf2.4, I can install the entire system using nothing more than 2 floppies. Alternativly, there are 11mb netinst CD images with all the drivers included. I would rather have debian's installation method than being forced to download 650mb worth of packages I'm not going to use, plus having to own a CD-Burner (which I don't, and have never needed to thanks to debian). Personally, I'd rather not have a graphical installation. And I'd rather have functionality than play tetris while my distro decides what packages i do and don't want.

Re:Gentoo versus Debian by MajroMax · 2002-10-21 03:17 · Score: 2

No. You are looking at about two times as long to install the package.

2*dwn_ld + 2*src_build = 2(dwn_ld + src_build)

No, because it was stipulated that the Deb system is building from binary packages -- no compiling.

My opinion of Gentoo: Very nice distro, and one I'll use personally, but it's not for anyone who wants their computer to Just Work.

--
"Evil company X is threatening to restrict our rights! Let's all get together to stop--OOOH! SHINEY!!!" -- AC

Re:Gentoo versus Debian by CounterZer0 · 2002-10-21 03:30 · Score: 2

Source takes twice as long to build as what? Binary? Last I checked, you don't build anything BUT source.

Re:Nonsense: Debian is difficult to install. Perio by wandernotlost · 2002-10-21 07:07 · Score: 2

The Debian installation is mostly OK, but you need to be an absolut pompous prick not to recognize that dselect is the most horrible piece of installation software ever devised by any human being.

Well, to be fair, I never use dselect, other than to jumpstart the installation process after I've run 'dpkg --set-selections' to install a new package list. The few times I have used it, I haven't particularly liked it. Apt, however, is an amazingly convenient and powerful collection of software.

Re:Why is everyone dissin' debian's install proces by rhavyn · 2002-10-21 08:37 · Score: 2

With Red Hat 8 I can install the entire system over a network (FTP or HTTP) using 1 floppy and it uses the GUI installer. I hope the network installer wasn't all that was keeping you on Debian, because if it is it's time to switch.

Debian users do NOT use dselect by Adam+Bauer · 2002-10-21 11:14 · Score: 2, Informative

Only new people seem to use dselect. It is going to be replaced with aptitude which is much better but I expect most people won't use that either.

Every Debian user I know (myself included) upon installing a new system installs the minimum, logs in as root and types something like:

# apt-get install x-window-system task-c-dev vim

New users and reviewers never seem to clue into the fact that apt is a really fantastic package managemnet system and dselect is a really bad front end which should be avioded.

The installer that one of the reviews complained about admittedly isn't very good either. This is why it too is going to be replaced for the next stable release.

Re:then they're fucking idiots by child_of_mercy · 2002-10-21 11:40 · Score: 2

dude, thats what I was syaing, you don't do a major upgrade with deb, you update what needs updating as it needs updating.

--
'There is a Light that never goes out.'

Re:Why is everyone dissin' debian's install proces by rhavyn · 2002-10-21 12:09 · Score: 2

http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-8.0-M anual/install-guide/ch-guimode.html
Read the entire chapter and you will see you simply need a diskette with the bootnet.img on it and off you go.

Like any highly effective hacker tool... by ebyrob · 2002-10-21 12:24 · Score: 2

dselect must be learned.

Remember the first time you picked up vi or emacs?

Once you spend the 20-30 minutes reading and playing to get familiarized (if you haven't already), you should realze that while unituitive at first, it gets the job done. The whole apt-get/dselect system also does a great job of conserving resources, a must for a low-budget volunteer group.

Want a more user friendly interface? You have ten fingers and an internet connection, why not write one?

:wq

Re:Why is everyone dissin' debian's install proces by MikeBabcock · 2002-10-22 01:09 · Score: 2

I've been installing RedHat as a network install since the 5.x series ...

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)

Re:PGI! PGI! PGI! PGI! by jdaily · 2002-10-23 04:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Progeny has just released a new ISO for a woody install using PGI. You can find it at http://archive.progeny.com/progeny/pgi/.

We heard your plea.

247 of 592 comments (clear)