Debian Desktop Subproject Launched

MrOutlander writes "The Debian Project is now officially addressing its usability on the desktop with the launch of the Debian Desktop subproject. Great to see usability being recognized as a very important part of debian. Other than the sometimes daunting install process, Debian is one of the best linux distributions."

Comments

Debian = good server?

[vkt-tje]

Let's hope they don't forget the real server builders in the process

Re:Debian = good server?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we are putting nails to windows coffins with Linux desktops :)

Isnt Linux Customizable?

[Anonymous Coward]

okay, I am not trying to troll/flame here, but I have a question about all these different flavors of linux. If they are soooo customizable, then why need 40 different distros? There is one Apple, there is only 1 Windows (okay, there are two, a prof and a home), why have all these different linuxes? why not just one, make it great, and enter into the desktop market? seems like they are all competing more with each other than with the Big Boys.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[omegakidd]

MacOS is one project. Windows is one project.
Linux is opensource and many people can start their own projects if they want to. Finally, different linux falvors have different purposes (ex. For the first time user or for the expert.).

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[z-man]

When it comes to Debian it is not just a choice of distro, it is a choice of distro built on good principles as well as on good architecture.

The truth is however that each distro exist to offer you even more customizibilty. You have distros like Slack/Gentoo that many like because they don't include many unnecessary packages and the distro offers you much configurability. Many don't like these distros however because they don't have the time to compile(Gentoo)/configure/install everything the good-old-way or that they just want a distro that is a tad more user-friendly. For those you RedHat/Suse and Mandrake that are distros that are based on a binary package system (Gentoo has ports which downloads the source and compiles it). Each of these have their own "touch" as well.
Mandrake offers many patches/programs to make life easier, so Mandrake is a very popular choice for people that are new to Linux.
RedHat doesn't offer as much as Mandrake in the newbie area, and are a bit more strict on what goes into their kernel and distro. So imo RedHat isn't quite as user-friendly as Mandrake.
SuSe I don't know much about, I know that tthey have a configuration utility that has gotten a lot of positive feedback (YaST isn't it?).

So the choice of distro is just a part of the customization. Part of running Linux is choosing the distro that is right for you.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[wolfc]

The way in which a Linux distribution is customizable makes up the flavor.

My personal favorite is still Debian. I like most of the choices they've made for me, and I don't have (/take) the time to do it differently.

I'm a bit sceptic about (yet another) desktop project for Linux. Mainly because I'm a gamehead so I just follow where game developers lead me, with one exception: a game server must run on Linux.

So for me it's a windows 98se (talk about '1' windows, tsk) on a game station and Debian Linux on my server.

Maybe the focus of a desktop project should go to the games, let's infect the next generation. I for one would love to see my daughter play with a Linux computer instead of one with windows.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[rickms]

You make it sound that there is someone with a rubber stamp authorizing each new distribution. It is simply a matter of different people having different ideas on the best way to distribute GNU/Linux.

Some people would have you think otherwise, but choice is a good thing.

Rick

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[FooBarWidget]

Because they all target a different audience. It is impossible to have 1 distro that fits all.

Let's look at the following targets: server, corporate desktop, home desktop and embedded.
Server: customizability and security is a Good Thing(tm). You don't need GUI tools, they only make the server less stable. You need to have server software installed.

Corporate desktop: you need GUIs. You don't want server software, but office software. Security is important.
This target conflicts with the server target.

Home desktop: *customizability and security* are not important. The home user simply doesn't care and is lazy. He doesn't want to customize everything, and doesn't want to enter a password to install software.
This conflicts with both server and corporate desktop.

Embedded: you want to have as less stuff as possible because disk space and memory are limited. This conflicts with all of the above.

You see? Totally different targets with totally different needs. And this is just an example, the real world is much, MUCH more complicated. Add a graphical installer and you'll piss off the old school power users or users with old hardware. Don't add a graphical installer and you'll piss of the home user. Add an option and you'll confuse the hell out of newbies. Etc. etc.
You can't have one single distro that fits them all, the situations are too different.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is Open Source meaning NOBODY owns Linux, i myself (or anyone else including you) can make a Linux distro and release it, now thats real freedom as in American Freedom...

USA #1

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[Anonymous Coward]

is not competing with each others a good thing?
i think it will produce a better solution in the end...

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[MCZapf]

I'd say it's because they are still a pain to customize, at lease from my POV.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[tetra103]

I totally agree, but only to a point. I think there should be a standard on what a Linux core system is. And that "core" system should be part of every Linux distro. So what's the "core", I'd make it as simple as possible. It should be a simple filesystem structure, standard set of drivers, and the very minimal set of system commands (something less then 20 commands and perferribly NOT anything from FSF). The "core" probably wouldn't be anything more that say 5Mb. Then everything else, like the GNU utilities, GCC, XFree, ... would all be addons. This would be very analogous to the UNIX days with the BSD distro addon. When you think about it, isn't that what Linux is today? And besides, then we could end that whole dumbass Linux vs Linux/GNU naming scheme that RMS and his FSF buddies cry about. Linux would then be LINUX and GNU will then be what is really is....just a bunch of addon utilities. That to me is the cleanist approach to standardising Linux.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[ShavenYak]

For the people saying "There's only one Windows"...

Linux "server" distro: Win 2K Enterprise Server
Linux "corporate" distro: Win 2K Workstation or XP Professional
Linux "home" distro: Win 98/ME or XP Home
Linux "embedded": Win CE

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[ShavenYak]

So what's the "core", I'd make it as simple as possible. It should be a simple filesystem structure, standard set of drivers, and the very minimal set of system commands (something less then 20 commands and perferribly NOT anything from FSF).

I assume you would want things like "ls" to be part of the core. The "ls" on my Linux box is (c) FSF. Are you saying someone should re-write "ls" just so we don't have FSF stuff in this "core" Linux? There's a saying about cutting off your nose to spite your face that seems appropriate here.

Besides, who is going to develop this "core"? It can't be Linus, he's busy enough with the kernel. I suppose we could use the BSD versions of all the basic commands, but if you wanted to run BSD, why didn't you just run BSD?

I agree that the basis of the system should be standardized (that's what LSB is for), but saying it shouldn't be GNU just so you don't have to hear Stallman ranting about GNU/Linux is a bit silly.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[Anonymous Coward]

One diffrence. They are compatible.
We can sit on our win2k machines and develop software, the binary runs on anything from win98 to winxp

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[Jezza]

Doesn't your question give the answer?

Linux isn't actually Linux at all, it's the Linux kernel AND a whole host of tool, utilities, applications. A distribution is a blend of these OS "parts". There isn't actually any real "magic" about a distribution either - if you want you can gather up your own set of these "parts" even add your own custom built ones and create your own unique "Linux". If it turns out well you might even start distributing it (that's why Linux distributions are call that and not versions).

The configuration you talk about is the Kernel itself, it's what's called a Monolithic Kernel (almost all of the Kernels in general use are Monolithic) but in the case of Linux you can build a Kernel that supports only the features you want or need (before you even get into reworking the Kernel - this is just changing the "make"). Linux's Kernel makes some good pragmatic choices in it's design - it doesn't try and be leading edge, it was designed to be a good conventional Kernel, and later effort was put in to make it portable (it owes much to the wide availability of gcc for it's portability).

Of course people use Linux for a wide range of reasons, and different aspects are important to these groups, this means that they blend their distributions together differently. Mostly this works well, and software is highly portable between different distributions. There are areas that are quite different (package handlng is one example) but mostly there are lots of design choices that are pretty standard. Again, just because you've got a Linux distribution from one group or vender doesn't mean you are forced to accept it as is, you can alter it. The is the very good thing about the GPL - no one can deny you the right to change what you have. You can even rebuild the kernel if you want (in the early days you needed to do this, but not the NEED isn't so common - but it can still improve the system by only building in support for what you have and intend to use)

Of course much of these "rights" might be outside the skill set of those new to Linux, and might not seem important - but it does mean that people will be working away with Linux trying to better solve any problem you can think of. It is that explains how Linux has come so far without huge funding. Lots of poeple see the number of different distributions as a weakness, where as it is actually a demonstration that Linux can be what ever you want it to be: the OS of some monster server or the OS that powers a little PDA or set-top box or anything else.

That's also why Linux users are SO passionate about it - Linux can be whatever you make it. Especially if there's enough of you!

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[eno2001]

The multiple "Desktop" distros are all coming from different mindsets. Lycoris wants to emulate Windows. Lindows.com wants to kind of emulate Windows, but add features from other OSes as well as some new ideas. RedHat is trying to set a standard across environments that seems to piss people off more than help. Suse is pretty original and seems to be the closest to making a "Joe User" Linux distro but they have no market share outside of Europe yet.

It's actually a case of "too many chefs". No one can agree on what a "great" desktop actually is, since a desktop is so many different things to so many people. The amount of flames I usually receive from people on Slashdot about how feature "X" in environment "X" (or even Windows XP) is stupid and pointless illustrates that well. To one person, it's performance that makes for a great desktop. To another, it's applications. Yet another, eye candy. So far, here's a breakdown of what I've seen:

There are the guys who like to run light with TWM and just use X as a way of having multiple terminals visible at once. I'll bet if there was an option to do this without the overhead of X, they would. As I ocassionally would, myself.

Then there are the folks (like me) who love the eye candy and use X with environments like Gnome or KDE, or just go with a window manager like Enlightenment. These people are the obsessive tweakers who constantly poke and prod and try to get their GUI to be as efficient, customized and sweet looking as possible. To them, the eye-candy/themes, easy customizability and responsiveness of the GUI are what make for a great desktop.

Then there are the utilitarians. They believe that a computer is just a tool. There are also subgroups within this group because some of them want to run light (TWM, FVWM, etc...) and others want an easy to use system that resembles Windows or Macintosh depending on their previous platform (KDE).

Those who use KDE tend to just do the trivial tasks like, browsing the web, working with e-mail, writing docs and balancing their checkbook. They are less concerned about looking cool and more interested in "just working". To them, KDE is the ideal desktop.

The FVWM and TWM crowd that go beyond using X for terms, usually have more specialized needs. They don't need a file manager since they tend to do that from the terminal. They don't need a launcher, since they tend to do that from the terminal too. But they want access to a basic GUI for the apps they run that need it: (GIMP, Mozilla, Netscape, etc...).

There are more groups, but I won't continue. The basic problem is that the desktop is something different for every person. I think the ideal would be an environment that can be as spare as TWM with only xterms/gnome-terms/konsoles, as feature filled as a normal GNOME or KDE environment, and as beautiful as Enlightnment. Upon installation of the environment, the user picks "Thin, Moderate, Full, Custom" and gets what they want. If KDE or GNOME could be made to do this easily and on-the-fly, that would be wonderful.

For instance, if a window manager like Sawfish or KWM could tell it was running with the gnome-panel or kicker, it would revert to a TWM mode. In this mode it would minimize apps to icons on the root window and place a simple right click menu (like TWM's) on the desktop to run a basic set of apps (terms specifically). I think the people who want the lightness of TWM, but maybe like more modern looking widgets and their accompanying functions would really appreciate this.

The ability to switch between Thin, Moderate, Full and Custom, on the fly would be great too. A laptop user could just toggle to Full mode when plugged in and toggle to Light (TWM-like) mode when on battery.

Suspendable X session would be nice too... You suspend the X session and go to runlevel 3 to do deep work that needs all the horsepower it can get. Or you suspend and get back to XDM/GDM/KDM and log in as a different user to do other tasks. (Great for a multiuser machine at home or work) Then you resume your X session with all apps running. This would be kind of interdependent on both the environment and X.

Whatever the case, I think the "Desktop Distro" that will win dominance would be the distro that addresses these issues and does it in a simple way for "Joe User" as well as more complex ways for "Joe Power User" and "J03 G33k G0d".

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[FreeUser]

I assume you would want things like "ls" to be part of the core. The "ls" on my Linux box is (c) FSF. Are you saying someone should re-write "ls" just so we don't have FSF stuff in this "core" Linux? There's a saying about cutting off your nose to spite your face that seems appropriate here.

No, he's just one of a plethora of ungrateful wretches that wishes to obfuscate and denigrate Richard Stallman's rather impressive contribution to the core Linux system (something like 95% of the code that comprises what is traditionally considered the core of a UNIX-like operating system is FSF code), probably because he has a personal dislike for the man, a dislike likely inherited not from personal contact, but from word of mouth and reading the tirades of RMS's detractors.

In other words, he wants to be able to say "see, I shouldn't call it GNU/Linux, since I've stripped out the 95% of the system that was FSF software and cobbled in less-feature-rich BSD versions instead, or did without!" Ignoring, of course, that doing so is, aside from being completely asinine for no real good reason, doesn't reflect the reality for the other 99.9% of the Linux, or if you prefer, GNU/Linux systems that have been deployed.

You are absolutely correct, "silly" is about the kindest way to characterize such nonsense.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[FooBarWidget]

And I can sit on my Mandrake 7.2 box and develop a GTK+ app, and it will run on RedHat 8.0. If for some reason it doesn't run: recompile and viola, it works. Heck, it even compiles on other Unices!

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[tetra103]

And how hyprocritical for you to think a rewrite of basic commands to avoid GNU is a bad thing. The same argument can be used DIRECTLY against the FSF. Why did FSF deem it necessary to rewrite all the free stuff from BSD? All RMS and FSF did was reinvent the wheel. Sure, it's great stuff, but they could have leveraged what was already there in the free world. Oh, you mean they didn't like the BSD license?....What can I say?....All the FSF and GNU zealots are a bunch of hyprocrits. And by the way, I don't advocate a "rewrite". I just think the Linux community should separate itself from GNU via a system definition that doesn't include any stuff from FSF. As a system, yes, it wouldn't be complete, but at least the name Linux by itself will have a meaning. Besides....RMS has been so childish so far....I wouldn't doubt it if by the time HURD ever does get developed, the FSF will drop support for Linux like a cheap whore. You don't think that'll happen?....we'll see...

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the problem for newbies. Most people don't want to make those choices, and don't want to learn. They just want to use it.

That's why you need someone with the marketing clout to come along and say, "This is 'Linux', and it looks like this, and does all that". Or preconfigured systems.

It's also why you need LSB, and UnitedLinux, so that people can write apps that work on 'Linux', rather than some distro of Linux.

Part of being a newbie, or even a business user, is that you don't want to muck about making those choices - you just want to use it!

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Home desktop: *customizability and security* are not important.

Wrong. Anytime you say that security isn't important, you're automatically wrong :) Windows users are probably sick of all the viruses, and it's important that they know why Linux has less virus attacks and why Linux is so much more secure than Windows. Once they understand the why, the how is easy.

Customizability is key on Linux, it's also very easy. The problem is that the documentation to explain all this stuff isn't there, and it's not anywhere that I've seen. Documents for desktop users need to be structured differently from those that server (or the Nerd crowd) use. One of the biggest things I like about Linux is /etc. The Windows registry is nothing compared to all the nice, easy to read text files, and when things work well in Linux, they really work well. Setting up networking under Linux is easier than doing it in Windows, IF there are no driver problems (shitty network card). If there are driver problems, then you have to start diagnosing them, and you have to make sure that all of those conf files are set up right, which is difficult for a new user because there's no line by line explanation of each entry means, and what different possibilities there are for each entry.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[ShavenYak]

And how hyprocritical for you to think a rewrite of basic commands to avoid GNU is a bad thing.

I didn't say it would be a bad thing, just that it would be a pointless waste of effort. I'll agree that it was almost as pointless for FSF to rewrite the BSD stuff - but at least they did add in a few features along the way.

I wouldn't doubt it if by the time HURD ever does get developed, the FSF will drop support for Linux like a cheap whore. You don't think that'll happen?....we'll see...

Well, that would require HURD to be finished, and let's just say I'm not holding my breath for that. Keep in mind that the FSF could "drop support" for Linux, but their own license means they can't do jack to stop Linux developers from continuing to run, update, and improve their software.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[tetra103]

I see the ranting comes from both sides...I agree I have my dislikes for irrogant cusses like RMS, but that's not to say I don't appreciate his work...and what's with the spamming of BSD? Like where did that come from and how is FSF stuff better? Anyway, you failed to understand the point. I'm saying that last 5% that you call Linux....well great! Define that last 5% explicity, have Linus endorse it and now we have a definition of what Linux really is. And likewise, RMS should define what GNU is. I guess by your standards is a certain percentage of a product consisting of FSF software or is it GNU licensing? When you think about it RMS get far more fame than deserved. Think of all the software out there with a GNU license. I'd think many people confuse that with RMS actually writing the code...yeah, pretty silly just like the nonsense of how a product is named. So there you have it. If RMS and FSF need their fame, than define what it means to be GNU and when "GNU" is installed on a system, we can say, "Yup, I run Solaris, but I use GNU utilities" or "Yup, it's Linux with the GNU utilities and the XFree GUI". Hell, I think Linux/GNU is useless without the good work of the XFree team so let's not forget them right? Just stop your crying...

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[ShavenYak]

Are binaries from 98 or 2K compatible with Windows CE (assuming CE is running on x86 architecture)?

Then again, most embedded Linux solutions, even if they're running on x86, don't use GNU libc because it's too bloated, so they become binary-incompatible with desktop distros. Probably WinCE has a similar incompatibility.

As far as the desktop goes, pretty much any distro will be binary compatible, just like Win 98 to Win XP. The few things that might not be compatible would probably be system utilities that depend on a particular kernel version or such. Most likely utilities on Windows with similar functionality would need upgrading for newer versions as well, since they tie more tightly to the innards of the kernel.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[FreeUser]

I see the ranting comes from both sides...I agree I have my dislikes for irrogant cusses like RMS, but that's not to say I don't appreciate his work...and what's with the spamming of BSD?

This must be a troll, and I probably shouldn't answer.

First, please look up waht the word SPAM means (not the meat, the verb and its related noun form). I certainly have never 'spammed' BSD (how can you possibly spam an operating system?), nor have I ever denigrated it in any way. Quite the contrary, the OS is one I quite like.

The fact that the BSD file and system utilities, of which 'ls' is but one, are generally less feature rich than their GNU equivelents is a matter of public record, trivially verifiable by either running both commands and comparing them yourself, reading the man pages for both commands and comparing them, or googling the plethora of archival messages detailing the specifics for you.

This is not necessarilly a bad thing: some people prefer the stripped down ('less bloated') versions of tar, ls, and the like.

As for defining what GNU is, the FSF has already done precisely that. It is rather trivial for you to browse their web page and satisfy your curiosity in that regard yourself, rather than resorting to intellectual laziness and spouting demands on slashdot that have already been met.

As for Linus torvalds defining what 'Linux' means, you'll have to take that up with Linus.

As for 'my' standard, it isn't. It is a matter of public record as to what generally comprises the core of a UNIX-like operating system, and trivial to examine what portion of said tools that have historically comprised a Linux (or GNU/Linux) distribution are products of the GNU project and what percentage were not, as well as to make the exact same comparison today.

Based on that, it has been documented by numerous people, both within and unrelated to the Free Software Foundation, that around 95% of the code for said core system came from the GNU project. As it so happens, nearly 100% of the code is GPLed.

As for GNU/Linux being useless without X ... you've clearly never done any serious server work with FreeBSD, Solaris, or Linux. Or if you have, and you leave X running on those servers, you should be severely bitchslapped for incompetence.

There, that should be enough morsels to sate the troll.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they are not. Windows CE runs on ARM and when was the last time you saw Windows 98/2000 running on arm ?

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[gli]

Another use for all the different distros is the classification of users. Using redhat? ppppf, that's for idiots. I use distro $#%@&. Who needs the stupid gui tools that make life easier? With my distro I have infinite customizability because I hand copy each file to each directory. Man I feel so smart doing that.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[tetra103]

So anyone who disagrees with your perspective is a troll. I won't even go there as I see your narrow minded approach to an argument will only resort to flames. You slap the BSD utilities anyway...hum, when compared to the AT&T tools of the time, they were superior. So the FSF reinvented the wheel. Instead of building off already said freeware, they, in their own philophy felt they should go it alone. Nothing wrong with that...and yes, they do indeed exceed their predicessors in some ways (a trade off in many). One could say they used the freely availible code of BSD utilities (as a model) to create their own, but that's only speculation and by the BSD license, its totally acceptible (not the reverse I might add). As to the approach of calculating 95% of Linux is really FSF code. Tell me, does that include emacs? How about the GCC compilier and associated tools? How about we strip out all other tools that aren't really what I'd concider a "base" system? Solaris as an OS doesn't include the compiler, emacs or other such bloat. So once we remove all the bloat and just look at the essential 20 or so commands (ls,cat,tar,...) that I'd concider elemental to every UNIX, do you REALLY arrive at 95%? I mean really? The basic commands, no compiler vs the kernal and all the associated drivers. Do you really think you'd still be at 95%? I'd say vim would be your largest (source) contribution that I'd concider essential. Now to address the XFree flame you gave me. You mean to tell me that you do all your work at a VT100 terminal? I think you know pretty well what I mean when I talk about the GUI contribution to the UNIX environment. Face it, if Linux didn't have XFree, do you honestly think people would use it? If the OS alone is so important, why did OpenBSD even bother with a port of XFree? Sure the server side of an OS doesn't need the GUI, but it's sure make for an unpopular OS without one. There's some more troll food for you. Eat up!

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[ShavenYak]

Of course they are not. Windows CE runs on ARM and when was the last time you saw Windows 98/2000 running on arm ?

Isn't the XBox WinCE on x86?

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[plugger]

Oh well, each to his own:

$ vrms
32 non-free packages, 2.2% of 1437 installed packages.

=p

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[Disemboweler]

Actually the XBox runs on a modified version of Windows 98. 98 was chosen over CE because DirectX 8 wasn't yet available for CE.

An interesting story about the decision was posted over on Salon a while ago.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[tetra103]

Agreed.
I'm honestly routing for the HURD project as I favor microkernal design.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[fw_dude]

There are the guys who like to run light with TWM and just use X as a way of having multiple terminals visible at once. I'll bet if there was an option to do this without the overhead of X, they would. As I ocassionally would, myself.

If you just want multiple terminals, maybe mouse, but no X overhead, try Twin. I use it and it really works great.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[tetra103]

It's not a question of non-free vs free. It's a question of credit going where credit is due. RMS wants credit for his contributions to Linux, but his approach to getting that fame is very flawed.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, step by step:

First: Debian is the only FREE Distro, that is distributed as Open Source/Free Software and assembled by volunteers.
Second: Debian is a special distribution that is famous for its stability. For professional servers many high qualified people use Debian.
Thrird: Lindows, Xandros, Knoppix are based on Debian. So Debian is a good meta platform
fourth: Debian is very famous for its package format. apt get is said to be easy for professionals.
5th: Debian provides very high quality and a text based installer. Many professionlas dislike graphic installers.
6. Variety is strength.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> First: Debian is the only FREE Distro, that is distributed as Open Source/Free Software and assembled by volunteers.

Deb is not THE ONLY free distro, ie we have Gentoo out there, which is very popular this days and also FREE. I bet you'll find many more free distros if get an overview at distrowatch.com ...

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Our physics department runs three versions of windows. Our library runs two versions of windows. The intersection is null. So Without leaving my dorm room I can see two buildings that have 5 versions of windows in production use. Win 3.1, Win 98SE, NT4, W2K, XP.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Useless w/o XFree? Now you totally lose me. I did *all* of numerical analysis II from Screen running Emacs running Octave.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

I can't imagine not having a compiler in my base system. I even run Emacs on my windows partion. What sort of app.s do you run? Have you ever tried MC for a file manager?

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. You're telling it like it is.

So what's up with all these conquer the desktop efforts that start with the assumption that there are only two classes of users?

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Interesting though that linus used GNU tools...then GPLed his kernel, don't you think?

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a core and just as you wanted, it is as simple as possible. It's called the kernel.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[plugger]

If by flawed, you mean 'unlikely to win friends and influence people', I fully agree. But no-one questions my use of a system to which I have contributed no code. Why should anyone question RMS's right to use the 'fame' of Gnu/Linux, to which he has contributed, to help get his message across?

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[amokk]

What ever happened to hitting Ctrl+Alt+Function Key to switch between terminals?

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure everyone has a preference for what they'd concider a "base system". I agree that a compiler is a tool I prefer as well as emacs (actually, I prefer vim), but if I was to design a "core system". There wouldn't be a compiler nor a fancy editor. To me, a core system is the bare essentials to support a dedicated app. If you made say a Linux router, would you include the compiler? How about a mail server?

That's what I'm talking about when I say a defined "core" Linux distro. I would expect the core to be no larger than 5Mb. If it is, than there's too much bloat. Now if you're talking about a "standard" or "end user" Linux install...that's much different. I'd expect XFree, XEmacs (better), GCC, GTK+ libs, ...

An "end user" base would probably be different based on each distro as I'm sure everyone has a different angle on what they want.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[tetra103]

Yes, and I ask....do you use Emacs on a VT100? Oh no, not an XTerm emulating a vt100 terminal. I'm asking if you do all your work at a basic dumb terminal. I'm willing to bet that you at least run a GUI of some sort. Maybe even Exceed from a Windows desktop, but that doesn't count either. Point is, you probably use a GUI.

I'm not saying a GUI an operating system it makes. I'm just saying it'd probably be a pretty unpopular one. Cisco routers have a pretty cool OS, but I certainly don't use it at my desktop.

And if you're wondering, I do use vt100 terms all the time (mostly vt220), but only as a last resort on a headless server.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[tetra103]

Speculation here, but it's probably just as interesting that RMS most likely used BSD tools to develope the GCC compiler and subsiquently the GNU utilities. And instead of leveraging their license, he made up his own. In the process, trying to claim as much credit for himself as possible. I wonder if he ever thanked them....

If that was the case, and I'm sure it was, then I'd have to give Linus lots of credit for not being as selfrightous and instead working with the community. Ok, Linus DID name an OS after himself, but really...if I had the same name and changing one letter made it sound like a flavor of UNIX, I'd probably do the same thing.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[tetra103]

Well then, I completely agree with your initial response. To each their own...

To me, saying Linux implies GNU utilities suppliment the OS. If someone feels they need to change the title because they don't know what makes up a Linux system, so be it. I think it dumbs things down unnecessarily.

On a side issue...say none of this happened. Say Linux didn't exist. Now lets say HURD is at a stable release level. The OS is done and of course it would include the GNU utilities from FSF. Now lets say it rose to the level of fame that Linux is at now. Do you think RMS would insist that the name be GNU/HURD? Or do you think because HURD was a FSF project that GNU would be implied (sorta like the Linux argument)?

I think you know the answer. And it's that mentallity is why I have a beef with RMS trying to force his will on the community. Do I question the GNU contribution to the Linux community? No, but I do question his right to force his will. He should have been honored that Linux was released under a GPL, but that wasn't enough. And my impression that RMS doesn't give credit to other communities that he's leveraged from so bad (ala BSD), I can't help but label him as a hyprocrit. If he can't pay respect to others, I have no obligation to respect him.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[tetra103]

...and without it the GNU user base would be so much smaller.

Re:Isnt Linux Customizable?

[Anonymous Coward]

While that works just fine, it's still only one console at a time. If you want to see multiple consoles, the thing isn't useful. If you've got top running on one screen and are trying to do something interactive on another that you want to monitor with top, that isn't going to work unless you can see both screens at once. Besides, there is something to be said for information overload: it's very enjoayable if you're the right kind of person. ;P

one of the best linux distributions?

[jiminim]

In other news:

-Lemonade is one of the best beverages

-Pink is the best color

-Pi is the best number

Re:one of the best linux distributions?

[Ogion]

Actually, Pi is quite boring. It's all about circles. The Euler Number, now that's a cool number. You can do a lot of funny stuff with it.

Re:one of the best linux distributions?

[leviramsey]

Actually, Pi is quite boring. It's all about circles. The Euler Number, now that's a cool number. You can do a lot of funny stuff with it.

e: The Most Powerful Force in the Universe!

Re:one of the best linux distributions?

[distributed.karma]

Well yes.. but since we all know $e^{i\pi}+1=0$ (and yes we all know latex:) then pi and e are deeply interconnected in the fabric of the universe. Without either of them, there wouldn't be people around, discussing the importance of either. :-)

Re:one of the best linux distributions?

[schon]

e: The Most Powerful Force in the Universe!

Really? I've always thought that about TLC or Discovery Channel :o)

Re:one of the best linux distributions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure about the interconnection with the "fabric of the universe" issue. Yes, for the dimensions we inhabit Euler's identity holds. More interesting is to consider
What are the fundamental underpinnings necessary for you to say $e^{i\pi}+1=0$?
At minimum (I think):
You need numbers in a closed set with 0 and 1, the elements of the numbers which are idempotent under addition and multiplication respectively. From that mayhaps 0 and 1 are more interesting than e or pi.
You need a definition of '+' that holds for the closed set. You need '^' which is even trickier in general.
I'm not sure where in this a metric related to the "fabric of the universe" was ever invoked.

Re:one of the best linux distributions?

[Anonymous Coward]

+1, Radiohead

Re:one of the best linux distributions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if that equation wasn't true, then the universe would somehow have to be different. Any miniscule change to the properties of the universe would most likely produce huge differences.

Re:one of the best linux distributions?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Radiohead

Where? I see Manics, but no Radiohead. I might be wrong, though.

Re:one of the best linux distributions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice way to twist the original post by moving from "...is one of the best" (which the original post did claim) to "...is the best" (which the original post NEVER claimed). I don't use Debian, but I think there is no real argument against Debian being at least ONE of the best distributions out there.

He's trying to psych me out, the sick little rodent!!! --Snowbell, from "Stuart Little", the movie, or perhaps The Best Movie Ever ;)

Re:one of the best linux distributions?

[Anonymous Coward]

e is evil.

Re:one of the best linux distributions?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

e^(-i pi)+1=0

Re:one of the best linux distributions?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Where else can one participate in a transcendental flame-war?

Re:one of the best linux distributions?

[leviramsey]

e is evil.

That has nothing to do with its status as the most powerful force in the universe [!!!!!]. Evil and power are orthogonal.

Required Reading...

[toupsie]

Aqua Human Interface Guidelines and Mac OS 8 Human Interface Guidelines. Don't reinvent the wheel, perfect it.

Re:Required Reading...

[Anonymous Coward]

No everyone agrees with apple. Though the do have some good ideas.

Re:Required Reading...

[toupsie]

No everyone agrees with apple. Though the do have some good ideas.

Blasphemy!

Re:Required Reading...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't make it look like Aqua.

Re:Required Reading...

[Bonker]

Personally, I would pay more attention to the OS8 guidelines that the Aqua guidelines. IMHO, Aqua is a little broke. (Quicktime, anybody?) There's way too much emphasis on making computer controls look like real-life objects and not like computer controls.

As someone who's used OS8, OS9, Linux, and all the video variants, let me tell you that OS8 comes pretty damn close to being *golden*. Apple spent a lot of time making OS7-9 pleasant and easy to use and it shows.

Re:Required Reading...

[toupsie]

Please don't make it look like Aqua.

Don't worry about that. If Debian dares to mimic Aqua as a theme for their Deskstop, Apple will sue them over look and feel. Jobs is good at that. However, the HIG provided free of charge online will be a good guide for Debian to enhance the usability of their KDE and GNOME desktops for the novice users.

Re:Required Reading...

[The J Kid]

Don't reinvent the wheel, perfect it.

Yes. Yes. Yes. People..read this line and chant it.

And in the process, they could also team up with the 'Debian Graphical Installer' group (see this /. article) to provide a full & finished desktop experience.

Re:Required Reading...

[Anonymous Coward]

forget the aqua interface guidelines. look at the icons. i mean honestly those arent user-friendly. macos8 is ok but aqua thanks sir

Re:Required Reading...

[FooBarWidget]

What about the GNOME Human Interface Guide?

Re:Required Reading...

[toupsie]

What about the GNOME Human Interface Guide?

I'm not interested in interfacing with a fabled race of dwarflike creatures, I'm interested in interfacing through a GUI to a UNIX or UNIX-like system.

Re:Required Reading...

[digidave]

Mod parent up! Funny!

Ok, seriously, Gnome, KDE et al have some serious usability issues to deal with. While at first they seem pretty much like Windows (or whatever else they're trying to duplicate), when you start to use them every day you begin to see how disconnected they are from the rest of the OS. No Linux interface that exists today provides unified system usability.

Re:Required Reading...

[FooBarWidget]

Then the GNOME Human Interface Guide is exactly what you are looking for.

Oh BTW, GNOME is a desktop environment. Now you know.

Re:Required Reading...

[Anonymous Coward]

GNOME is a desktop environment.

Like astroturf on your desk or something? Tell me more.

Re:Required Reading...

[FooBarWidget]

That's because of a lack of certain tools. What does the user interface guidelines have anything to do with that?

Re:Required Reading...

[oliverthered]

I hope that's not the road they go doen, Apple has one of the most unpleasing interfaces I've used. (I'm from the keep it clean and mean camp)

Re:Required Reading...

[Sn4xx0r]

I think this is what you are looking for...

Re:Required Reading...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not interested in interfacing with a fabled race of dwarflike creatures

Aren't you? I am! I've got a jewelled time-travelling sceptre I'd like them to mend.

Re:Required Reading...

[toupsie]

Aren't you? I am! I've got a jewelled time-travelling sceptre I'd like them to mend.

Well, I do have some missing underpants.

Re:Required Reading...

[scrytch]

No Linux interface that exists today provides unified system usability.

Or for that matter, windows. KDE has its faults, to be sure, but Konq provides better integration than even Windows. In Windows, I can only see folders on the left pane in explorer. In Konquerer, I can at my option see files, and view all kinds of content, from HTML to text to postscript, in the right hand pane. I can rubberband a bunch of files in ftp and drag them to the desktop. The control center includes system management (to some degree), whereas in windows, you use a completely separate app, MMC. Granted, Windows is carrying along legacy cruft, and would probably make every control panel a MMC snap-in nowadays, but they don't even provide an adaptor.

The user experience on windows is pretty disjointed too. But I don't think Unix (it's more than Linux, folks) exactly has further to go than Windows. It's just broken in different places.

Re:Required Reading...

[ShavenYak]

Well, I do have some missing underpants. [aol.com]

Okay, you've opened it up now. Someone mentioned Gnome, you mentioned underpants, so you asked for it.

1. Create Debian desktop distribution
2. ???
3. Profit!

I feel dirty after posting that.

Re:Required Reading...

[T.Hobbes]

Yep. While I do think MacOSX has the best UI of all *nixes, I also think that OS 8 has the best UI of all MacOS*s.

Re:Required Reading...

[toupsie]

I think you are missing it here. It should be:

1. Create Debian desktop distribution
2. ???
3. Microsoft goes bankrupt!

Re:Required Reading...

[the_2nd_coming]

were not talking about copying the UI, just using the guidlines for good design...you know...all the extensive research Apple has done on how the human eye moves across the screen so it tells you where to place certain widgets etc.

Re:Required Reading...

[binner1]

Well said! I think that hits the nail on the head.

-Ben

Re:Required Reading...

[FooBarWidget]

www.gnome.org

Re:Required Reading...

[stankyho]

Run Linus, Run! [nylug.org]. No, really, RUN!!!

Now I remember where I saw this.
Photoshop the New York Linux Users Group

Re:Required Reading...

[Transient0]

but which is the blasphemy?

that not everyone agrees with them or suggesting that they have some good ideas?

hmm?

Re:Required Reading...

[toupsie]

but which is the blasphemy?

Both. Everyone should agree with Apple and all their ideas are good, not some.

You need to say at least 100 "Hail Steve Jobs" while lying prostrate before an Apple Store for not knowing.

Re:Required Reading...

[IamTheRealMike]

I'm not interested in interfacing with a fabled race of dwarflike creatures,

So you don't want to (cough) interface with dwarves, but fruit is OK?

That's not very consistant, is it!

Re:Required Reading...

[coaxial]

What about the GNOME Human Interface Guide?

Call this a flame if you want, but I'd have serious reservations about taking HCI advice from the same group that thought these were good ideas:

1. The logout button is a computer monitor with a night time scene. This icon has been synonymous with activating the screensaver since the days of After Dark. (Yes they used the flying toasters, but the TSR icon was a nighttime monitor. The icon is a reference to the name "After Dark".) The only connection I can come up with between night and logout is that you logout out at night, but in all honesty, people don't. They lock the screen. The old exit icon (an arrow point to an open door) would make much more sense.
2. The OK button features a down and to the left arrow. This is THE EXACT SAME ICON on my enter key. Of course the enter key, is not always associated with the OK button. Instead enter is associated with a 5 pixel inset around a button, which is much more obvious than the giant picture THAT LOOKS JUST LIKE A KEY ON MY KEYBOARD. This UI comes from someone who liked Borland's Windows widgets. Of course Borland only used the arrow on default okay buttons, a subtle, yet important distinction apparently lost on the the GNOMErs. (I've been using GNOME since 1999 and I STILL have to think, "wait. The 'enter arrow' doesn't mean enter.".)
3. Themeability is given a higher priority than usability. Case in point: Nautilus.
   The Captains of Nautilus stated that they are spending their time fixing Nautilus's theme engines so that nautilus uses the gtk themes (Oh my! Everything should look consistent! Apparently making everything themeable/skinable has fallen out of favor. (Thankfully.)), rather than say fixing Nautilus's iconview cleanup? Want to arrange your icons? Well you can "Clean up by name", and you can...um....uh.... Did we mention "clean up by name"? That's right, you have only one option. Which wouldn't be so bad, if you also had a simple "clean up" option that moved the icons to the nearest grid, say like Finder's "clean up", or Explorer's "Arrange Icons". No, instead we're stuck with either having all our icons alphabetically arranged along the left hand side of the screen, or all messed up.

Re:Required Reading...

[ProfessorPuke]

Corporations like Microsoft and Apple have a long history of publishing UI guideline and then ignoring them in their own products.

I haven't read the Aqua guidelines, but Apple's OSX desktop has some major violations of accepted user interface principles in it. Particularly with the "Dock" (which maybe isn't technically part of Aqua, as some people install replacement taskbars).

The big theoretical error in the Dock is that icons in it can be 3 completely different things. Metaphorical consistency is totally broken. An icon in the dock may be a program you have installed and can start up, or it could be a document you have open now, or it could be a folder (or the trashcan).

Microsoft made the same mistake in Microsoft Windows 3.0(tm), where an icon was either not yet running program, or something executing currently. UI aficionados and Mac-heads rightly attacked them for this, and it was basically corrected in Microsoft Windows 95(tm), where icons began meaning files.

Now Apple's dock is making the same mistake Microsoft once did! Even worse, in some ways. The buttons I use to run commonly accessed programs shouldn't shrink and move based on the number of web-browser windows I have open- they should be independent and non-interfering.

Re:Required Reading...

[FooBarWidget]

OK, good points. You should send that to the usability mailing list too.
But... what do those points have to do with the *user interface guidelines*?

Re:Required Reading...

[Anonymous Coward]

Admitting it made you feel dirty doesn't make it OK to have posted that. Score: -1, Turd.

Re:Required Reading...

[Nodatadj]

Themeability is given a higher priority than usability.

Oh my! Everything should look consistent!

Consistency helps with usability.

Re:Required Reading...

[wandernotlost]

Don't read the Aqua Guidelines, read the OS 8 Guidelines, or better yet, the first version of the book they published. Apple has really forsaken their ideals on this with Mac OS X. The principles they started out with were really well thought-out. Everything had a reason, usually derived from or metaphor for familiar concepts from the real world. I did a comparison a while ago of the Aqua HIG and some earlier HIG, I think the original, and it's ridiculous. They've just cut out huge chunks of some of the most insightful text.

I guess the principles just didn't fit in with the cute theme they wanted. Pfft! I've been an Apple fan for a long time, but I'm running linux on my TiBook. Mac OS X just pisses me off.

How funny because

[cptnapalm]

I was just cursing out Debian, which is my main OS, because yet again my XF86Config-4 got overwriten by a default. WinXP to the rescue...

Re:How funny because

[Per Wigren]

No, it's because you said "yes" when it asked if it should replace it, or you used some --always-say-yes flag or "yes | apt-get upgrade" or something like that...

Re:How funny because

[Anonymous Coward]

I alway have found it funny, that people blame linux for doing what they told it to do, or not knowing how to use it... Start blaming yourself.

Re:How funny because

[Anonymous Coward]

backup your /etc

Re:How funny because

[mbanck]

I was just cursing out Debian, which is my main OS, because yet again my XF86Config-4 got overwriten by a default.

Check out any recent post from Branden Robinson on debian-devel, most of them cover this, this one for example.

Michael

Re:How funny because

[hplasm]

Hence WinXP to the rescue...something to hang the blame on..uh- hang on, it will probably be to blame..

Re:How funny because

[ShavenYak]

backup your /etc

Since it's likely that no one will mod up the AC stating the near-obvious, I'll second his comment. You should have a regular cron job backing up your /etc in case you (or the system) ever screw things up in there.

Re:How funny because

[cptnapalm]

I did not say "yes" to any dialog. It just did it. Having done my apt-get, only one dialog appeared: whether or not to use the framebuffer for X, which I said "no" to.

Re:How funny because

[cptnapalm]

Thanks. I'm reading it now. Fixing the config file wasn't much of a problem, but annoying to start up the machine just to read a webpage b/f going to work then the X server won't work, then have to figure out what's wrong, etc. ...anyhow didn't mean to bitch :) thanks again.

Start Here:

[Bonker]

The Gnome Usability Report:

http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/ut1_report /participant_mix.html

I read this about a year ago. It does an *excellent* job of pointing out many of the inconsistencies and gotchas in any given linux desktop situation.

Re:Start Here:

[Anonymous Coward]

Gnome and Usability, not the 2 words I would put in the same sentence.

Re:Start Here:

[yelligsc]

This link seems to provide some execellent information on making a desktop that is usable by the lowest end of the user spectrum. However, many of the suggestions will, in my opinion, cause the interface to lose much of the added information I have come to know an love from a UNIX-like operating system.

For Example:

Therefore, the emphasis on 'integrated' help will only confuse them. We recommend rewriting this tooltip. Suggestions to user-test, as alternatives to "Integrated help system (info, man, HTML)", could include "GNOME User Guide" or "Online Help".

I agree that this change will make the help system more easily identifable by a new user. However, removing the refrence to the info, man and HTML documents would cause me, as a more advaced user, to think that the online help is something GNOME-specific.

I guess my only point is this: I dont want to see all the descriptive, error messages and other information presented to the user in linux dumbed down to the point that it is about as useful as the blue screen of death, or clippy in windows.

Scott.

Re:Start Here:

[pmz]

The Gnome Usability Report

On the first page of the report, I noticed something odd. All of the study's (largely non-hacker) participants rated themselves as "expert" Windows users but utterly helpless at UNIX. Interesting thing is, to a pure end user, CDE/GNOME/KDE aren't too far removed from Windows as far as available tools, etc., go--the main difference is that Windows is flashy and expertly marketed. I think that people, in general, perceive UNIX as "hard" regardless whether it actually is. This psychological barrier is artificial, yet it makes up the biggest obstacle to getting through to most people about UNIX and Linux.

Me thinks Sun and the GNOME foundation need to crank up their respective marketing machines to further dismantle Microsoft's dominance in the global perception about computers and software. Whenever Sun is ready with their GNOME/Linux business PCs, they should get full page ads in the major PHB-oriented and business-oriented periodicals. The word really needs to get out there.

Re:Start Here:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do references to this always get modded up? Slashdotters have already digested and dissected this document. Ad nauseum. Sun's study is interesting and makes a few good points, but what makes it more authoritative than insightful comments in a democratic forum? IMO GNOME has not made good use of open discussions around this issue. I hope the Debian desktop project doesn't repeat some of the same mistakes GNOME has made.

Daunting?

[ksw2]

Debian's installer isn't any more difficult than any other distribution, IMHO. Why do people freeze up as soon as they see a text-based installer?

Re:Daunting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they are used to GUIs!?
Wether you like the debian installer, or think text based installers are nice, it doesn't help the other people who don't thinks so(and thats many).
So the "problem" needs to be dealt with.

Re:Daunting?

[marko123]

Because people born after about 1980 freak out when they move a mouse and nothing happens.

Sheesh.

Re:Daunting?

[GT_Alias]

<mangled movie quote>

The sight of the text had triggered bad memories. The glazed look in their eyes said their text had been cut (and, presumably, not pasted). They were still in the grip of paralysis when we left.

</mangled movie quote>

Re:Daunting?

[Ace Rimmer]

Bah, maybe if you use it for a server. I installed it on a workstation and besides sound, 3d graphics, i18n everything was quite fine (I've chosen minimal instalation and then used apt instead that pigdoggish green spit dselect ;). After a day or two I had everything working fine but mdk or redhat is another story.

Just try to replace a videocard - what will Debian with default xdm do?

Re:Daunting?

[jmu1]

I was a Slack user for several years, but the Debian installer was just so darned screwy. I should be able to select a few categories of programs, then edit the contents _if_ i want to. I shouldn't have to pick from some two-thousand package names with terrible(if any) descriptions. I installed Deb once. The system didn't work very well, because I didn't install some of the things I was supposed to. Sure, I could have just started apt-getting. Problem was, I didn't know half of the stuff I needed. Now days, I might be able to cope. Then again, why would I want to cope when I can install Slack or RedHat?

Re:Daunting?

[Demona]

My first thought is usually, "Maybe they don't know how to read." After all, illiteracy is a growing problem...

Re:Daunting?

[Sepper]

The problem is not the "Text-base install" as much as "No hardware detection" and "too technical centric". The install sometimes looks cryptic to some (have to know that a geforce use the "nv" driver, etc.).

It took me a while to figure out the exact driver for my sparcstation, and in the end, i had to open the box and do a search on google to know.

This new incentive to push debian into the desktop is "a good thing". Even if it doesnt turn out perfect, it's still a step in the right direction.

Re:Daunting?

[schon]

I was a Slack user for several years, but the Debian installer was just so darned screwy. I should be able to select a few categories of programs, then edit the contents _if_ i want to.

BINGO!

Why is it that whenever you say you hate the Debian installer, Debheads always assume it's just because you're not accustomed to text interfaces?

I, too, am a Slack user (in the past I've used Mandrake and Caldera for my desktop, but switched once Slack hit 7.1), and I've tried Debian once - with pretty much the same results as you.. I find the installer completely non-intuitive, almost like it was made difficult on purpose.

Why can't the Debian people make an installer that's easy?

Re:Daunting?

[v1z]

Just try to replace a videocard - what will Debian with default xdm do?

Flash x five times, and then start up a text-mode dialog telling you that X seems to be crashing, and politly ask you if you want to reconfigure.

If you select no, it will kindly disable xdm for you, and ask you to enable it, once you've worked out what the problem is.

Maybe redhat copes with this now, but it certainly didn't use to.

Re:Daunting?

[marcelC]

It's not the text-based idea that's the problem, usability and ease. With slackware or an old suse text based install I was quite happy, I could select every package I wanted, and knew what it did without getting lost in numerous tabs and windows, when I tried Debian I was amazed at how needlesly complicated it was, I knew what I wanted to install, but after 45 minutes I was lost in the maze. I'm back with slack now...:)

Re:Daunting?

[DickBreath]

Debian's installer isn't any more difficult than any other distribution, IMHO. Why do people freeze up as soon as they see a text-based installer?

Why do people freeze up when they are given a telegraph key to communicate?

Brand-X's difficult to use installer is no more difficult that any other distribution's difficult to use installer.

This is the whole crux of the problem in Human interface. Programmers are NOT good designers of human interfaces. Apple's Human Interface Guidelines said it best. (Back in 1984!) The general sentiment that Apple expressed was this: We, slashdotters, are willing to put up with the most abysmal interfaces, and have done so for so long that we no longer are even capable recognizing a bad interface.

In the 1800's there were widespread predictions that eventually there would be a telegraph on every desk!

But what happened was that a more natural way of communicating (better human interface) came along and appeared on every desk instead.

Re:Daunting?

[tswinzig]

Why do people freeze up as soon as they see a text-based installer?

If you have to ask this, you must be a *nix geek.

What's easier to peruse ... a magazine with lots of pictures, or a magazine with no pictures?

Which one do you have to sit down and focus on to get an idea of what is going on, and which one can you just skim over and pick up the gist of things?

Now apply this to an installer.

Re:Daunting?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a lot easier to design the system simpler to use than designing people to adjust to the system.

Re:Daunting?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't the text based installer. It's the non-intuitive layout of the installer. I still hgate the installer.

Yes, I can install a Debian system. Yes, debian is rock solid. They could do so much better if they rewrote the installation programs.

Re:Daunting?

[Just Some Guy]

...he says as I pick up a copy of the SIGACT News and wish that it had a few more illustrative cartoons...

Re:Daunting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you haven't used redhat in like three fucking years.

Re:Daunting?

[a3ulafia]

The Yellow Dog Linux installation has a graphical installer (using the Blackbox WM) and it requires you to click through about 10 screens. If you live in the USA, most of the default settings are accaptable.

After installing both Mac OS X and Windows 2000 many times, I can honestly say that the YDL installer is the most directly functional and the least obtrusive.

http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/ydl_home.shtml

Re:Daunting?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah
the Slackware text based installer saved my arse recently when the GUI (and my cd drive) refused to cooperate on my Redhat install.

Re:Daunting?

[batkiwi]

Redhat (and mandrake) have Kudzu.

Shut down, swap network cards, boot up. On init, it says something like "Your network card has changed, do you you want to copy your old settings to the new card?"

Then it does it, and you boot up.
Same thing with video cards/etc.

Re:Daunting?

[dasunt]

In debian stable (woody), when you are done setting up the base system, tasksel has a few broad catagories.

Afterwords, you can run dselect to individually select or deselect packages, but you aren't required to.

I think debian stable{-1} (potato) was the same way. Never had to install anything older then that.

Re:Daunting?

[dbazile]

Then how can so many (young) people install Windows 2000/XP?

Clever analogy, but choose a better example than a stereotype next time. :)

Re:Daunting?

[mindstrm]

Because most of us think installing a base, bare system is where you start, and then you just add packages by hand with apt as you want/need them.

It may not be intuitive for you, but it sure is handy.

Generally a debian user doesn't add a package until it's needed; this cuts down on the clutter of packages on a system.

Re:Daunting?

[jmu1]

I'm not real sure, but I think it was dselect that was so confusing. Essentialy, I would think I was selecting packages to install, but I was really deselecting them. Something along those lines. It was just a very confusing interface. I really do like ncurses though. It's quick and easy. I just have a problem with options that aren't very readily understandable. Who knows, I may try Debian out again someday. I know I love the idea of Debian. Then again, I love the idea of RedHat(and even Slack for that matter). I love the social contract that Debian works under. I'm just waiting for it to be usable(and in a manner that I don't have to install anything labeled 'testing' or 'unstable'). Cheers!

Re:Daunting?

[Resident Geek]

You speak as if dselect were actually usable to all, not the slim minority of people willing to put up with its shitty interface. dselect needs to be tossed out the window in favor of aptitude or something.

Re:Daunting?

[schon]

Because most of us think installing a base, bare system is where you start, and then you just add packages by hand with apt as you want/need them.

First of all, this isn't what I was referring to, but here's a question for you: how is your way better than Slackware, which gives you a choice?

When I'm setting up a system, I alread know what I want/need. If something pops up afterwards (new functionality), I can just add it in.

Forcing me to do it in two steps, instead of allowing me to choose, and then claiming (as you seem to be) that this "is the best way", is just assinine.

Re:Daunting?

[fenux]

ow, right, a dialog with an ok button on it, not intuitive, you only got one choice click the fsck*ng ok button. but i bet the most difficult part of a debian installation is when you get two buttons on one screen, an ok and a cancel, i can understand it gets a little difficult, two choices!!! wtf, installing debian is clicking ok a several times, partitioning hard disk and insmodding drivers, ow, no hardware detection, wiiii, last time i checked, the deb-3.0-xfs detected all my hardware so no autodetection is deprecated now. the only difficult thing is reading like 3 manpages of 25 lines(man apt-get, man apt-cache en man man)

Re:Daunting?

[norweigiantroll]

Slackware eh? I tried installing that on my 800 meg hard drive. I chose some predetermined package groups, tried to get rid of some stuff .. no dependency checking!!! That's about the stupidest distro ever. Debian, you just install, get what software you want (apt-get install kde evolution galeon ... whatever). No junk you don't want like RedHat too.

Re:Daunting?

[Cuchullain]

Are you smoking Crack? :)

Slack allows you to install a much leaner system than debian does.

I like the install tools on debian, but it kills me that there are so many hard-linked dependencies. It is like library/dll hell all over again.

It was like pulling teeth to install anything, and I always ended up grabbing the source. I don't want 30 different libraries every time I sneeze.

Don't get me wrong, Debian mostly does the right thing, I just can't use it because it tries to add too much stuff to my system, and doesn't give me the transparent control that I have with slack or one of the BSDs.

Cuchullain

Re:Daunting?

[MrWa]

Why do people freeze up as soon as they see a text-based installer?

This kind of comment automatically disqualifies someone from being a good judge of what is needed on the desktop. The "average" user operates so far from the command line or text-based type installations that it isn't even an option.

This isn't a troll or attempting to bash someone, but every review of a Linux distro that I read mentions some trivial problem in the install that required firing up VI to fix, or tweaking some easy to find configuration somewhere. Guess what? The average user isn't going to be able to "fire up VI", let alone realize that some configuration in a script is wrong! Given a fresh installation that doesn't work, the user will assume that it just doesn't work. Which is true.

Until the installation is so simple that it requires answering a couple of questions (user name, type of computer installation, some programs that are optional), the installation takes place, and the user can log on and perform all the tasks they would want to (write a paper, play a CD or DVD, draw a picture, surf the web, or write an email) then it isn't ready for primetime. I would say that WinXP installation could go a little further - most people don't install WinXP, they run it already installed. When they do install it, it is a very big deal.

Re:Daunting?

[schon]

I tried installing that on my 800 meg hard drive. I chose some predetermined package groups, tried to get rid of some stuff .. no dependency checking!!!

Unlike other distros, Slackware assumes that you know what you're doing, and that when you remove something, that you're sure you don't need it.

Re:Daunting?

[norweigiantroll]

Seems kind of redundant, having to memorize all those dependencies. Quick, off the top of your head, what are scrollkeeper's dependencies!

Re:Daunting?

[norweigiantroll]

Gives you a choice? OK, install a base system. I'd like to see how long it takes you to install something like Nautilus with all those dependencies. And don't install any extra package!!! With Debian, it's "apt-get install nautilus" and voila.

Re:Daunting?

[Ziviyr]

Excuse me? Debian's install process is the best I've used. I figured it out the *first* time I tried it out, and it installed beautifully, using the network to download only what packages it needed instead of making me download a whole 700 MB's worth of packages most of which I won't use.

I've had unending problems leading to having to download the full CDs because of slow adoption of PPPoE support (and PPP is supported everywhere else, what was the hold up?)

Re:Daunting?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

I like a text-bsed installer. I prefer a text-based bootup. I use Blackbox alot. I think textmodes are cleaner. But, Mandrake recognizes my USB mouse, USB printer, and even gives me a dropdown that has my monitor listed. I couldn't get the scroll mouse to work with debian. Oh well. I actually enjoyed the first few hours of trying. Not so much the few hours the next day. So I'd suggest its not about "text-based", its about ever completing it so that it works.

Re:Daunting?

[marko123]

An analogy, by definition, is going to break down eventually, but fair point (I'm using XP at the moment)

For example, an analogy is like a car :)

Re:Daunting?

[Wolfier]

What if I want to keep a non-functional installation of Scrollkeeper on my machine by replacing some of the stuffs it depends on?

With Slack it is easy.

Who needs dependency? I have ldd.

Also you'll know right away when the program complains.

Dependency checking just gets in the way when I *WANT* things to get temporarily screwy.

Re:Daunting?

[autechre]

ray@bobb:~/fm$ apt-cache search kudzu
hwdata - hardware identification / configuration data
kudzu - The Red Hat Linux hardware probing tool.
kudzu-dev - Hardware detecting library
kudzu-vesa - Hardware detecting library

So Debian has it too (along with pretty much everything else).

Pi

[MoceanWorker]

and the best movie ;-)

Re:Pi

[vlag]

MMMMM ... American Pi.

Re:Pi

[Anonymous Coward]

MMMMMM.... Hair Pi !

This neat-to-eat treat is my personal favorite!.

Re:Pi

[Anonymous Coward]

hell yeah, that movie rocked so much, ive even got it on dvd, the soundtrack was excelletn and some of the dream sequence things were so cool, if you could see a migraine, i reckon thats exactly what it would look like.

System Management for User

[Sam the Nemesis]

From the site:

We will try to ensure that software is configured for the most common desktop use. For instance, the regular user account added by default during installation should have permission to play audio and video, print, and manage the system through sudo.

I think giving the root privileges to the user using sudo is a security risk. It will be very easy to wreak a havoc on the system, once you break into the user account.

Re:System Management for User

[larien]

Well, let's compare this to other desktops; XP allows me to do all sorts of stuff with the user I created at initialisation, including create other user accounts. What this is probably aiming for is the same sort of user as XP, i.e. one that doesn't want to know about 'root' he wants things to 'just work'. In any event, it's probably more secure than having the user log in as root with a password of 'password'; how long would that take to crack?

If you're going to deploy this in any kind of serious setting, you'll have admins to set up scripts to remove the glaring security holes in any case.

Re:System Management for User

[MoceanWorker]

very good point.. but it also depends on how one goes about configuring sudo and to what, limited, access they have to certain root commands..

Re:System Management for User

[Sam the Nemesis]

XP anyway is not known for its security. Linux IS. Recently there was article where KMail ran the windoze executable using wine, without asking the user.

Just think of a simple script attachment which your mail client runs without asking you. If the user has sudo rights, then a malicious script can trash the computer. But if he/she was a normal unprivileged user, then the damage won't be to that extent.

Re:System Management for User

[FooBarWidget]

But Joe Average doesn't care about security! Do you have any idea how many Windows users don't have a virusscanner installed, even though they know viruses exist? As far as Joe Average is concerned, security doesn't exist.

Re:System Management for User

[avel599]

+4, Insightful???

Read the original poster. He said, manage the system through sudo.

How is that more insecure than logging in as root to do system management? I always do sudo apt-get install blahblah; I don't su, and I don't login as root either.

Of course, we are not talking about using the root account to get video and audio privileges themselves...

Re:System Management for User

[BESTouff]

Frankly I don't care that my *desktop* is more vulnerable as root than as my userid: once all my personnal files are deleted, what's left on the drive is worthless (it can be reinstalled easily).

Now for my server it's a totally different story.

Re:System Management for User

[roie_m]

If your user account has sudo privilages, and someone gets your user password, they can run programs as root w/o your root password. The assumption is that you are slightly more careful with your root password than with your user password, I guess, and that you can't log in remotely as root. (That depends on your configuration, but it's standard practice)

Re:System Management for User

[JohnFluxx]

Haha. Good one.

Having your files deleted is the _least_ of your problems. Your files can be restored from backup.

The problem is when you are hacked and you _don't know about it_.

Imagine a virus that replaced one bit in one of your data files every day. How long would it take for you to find out? And of course your backups would be useless by the time you do find out.

There are far worse things than just having your files deleted.

Re:System Management for User

[Fluffy the Cat]

I think giving the root privileges to the user using sudo is a security risk. It will be very easy to wreak a havoc on the system, once you break into the user account.

1)Break into user account.
2)Put trojanned su binary in hidden directory, add that to user path.
3)???
4)r00t

You're unlikely to convince people not to use su, and if they're willing to do that then you can get the root password. Having that account have sudo access makes it slightly easier, but if you're dealing with a determined attacker then you've lost already. If you're not dealing with a determined attacker, they're unlikely to have bothered cracking a user account.

Re:System Management for User

[bockman]

What this is probably aiming for is the same sort of user as XP, i.e. one that doesn't want to know about 'root' he wants things to 'just work'.

Unfortunately, they often get things that 'just break', too.

I believe the right thing is what some distro already does : when a normal user attempts privileged operations, like configuring the machine, he is asked for root password. This is easier than becoming root and more secure than having an everybody-is-root environment.

Re:System Management for User

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not a question of giving root privileges
but giving access to the hardware. If you need
to use your computer logic would say that you
can use the peripherals. It is baffling to see
that someone be stupid enough to believe that
a user should never have have access to any
piece of hardware on HIS PC. Might as well
leave the computer off if you can't use it.
Most people don't just use their PC as a dumb
peripheral to connect to a network or the net
but actually have some other use for it.
In those cases which are likely to be 99.9% or
the time it is ridiculous to force you to have
to run as root to be able to do anything other
than secretary work with your computer. If need be
you take chances by allowing access to hardware.
All is necessary is to protect against intrusions
without defeating the purpose of having a
computer. To cripple a computer for the sake of
safety is a moronic solution.

As I said before you might as well shut the
damm thing off if you are going to disable
access to hardware.

Re:System Management for User

[MShook]

Right, but how does it make any difference? If you only use su and someone gets your password, they're able to get the root password when you su (because that's your only way of becoming root from a remote computer)...
Moreover, you can restrict sudo so it doesn't give you root access to everything. IMHO, sudo is definitely better than su, just because it's fine grained.

Re:System Management for User

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to agree with you. I think USers should have the option to have a more secure desktop, or have paranoia settings. Not everyone wants to put a password everytime the install something however small. Maybe, a rating system could be created that operates as follows. Installation of services and the liek liek Apache, ftp servers and general huge security risks should require the root password. These would be rated risky and require passwords. stuff like mp3 palyer and so on could have an option and have the user decide whether or not a password should require the password. There are problably a lot of holes in my thinking, but the idea could be refined

Debian

[Anonymous Coward]

Well Debian is excellent, the install makes you feel like a grunt but other than that it's insane. We need a desktop that is not like our Apple and Windows counterparts. Perhaps something like the movie "Minority Report". I want to wear "mouse gloves" and move windows around my walls that are covered in LCD screens. That's new and exciting.

Re:Debian

[hplasm]

Has no-one tried doing an LCARS (STNG) front end for Linux? Not the Windoze 'skin' , but as an environment?

Re:Debian

[ShavenYak]

I want to wear "mouse gloves" and move windows around my walls that are covered in LCD screens. That's new and exciting.

Too bad you'll have to wait two years after mouse gloves are on the market before there's a Linux driver for them stable enough for the Debian developers to deem it worthy of inclusion into their distro.

Re:Debian

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off, troll

Re:Debian

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad you'll have to wait two years after mouse gloves are on the market before there's a Linux driver for them stable enough for the Debian developers to deem it worthy of inclusion into their distro.

Or you could actually, perhaps, like... make a package yourself?

Re:Debian

[hplasm]

Fuck you too, Offtopic Twat. this was a Debian desktop question, so learn to read. Wanker.

Co-ordination please

[pubjames]

It's fantastic that there is so much happening in the Linux desktop area at the moment. But a plea to you guys -- can we have some co-ordination and co-operation please? Everyone seems to be doing their own thing in many areas. Remember, your competitioin is Microsoft, they have 95% of the desktop market (or there abouts). You should be teaming together to fight them, not amongst each other.

The OSS community can make a desktop that is better than XP. In fact, all of the bits of the puzzle are already there, it's just that they are in different distributions! (Xandros, SUSE, RedHat, Lindows, Debian...)

When Linux has a reasonable foothold in the desktop market, then go ahead, fight away. But until that day, please share and co-operate. For motivation, imagine Bill Gates giggling to himself and muttering "what a bunch of losers". Works for me.

Re:Co-ordination please

[Sam the Nemesis]

The OSS community can make a desktop that is better than XP. In fact, all of the bits of the puzzle are already there, it's just that they are in different distributions! (Xandros, SUSE, RedHat, Lindows, Debian...)

Lindows ?!?? You mean Lycoris, right?

Re:Co-ordination please

[merz]

Is Microsoft really the "enemy"? Do the distros need to against this common foe? I don't think so. The OSS movement wasn't started to fight Microsoft, it was started to provide freedom and choice .

Yes, commericial distros have appeared, and their competition is Microsoft (and Sun, and the BSDs, and Apple), but that doesn't mean that the non-comercial distros (a la Debian) need to join in the fight also. They don't have a competition per se because they have no real financial stake in the product. Debian is developed by volunteers and hobbyist who enjoy the work they do. If they didn't get satisfaction from it, they wouldn't be doing it. Do most Debian developers think they are competing with Microsoft? Probably not...

Plus, cooperation between Linux distros is somewhat implicit. Since they are required to provide the source under the GPL, they are already sharing with the community.

I think that the number of distributions is a good thing for the non-comercial distros. As for the commericial distros, well they are already decided to join forces.

Re:Co-ordination please

[leviramsey]

The OSS community can make a desktop that is better than XP. In fact, all of the bits of the puzzle are already there, it's just that they are in different distributions! (Xandros, SUSE, RedHat, Lindows, Debian...)

I wouldn't be surprised if the Debian Desktop borrows Mandrake Control Center. After all, Mandrake uses the Debian menu system.

Re:Co-ordination please

[pubjames]

Is Microsoft really the "enemy"?

Well, it depends what you want. If you are happy with Linux having less than 1% of the desktop market, then fine. But there are many people like myself who believe that the world would be a better place if OSS software were much more widely used. And that means the desktop. So, yes, at least from my perspective, Microsoft is the enemy, or if you'd prefer, the competition.

And no, Sun, the BSDs and Apple are not really the competition because they don't own 95% of the marketplace.

Plus, cooperation between Linux distros is somewhat implicit.

Except it doesn't seem to be happening that way. If you look at the kernel, there is a great deal of uniformity between distributions basically because there is a single, widely accepted head-penguin who is doing an excellent job (Linus). I'm sure that there are very few people who would argue that it would be great if we had dozens of incompatible kernals. The desktop space however doesn't have a head-penguin and it really shows.

It's possible to have a high level of co-ordination and co-operation as well as freedom and choice.

Re:Co-ordination please

[ShavenYak]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Debian Desktop borrows Mandrake Control Center. After all, Mandrake uses the Debian menu system.

God let's hope not. I run Mandrake, but I hate MCC. It's unwieldy, unintuitive, unstable, and ugly.

The Debian menu system sucks ass too. Great idea in theory, terrible in practice. The upshot of it is you can't use the desktop's own menu editor, or your changes get wiped out next time you install a package. Also, any software that isn't aware of the menu system can't put entries in your menu, or again they will be gone when you install a menu-aware package.

Gnome, KDE, and the other window managers/desktops need to get together and decide on a common location for menu files, desktop icons, and such, then there will be no need for Debian's menu package. Actually, the LSB would have been a great place to specify those things, but it fell way short on standardizing GUI's and such.

Re:Co-ordination please

[DickBreath]

But a plea to you guys -- can we have some co-ordination and co-operation please? Everyone seems to be doing their own thing in many areas.

It's called the Bazzar. Not the Cathederal. It seems to have worked very well so far to create some really good software. Sorry it might not work as quickly as you or I might like.

Remember, your competitioin is Microsoft, they have 95% of the desktop market (or there abouts).

The Bazzar model of development is what will hurt Microsoft. They cannot compete with that.

Choice is what will undermine Microsoft. They do not offer that.

Example: hardware vendors should all work together and cooperate. There should be only one single kind of CD drive, one kind of each size of monitor, one kind of CPU, etc.

The Bazzar seems to work there quite well. Look at hardware prices.

I agree that it would be bad if the open source world spread its resources too thin. But I don't think it is. Even if it were, there is little you or I can do about it. That is just another condition of the Bazzar.

You should be teaming together to fight them, not amongst each other.

I don't think there is any "fighting" going on. I suppose we have seen some bickering amongst KDE and GNOME advocates. (But amongst the developers?)

Re:Co-ordination please

[io333]

The desktop space however doesn't have a head-penguin and it really shows.

That statement really made me sit up!

What an interesting idea. The first thing I thought was "Hey, vote for me! I'll be head penguin and really sort all this stuff out." It was just a silly thought of course. But then it got me thinking:

How could we have a head penguin?

What if we had an election, via the net, and voted for a Head Penguin?! I'm serious. Give the Head Penguin a term of say, two years... or maybe just one year to start out to see how it all works. And then continue to have new elections ever one or two years. Who knows what the details of all of this would be like, but maybe a little debate about the possibilities would be useful?

Re:Co-ordination please

[pubjames]

What if we had an election, via the net, and voted for a Head Penguin?!

I don't think that would be the best way. For it to work the Head Desktop Penguin would need a) to be known to most people in the desktop field b) to be impartial and fair, and c) to be respected. I think the best way would be for the desktop gurus from all the major distributions to discuss it together, and then choose someone from amongst them who would hopefully agree to being Head Desktop Penguin.

Give the Head Penguin a term of say, two years...

I think that due to the nature of the position, the term would be until the Penguin got bored/over-stressed, or given a vote of no confidence by the community.

We already have a good model of how this might function with the Linux kernal. Unfortunately I don't think it is going to happen for the desktop space, which is a shame.

Re:Co-ordination please

[bockman]

Example: hardware vendors should all work together and cooperate. There should be only one single kind of CD drive, one kind of each size of monitor, one kind of CPU, etc.

The Bazzar seems to work there quite well. Look at hardware prices

Right. Except that CD drives all uses the same data interface, power connection etc... Same for the monitors.

I would like to see the same on Linux: I don't care for a single desktop: I _do_ care for a standard desktop infrastructure.

Places like freedesktop.org and xml.openoffice.org seem to point to the right direction: but it will be a slow going, I think.

Re:Co-ordination please

[Malcontent]

" Is Microsoft really the "enemy"?"

MS clearly sees us as the enemy. The question is what do we do when the biggest, baddest, richest corporation and people in the world has identified you as the enemy. Whatever the answer is I don't think it should be "let's just stand around and act like nothing is happening". When a powerful enemy points it's biggest guns at you better do something or you will be killed.

Re:Co-ordination please

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's called the Bazzar."

"The Bazzar model of development..."

"The Bazzar seems to work..."

"...another condition of the Bazzar."

Your spelling of bazaar is bizarre.

Re:Co-ordination please

[pauldamer]

The Debian menu system sucks ass too. Great idea in theory, terrible in practice. The upshot of it is you can't use the desktop's own menu editor, or your changes get wiped out next time you install a package. Also, any software that isn't aware of the menu system can't put entries in your menu, or again they will be gone when you install a menu-aware package

Not true, windowmaker(unequivocally the best window manager ;P) allows you to use the debian menu(also the KDE menu, maybe others) as a sub menu of your custom menu.

Re:Co-ordination please

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I *prefer* the lack of coordination. You said: all of the bits of the puzzle are already there, it's just that they are in different distributions! (Xandros, SUSE, RedHat, Lindows, Debian...) and that you want to unify these bits across the board to gain desktop marketshare against Microsoft.

This sounds a lot like the rules of differentiation and radiation from evolution: sub-species develop characteristics that adapt them to different ecological niches. As time goes on, these sub-species continue to specialize and succeed in their niches better than any undifferentiated organism, and eventually dominate their niche.

The desktop computer is not the end-all-be-all of computing. In fact, it is likely to be superceded with some other technology (just as it supercede Minicomputers and Mainframes). The "teeming horde" that is Open Source Software is likely to be better positioned for the next technological wave *BECAUSE* it isn't a monolithic block (unlike a certain Redmond-based OS).

I say, let the various distributions continue to develop what *they* think is important. If they find a tool or technique in another distro that they admire (assuming that they don't have their *own* corresponding tool), I'm sure they'll adopt it eventually. OK, so the process may be slower than *YOU* want, but it is surely fast enough for me.

For today, the people who have the purchasing authority over that 95% of the desktop market are not yet ready to discard their Windows machines ("No one was ever fired for buying Microsoft"). This will remain true no matter *HOW GOOD* the Linux desktop is. These people have to be convinced SLOWLY. During that time, Linux will be evolving in ways that we can not *begin* to contemplate.

Re:Co-ordination please

[Pengo]

Hmm.. frankly, I disagree.

I don't see too much Bazzar on the Kernel, it's doing fantastic.

MS isn't going to feel the least bit fear from the desktop inititive until we have a benevolent dictator on the desktop and frankly something geared towards something other than geeks is standarized on. Frankly, RedHat has made the only real stride I have seen towards a threat to MS on the desktop.

Apple is great, but critical mass isn't going to buy MS hardware. (I have a tiBook and a G4, love em both.. but trying to stay real).

But, if redhat can keep it up, we will be doing great. For the first time since WindowMaker have I have used a desktop I am quite happy with on Linux (refering to the Redhat default desktop on version 8.0).

Anyway, take a look at it.. it's nice. Once they get the blasted resolution resizing tools in it, re-organize the menus a bit more cleanly, look out. I am quite impressed. Maybe boring, but boring is ok for me.

Re:Co-ordination please

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Which MCC do you hate? 8.1, 8.2 or 9.0?

I'm just having a bit of trouble adjusting to the 9.0 version...

Re:Co-ordination please

[IamTheRealMike]

The desktop space however doesn't have a head-penguin and it really shows.

I would say that Havoc Pennington is stepping in to fill that gap. His standardization work over at freedesktop.org is uniting the desktops where it matter (in protocols/schemas) at a fantastic rate. The technologies they are producing tend to be more powerful than anything that came before as well, as it's a bunch of smart people from all the desktop projects talking about it together.

You don't need one famous charismatic leader - you need somebody who Gets Stuff Done (tm) and regardless of what you think of Metacity or GNOME2, Havoc is getting stuff done.

Re:Co-ordination please

[DickBreath]

Your spelling of bazaar [dictionary.com] is bizarre.

Then maybe I should apply for Taco's job.

Re:Co-ordination please

[DickBreath]

I don't see too much Bazzar on the Kernel, it's doing fantastic.

It seems to me that several things that are mainstream kernel now started out as independant developments completely removed from the core kernel development.

Several filesystems come to mind. These definantly did not start out as core kernel projects.

Anyone could develop something great as a source patch to the kernel. If it is good, the kernel developers could decide to accept it into the mainstream. Or not. If not, then you could continue to distribute your patch to like minded people who want your particular piece. In fact, it seems that I've seen this done before.

This seems to me to be very much the Bazaar model. (Regards to the spelling police. :-)

Re:Co-ordination please

[Christianfreak]

Example: hardware vendors should all work together and cooperate. There should be only one single kind of CD drive, one kind of each size of monitor, one kind of CPU, etc.

The Bazzar seems to work there quite well. Look at hardware prices.

But the difference there is that if you install a new CD rom or a new monitor you don't have to jump through hoops to use them. Once the CDROM is installed it can be used normally as a disk on the file system no matter what brand it is.

Contrast that to the linux desktop, (copy and paste is my huge beef) where my regular X apps don'y play so well and look different from my GNOME apps that don't play so well or look the same as my KDE apps and vice versa. I can't reliably copy and paste anything other than text between any apps on Linux because everyone uses their own copy and paste methods (even though X has them built in as I was informed the other day). Makers of CDROMs conform their drives to a standard way of making CDROM devices, there is still good competition. Why can't we have a standard way of making graphical apps on Linux? There's still competition but theere would still be a standard, things would look the same and work the same. I think the problem is that so many people are busy stroking their egos they don't want to work together. (I cite KDE team's reaction to Redhat after they tried to do some very nice things with the software).

Re:Co-ordination please

[StarFace]

There are ways to get around it that are just as easy for the most part. As another poster said, a number of window managers (wmaker included) nest the Debian menu inside of the 'root' application menu, so you can edit that part to your heart's content. Blackbox is another one that is easy to integrate this way. Personally, I prefer all of the Debian stuff in a nested menu anyway, since I access that menu less than the one I've set up for commonly used applications.

Secondly, any user on a Debian system can have their own .menu directory which overrides the declarations in /usr/lib/menu. So if you don't mind making a few dreadfully simple text file overrides, you can create persistent changes to the Debian menu system that work on all your window managers. The only catch is that under the default configuration; if the user sets up a .menu directory, they'll need to run update-menus periodically. One could easily tweak this behavior though.

Re:Co-ordination please

[alfaiomega]

It's fantastic that there is so much happening in the Linux desktop area at the moment. But a plea to you guys -- can we have some co-ordination and co-operation please?

Let me quote the article:

How you can help: The most important parts of a Debian subproject aren't mailing lists, web pages, or archive space for packages. The most important part is motivated people who make things happen. You don't need to be an official developer to start making packages and patches. The core Debian Desktop team will ensure that your work is integrated. So here's some things you can do: (...)

Who's involved in Debian Desktop: First of all, anyone who wants to be! (...)

So, who says you can't cooperate with them?

Remember, your competitioin is Microsoft, they have 95% of the desktop market (or there abouts). You should be teaming together to fight them, not amongst each other.

The purpose of Debian is not to fight Microsoft. It's purpose is to make a great operating system. It's also not a company, so the makret share means nothing as long as there are enough developers willing to spend their free time contributing to the project.

Re:Co-ordination please

[Arandir]

Well, it depends what you want. If you are happy with Linux having less than 1% of the desktop market, then fine.

Why should I be in any way concerned what marketshare my operating system has? It's running on my system and that's all I need to know. As long as there's enough people developing it to keep it current, it doesn't matter to me if my neighbor is using it to.

But there are many people like myself who believe that the world would be a better place if OSS software were much more widely used.

Of course, the world would be a much better place if everyone voted the same way I do...

Re:Co-ordination please

[sachachua]

Customizing Debian-style menus is actually not as difficult as it sounds. To modify the standard menus, add, edit or delete files in /usr/lib/menu (might be somewhere else for non-Debian systems). Many window managers allow you to specify your own menu. You can also usually include other menu files. I've customized my own menus for fvwm and blackbox. I'm not a GNOME or KDE fan because I save all the memory and the cycles I have for Emacs. Debian menu system integration is actually pretty good, although I hardly browse through the menu. Who needs menus when you've got a terminal window open? ;)

Is it Me?

[Captain Large Face]

Or does the Gnu on the front page look like it's toking on a big joint?

Re:Is it Me?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's you.

Re:Is it Me?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking the exact same thing. That is one seriously stoned-looking gnu.

Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[Selanit]

a processor architecture update would be good too. Currently, all Debian packages are compiled for use on a 386. I can't think of ANYONE who still uses a 386 for ANYTHING. So why do we need to continue supporting it?

At the least, I'd like to see the Debian compiles updated to i586. (That's the equivalent of a Pentium 1, in non-geek speak.) There are still quite a few of those in use.

Updating the targetted processor architecture would give a significant performance boost to Debian. I mean seriously, nobody is going to run KDE or Gnome on a 386 -- it'd take DAYS just to start a program.

It might also be possible to support multiple processor architectures; eg during installation you get a list of i386, i486, i586, and i686 (386, 486, Pentium 1, More Recent Stuff). Then apt would fetch the appropriate package flavor. Of course, this would require non-trivial amounts of storage space, not to mention all the time needed to re-compile everything.

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[Stephen Williams]

How much of a performance increase is gained by optimizing the "average"[1] application? I don't mean stuff that bangs the CPU, like bzip2, or an MP3 encoder, or whatnot; I mean something interactive like a mail client, which spends most of its time in an idle state, waiting for the user to press a key or click the mouse.

Optimizing the kernel for a particular CPU model is almost certainly a win (I'm not a kernel hacker and don't know how much of a win); but it seems to me that the costs of producing and storing multiple optimized versions of an "average" app probably outweigh the benefits. And since i386 is the lowest common denominator, Debian may as well just continue building for that.

-Stephen

[1]: if indeed there is such a thing as an "average" app.

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[dzym]

Define "significant". Processor architecture optimizations are not all they're cracked up to be.

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[JoZZ]

Hmm.. I use Debian with X installed on an old 386. Its only a Xterminal to a X-server but nonetheless X+Debian+i386. But, I do agree with you. Make it i686 I say. And have a SmallDebianDist instead. All a i386 needs is basic console tools and basic X-suff (not KDE/GNOME). Shoud not be more than a handfull of packeges (say 640MB max). My current installation isn't bigger than 100MB (but people want's different stuff)

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

A) I'm running Debian on old 386's now as routers. Why should I have to throw away that perfectly working hardware?

B) compiling for 586 is retarded. The only sytems that benefit from 586 optimizations are 586 systems - 686 systems are architectured differently so that good 586 optimizations don't do much for 686's. Optimizing for 686 would actually give a performance benefit. If you want that, go use Arch Linux or Gentoo.

C) Recompiling all those packages, or keeping both i386 and i686 archives, would be a tremendous amount of work. And, to be honest, 99% of apps don't benefit that much from the optimizations anyways. Recompile your multi-media apps (or use ones that detect the corrent modules at runtime) and install an optimized kernel package, and you should be good.

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[FatRatBastard]

How much of a performance increase is gained by optimizing the "average"[1] application?

Surprisingly quite a bit. I moved my linux workstation over to Gentoo and it runs a lot snappier than my old debian setup. (no hard numbers, simply the feel from day to day use) I have an Athlon 750 and an ancient ATI PCI Rage Pro card so every drop counts.

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[Selanit]

Optimizing the kernel for a particular CPU model is almost certainly a win (I'm not a kernel hacker and don't know how much of a win); but it seems to me that the costs of producing and storing multiple optimized versions of an "average" app probably outweigh the benefits. And since i386 is the lowest common denominator, Debian may as well just continue building for that.

I suspect that you're probably right about the costs outweighing the benefits. (Sigh.) It's just that when I tried out Gentoo, the difference in execution time was noticeable, and not just in big applications like KDE. I had used custom compiles of KDE and XFree86 under Debian Woody for some time, but the underlying stuff must have slowed it down. Under Gentoo, it takes my machine about 22 seconds to start KDE, whereas under Debian Woody it took about 45. In my book, a 50% decrease in startup time is significant.

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[leviramsey]

Optimizing the kernel for a particular CPU model is almost certainly a win

glibc, X, and crypto libs would get a benefit from CPU optimization. If nothing else, the order of instructions might be changed to better support a superscalar architecture.

Mandrake accomplishes the glibc by having a /lib/i686 directory with i686 builds of the most intense glibc components. At runtime, the kernel is queried to determine the CPU and based on that, either the i586 builds in /lib or the i686 builds in /lib/i686 are used.

Of course, this doesn't work on VIA processors, as they are mistakenly id'd by the kernel as i686-compatible, when they really aren't.

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[Stephen Williams]

Under Gentoo, it takes my machine about 22 seconds to start KDE, whereas under Debian Woody it took about 45. In my book, a 50% decrease in startup time is significant.

50%? Wow! I wouldn't have expected such an increase. Combined with the other poster's observation that his system just feels more responsive, maybe I should think about apt-get source-ing and compiling the apps I use most with CPU-specific optimizations.

Since I don't use KDE (or GNOME; just Sawfish for me, thanks), I'd never have noticed the kind of speedup you observe; the thing I'd most like to speed up on my system is the execution of the /etc/init.d boot scripts; though I imagine that has more to do with disk throughput than binary optimization.

-Stephen

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[Cro Magnon]

One problem is that code optimized for a Pentium might not run as well on a K6 as 386 code.

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[Isle]

C) Recompiling all those packages, or keeping both i386 and i686 archives, would be a tremendous amount of work. And, to be honest, 99% of apps don't benefit that much from the optimizations anyways. Recompile your multi-media apps (or use ones that detect the corrent modules at runtime) and install an optimized kernel package, and you should be good.

Not really, do you have any idea of how many platforms Debian is currently autocompiled for? (I've lost count)

Some of these platforms takes days or weeks to compile some packages so there should be pleanty of time to compile the i386 package twice.

No the real issue is that dispite how cool processor specific optimizations sounds, the gains are very limited. I think it is supposed to improve when we switch to gcc-3.2, but it has to be ready for all the Debian platforms before that is attempted.

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[molo]

Debian unstable is doing this where performance is critical. For example:

> ls -1 /usr/lib/i686/
libcrypto.so@
libcrypto.so.0.9.6
libssl.so@
libssl.so.0.9.6

There were experiments doing custom glibcs a while back, but there were bugs and it was backed out. I'd like to see that working though.

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[ultraw]

i386 still is the best "average" build-target.

I doubt that many applications might benefit that much from this. Only processor intensive apps will benefit from this, like video players, music players and X.

I wonder how many people know that they can build their own version of packages by using "apt-get -b source ".

People who like to get that extra cpu-cycle that is lost by the i386 compile can compile their own packages... I suggest one begins with the libs (libc6, xlibs,...) and the cpu-intensive apps (multimedia,...)

Try reading the apt-howto, the part about source-packages, build-dependencies, is here ...

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[rexfelis]

Define "significant". Processor architecture optimizations are not all they're cracked up to be. Perhapse you should take your comments over to the gcc list and tell those guys all their efforts are for naught. Or maybe you could try optimized installs of X, various desktops, and other CPU intensive applications and enjoy a nice warm cup of shut the fuck up.

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I think having an xfree86 for i686 would be enough, but knowing the primadonna of the debian X developers, it will never happen because .

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

More machines will run i386 than will run i586. The fact that all i586 machines also run i386 is just a bonus.

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[doorbot.com]

I think it is supposed to improve when we switch to gcc-3.2, but it has to be ready for all the Debian platforms before that is attempted.

GCC-3.2 for Sparc doesn't seem to want to finish a 64-bit kernel compile... hopefully it will be working soon, though, as I'd like the RAID1 functionality to finally work!

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't really have to take up more space if only GNOME, KDE and other performance demanding categories were to be compiled for i586 or greater.

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[Ed Avis]

You can optimize for 686 but keep 386 compatibility. Use -march=i386 -mcpu=i686, IIRC. Then it's reasonably well optimized for newer CPUs (at least as far as instruction order, etc., if not using newly-added opcodes) while on a 386 it's not that much slower than it would be anyway. I think Red Hat does this. Similarly you can optimize for 686 keeping 586 compat., and so on.

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[ndogg]

Don't forget that Debian has been ported to eleven, yes, eleven different processors. That's a lot of packages, and and each processor has three versions out there that are distributed concurrently. Each one carries over 3000 packages. To mirror a Debian archive, you need 60 GB of free space.

http://www.debian.org/mirror/size

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of the placebo effect?

Daniel

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[Wolfier]

What? You're using Debian on old 386's as routers? Good for you.

There is one thing you may like to know though. Even distros with kernel 2.0 can make really good and secure routers.

If you have old hardware, don't expect to run new software.

Why do you think we keep maintaining and making security fixes for old software?

Software that comes out in 2002 should not be held back by a CPU that came out in 1986. Let some 1998 software handle that.

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

> optimize for 686 but keep 386 compatibility.
> Use -march=i386 -mcpu=i686, IIRC.
>
What is the difference between the two anyway? I tested it on a 486 with gzip. Compressed a large file, timed it and compared with the default (i386) version. Using -mcpu=i486 was had the exact same result, whereas adding -march=i486 would actually *slow it down*! Why is that?
And while I'm at it: how do you get X to compile for an architecture? I tried editing the linux.cf file to no avail. Can anyone tell me how to go about compiling it for a 586 (Pentium 1) w/MMX? Cheers!

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[Spy Hunter]

Debian's startup isn't optimized. It is easy to make it faster if you fiddle around with the init scripts. Also, compiling your own kernel can make a big difference. Very general kernels must check for lots of hardware, which takes time; a custom kernel can only check for the hardware you have. Since you compiled a kernel for Gentoo, that probably accounts for most of the saved startup time. Debian with a custom kernel can boot fairly fast. Hopefully the Debian Desktop project will do something with the init scripts to make it boot faster.

Re:Maybe it's too much to ask, but . . .

[Ed Avis]

Bizarre. Perhaps your compiler's i486 optimizations are worse than useless. Sorry, I don't know how to change X's compiler options.

Great!

[e8johan]

This is exactly what is missing if Linux is going to make it to the mainstream desktop.
As soon as Linux is recognized as a userfriendly, easy-to-use desktop with lots of free (as in beer) software by the average user Windows will get into real problems. Such an opening would generate a *huge* increase in the number of users and thus in the interest in supporting Linux from different companies.

Two points to avoid flaming: 1) I know that Linux is only the kernel, simply sed 's/Linux/Gnu\\Linux/' and be happy, 2) "as in beer" is how the average user will see it, my mother don't care for open source, she wants to use it as a tool!

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

It should also BE a userfriendly desktop.
To users that is.
It doesn't help that all linux hackers thinks it beats windows, and say so over and over untill ignorant people belive it (untill they try it them selves.)

In no way can linux yet compete in an office environent with windows. (Ofcourse, already linux users will think so.)

Re:Great!

[Rubbersoul]

I totally agree with this. If GNU/Linux is ever going to make it as a "mainstream" desktop OS then it has to get more user friendly.

I think it goes a bit deeper though ... it has to get user friendly and mainstream software vendors have to see it be user friendly. If software vendors see it as a viable option then more software should get ported over and then at that point end users will see an alternative to their current desktop that will allow them to still be productive. When this all comes together user will have a system that is rock solid, is user friendly, and has useful mainstream software packages. Now all we (or at least software developers / testers) have to do is go get this all done :)

Wrong focus?

[m0i]

Shouldn't Debian focus on trying to stay up to date on core components instead? We all know that some critical packages are way out of date:
-XFree, 4.2 just appeared in unstable
-KDE 3
-Mozilla 1.1
And it's even worse for people using woody without 'proposed-updates' package repository!

The 'testing' distribution is a step in the right direction, but there's a lot more to do that just to focus on Desktop, IMHO.

Re:Wrong focus?

[PeterClark]

Well, I don't know what the hold-up for Mozilla is (someone else can jump in), but in the case of KDE3, the only reason that it isn't in unstable now is because of the GCC3.2 transition. One the transition is complete, it's ready to go in. (Of course, there are debs maintained now by the official packagers, they just can't be called official packages because they're not in unstable. But they work just fine.) As for XFree, the big hold-up was testing and patching it to be compatible with all the other platforms. As I understand it, XFree develops pretty much exclusively for x86, and then lets the Debian folk port/patch is over to Alpha, Sparc, PPC, etc.

You also forget that Debian is not a company, but a community. In other words, you cannot dictate what will be done; people will do whatever interests them. It works, it's just that at this point with so many transitions and changes going on, the process has slowed down. Want to sped it up? Fork over some $$$ to a developer. Simple as that.
:Peter

Re:Wrong focus?

[dzym]

Mozilla 1.1 is in unstable.

Re:Wrong focus?

[Ray Dassen]

Shouldn't Debian focus on trying to stay up to date on core components instead?
Debian focusses on whatever the Debian developers care about. One thing Debian developers tend not to care about at all is armchair experts. If you happen to disagree with what we care about, feel free to learn How you can help, or to pay for a developer to scratch your particular itch.

We all know that some critical packages are way out of date:
-XFree, 4.2 just appeared in unstable
And excellent prerelease packages have been available from the X Strike Force for months. Not to mention that Debian supports X on 11 architectures rather than just i386.
-KDE 3 Unofficial packages are available; official packages will follow after the gcc transition; see the FAQ.

-Mozilla 1.1
Available in unstable and testing, as are recent CVS snapshots.

And it's even worse for people using woody without 'proposed-updates' package repository!
woody is the stable release. Debian takes stability very seriously and the stable release is only updated to fix serious issues (in particular security issues), not to put in new releases of packages. If you want a more up to date system, use testing.

Re:Wrong focus?

[sab39]

Mozilla 1.1 has been in unstable for ages, since pretty soon after 1.1 was released. Mozilla 1.1 is the latest stable Mozilla version. Ergo, Debian (unstable at least) is up to date with the latest Mozilla. When 1.2 is released, I bet Debian will get it pretty darn quickly.

I suspect that the reason it's not in testing is because someone found a bug in it that's considered release-critical.

Oh, and GNOME2 (the bits that aren't already in unstable, cf gnome-terminal) is apparently going into unstable this weekend (according to the gtk-gnome list archives). The holdup was transition scripts so that it wouldn't completely throw away all your existing configuration settings from GNOME1 (remember that the two can't coexist cleanly!). They're going to hold it out of testing artificially until these transition scripts have been tested a little more.

Personally I'm extremely glad of that, because I use GNOME to get real work done and I went so far as to artificially downgrade my sid machine to sarge specifically to avoid gnome-terminal and other GNOME2 packages. If GNOME2 had gone into Debian any sooner, I'd have been terribly unhappy.

I'd like to see xft/fontconfig make it into Debian, but the X maintainer has made a good case for holding off on that until X 4.3ish. When you're Red Hat and do one release a year, ongoing changes aren't a problem because you can ignore them until your next release. When you're Debian and do one release a day, ongoing changes hurt!

Stuart.

diabian's install is daunting?

[Gizzmonic]

I guess that makes me 3l33t, since I didn't have any problems with it (despite knowing little about Linux).

I use diabian at home to run my firewall advice. It's an old K5 machine that runs at 100mhz...remember when they bought that other CPU company (what was their name, Ktech?)

I used to play Duke Nukem on it, and my name was K5KICKBUT...

Whoa, I guess I am l33t!

Re:At last

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats funny. I gave up Woody after 2 weeks because I was sick of all the small annoying bugs. Went back to Redhat.

Debian for the masses...

[zborro]

If somebody tries to criticize Debian in the usability arena, he receives a lot of stupid answers like:

* If you cannot use vi why the hell are you using linux?

* Text interfaces are the best!

---
Now we have a project going toward a good installer and one to increase usability...

I'd like to know what the pure debianists think about it!

bye

Re:Debian for the masses...

[kyoko21]

Personally when I install debian on my various platforms, I never install X. My reasons are simply that why do I need it when I do everything in through command line interface? Not to mention the boxes where I install Debian on all make too much sound and noise and put out a lot of heat. If the boxes don't need X then I won't consider installing it. I wish it could be said the same about Oracle. I hate the fact that they have moved their installer to a GUI format and taken away the ability to install through the commandline. Now I am forced to install X. *sigh*

Personally I find Debian to be very stable and though it is hard to learn, but in the end you will appreciate the knowledge that you have gathered. It's not so much the destination is the key, but the path that you take to get there. That is what Debian is and that is what I think of Debian everytime I use it.

Re:Debian for the masses...

[Anonymous Coward]

we have a project going toward a good installer

By "good", do you mean "graphical", or "less brain-dead"?

If it's the latter, I wish you all the best, I'd love to try it.. if it's the former, then I'll just stick with Slackware.

How about making the apt sources...

[Lord Bitman]

not install a spreadsheet, word proccessor, hex editor, and powerpoint clone, when you tell dpkg or apt to install a /window manager/
Since when is a powerpoint clone part of a window manager?

Re:How about making the apt sources...

[dzym]

That would be because Gnome and KDE are "desktop environments", not "window managers". Sawfish is a window manager.

In any case, the "gnome" metapackage only suggests "gnome-office", it does not depend on it.

Debian will not even suggest you install gnome-office if you just install sawfish.

Get your terminology straight.

Re:How about making the apt sources...

[leviramsey]

not install a spreadsheet, word proccessor, hex editor, and powerpoint clone, when you tell dpkg or apt to install a / window manager/

I assume you refer to KDE and KOffice. Three of the big five distros (Red Hat, Mandrake, and Debian) seem to have shitty packaging of KDE (how do SuSE and Slack package KDE?). In Red Hat's case, we have an emasculated KDE. In Mandrake's case, we have a development team that is willing to put in a shitload of broken Requires and Conflicts. I would have thought Debian could avoid these problems. Hmmm... if some of the smartest Linux developers can't package KDE with any degree of sanity, I think that could possibly indicate that KDE's design is fundamentally broken, in that it's quite impossible to break it down into independent modules.

Food for thought.

Re:How about making the apt sources...

[Lord Bitman]

My terminology is fine. I want to try out the KDE window manager, I dont want to try the rest which makes up the environment. That mean I want the whole desktop environment?

Re:How about making the apt sources...

[Zigg]

I would have thought Debian could avoid these problems. Hmmm... if some of the smartest Linux developers can't package KDE with any degree of sanity, I think that could possibly indicate that KDE's design is fundamentally broken, in that it's quite impossible to break it down into independent modules.

In Debian, there is kdebase. It only installs the essentials for KDE. I think it's reasonable to assume that if someone asks for kde, they'd want most of the stuff kde.org offers.

Actually, since I started using Debian again, I've been fairly impressed by the work that goes into just pulling in what you actually need.

Re:How about making the apt sources...

[dzym]

Read `apt-cache show kde`.

Then read `apt-cache show kdebase`.

Re:How about making the apt sources...

[Zigg]

That mean I want the whole desktop environment?

You sound an awful lot like you're trolling, but I'll answer anyway.

Yes.

$ ldd `which kwin`
kwin.so => /usr/lib/kwin.so (0x4001b000)
libkdeui.so.3 => /usr/lib/libkdeui.so.3 (0x40074000)
libkdecore.so.3 => /usr/lib/libkdecore.so.3 (0x40267000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x403db000)
libDCOP.so.1 => /usr/lib/libDCOP.so.1 (0x403de000)
libqt.so.2 => /usr/lib/libqt.so.2 (0x40412000)
libpng.so.2 => /usr/lib/libpng.so.2 (0x408c1000)
libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0x408ed000)
libjpeg.so.62 => /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.62 (0x408fb000)
libXext.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6 (0x40919000)
libX11.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x40926000)
libSM.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libSM.so.6 (0x409e0000)
libICE.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libICE.so.6 (0x409e8000)
libresolv.so.2 => /lib/libresolv.so.2 (0x409ff000)
libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3 => /usr/lib/libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3 (0x40a0f000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x40a58000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x40a79000)
libXft.so.1 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXft.so.1 (0x40b8c000)
libmng.so.1 => /usr/lib/libmng.so.1 (0x40bb5000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
libXrender.so.1 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXrender.so.1 (0x40bf8000)
libfreetype.so.6 => /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6 (0x40bfd000)
liblcms.so.1 => /usr/lib/liblcms.so.1 (0x40c44000)

Also

[brunes69]

http://usability.kde.org/

Ximian Setup Tools

[SmileyBen]

Slightly off-topic, but bear with me: they mention using Ximian Setup Tools, but all mention of this project appears to have dissappeared from Ximian's website. Does anyone know what's happened to it? Are the tools orphaned, abandoned, or just moved (and hidden somewhere)? They were looking very promising, and in terms of achieving what this Debian desktop project is trying to, they seem to fit the bill very well...

Anyone...?

Re:Ximian Setup Tools

[FooBarWidget]

Ximain Setup Tools have been abandoned. Ximian is no longer sponsoring it. Instead, it continues it's life as GNOME System Tools.

Re:Ximian Setup Tools

[BESTouff]

They are now called the Gnome Setup Tools and have been taken over by a bunch of Debian folks. Ximian stopped their idea of multi-distribution setup tools because anyway the main distribs (RedHat, Mandrake ...) would never use them in favor of their in-house tools.

network.img from mandrake

[Anonymous Coward]

Its what debian WANTS to be. It installs from the internet, autodects your hardware, graphical installer, and easy to use desktop, and has urpmi and rpmdrake, the best package managers on earth!

one floppy is all you need.

Re:network.img from mandrake

[myowntrueself]

Yeah I was absolutely gobsmacked when I discovered that to do an NFS install of Debian I'd need SEVENTEEN floppies!!!!!!!!!!
17, man! 17 floppy disks to achieve what Redhat and Mandrake do in one!!!!

Menus

[PeterClark]

One thing I hope that they will do is have better integrated menus for GNOME and KDE programs. I ran KDE in Debian and always hated that by default, there was a "Debian" submenu for non-KDE programs. Ditto under GNOME. Programs ought to be grouped by task, not by desktop.
:Peter

Re:Menus

[leviramsey]

One thing I hope that they will do is have better integrated menus for GNOME and KDE programs. I ran KDE in Debian and always hated that by default, there was a "Debian" submenu for non-KDE programs. Ditto under GNOME. Programs ought to be grouped by task, not by desktop.

Mandrake has made the Debian menu system do just that. Perhaps the Debian developers may want to take a look?

Re:Menus

[mrroach]

Chris Lawrence is working on a new debian menu system that will use the .desktop file standard and vfolders. Sounds like good stuff.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-d evel-200207/msg00940.html

there are only two classes of users

[chegosaurus]

The article says "there are only two classes of users: the novice, and the expert"

How about all those novices who think they're experts?

Re:there are only two classes of users

[nsushkin]

Obvious, they fit both categories!

Re:there are only two classes of users

[chegosaurus]

On second thoughts, they're probably all posting on Slashdot about their 31337 Gentoo installs.

Re:there are only two classes of users

[thesolo]

How about all those novices who think they're experts?

I believe they are called MCSEs. ;)

Re:Once again, the point is missed

[tanveer1979]

I would say the novice dosent really exist. No matter what ppl say, currently there is no distribution which a novice can handle.. some level of expertise or atleast the aptitude is necessary. When we have distributions reaching that point we can say Linux has arrived.

However, we dont need all distros to reach there. Thats the beauty of OSS, chose what you like. So currently we have mandrake, redhat approaching the novice user, we have debian for the masters. But requiring some aptitude is actually a good thing. It gives a real novice a great kick to graduate to slightly expirience. The proof is in haloween docs, where the M$ guy says "It was fun, even addictive" . Making ppp work by giving a noauth option may seem rudimentry to a slashdot crowd, but to someone totally unaware of unix world fixing such a problem will provide a great ego kick. That I did it feeling.

So IMHO, the desktops should require some expertise, albeit little, but lots of documentation. Think this way, what would a novice choose, some illegal exception at blah blah blah and then crash, or neat messages telling exactly what went wrong.

Look in the automobile world, nowdays cars require expertise with so many gadgets, but the current generation goes for it, coz it kind of gives them with geekiness. Dont forget that a person who can program his HI-FI audio has an aptitude for *tinkering*. Its just the presentation. Give the user the power, make his/her learning curve an enlightling experience.

Believe me, it will work, its the right mantra

Wow

[Kj0n]

I must admit that today is Debian's big day: new installer, new desktop environment, new users (thanks to /.).

Debian dosent support usb mice.

[Anonymous Coward]

IT DOES NOT! I did RTFM, STFW and LTFM, but it still wouldnt work, Since I use a laptop I cant use it. (and no, im not using that shitty touch pad). But SuSE and Mandrake auto Detect it perfectly.

If debian wants people to use it, then its got to support hardware made in the 2000s, and not the 1980's! Its no good having a glitzy desktop if you cant use a mouse.

Re:Debian dosent support usb mice.

[FooBarWidget]

How about ATFM* or FABR**?

(* Ask The Fine Mailing-list)
(** Fill A Bug Report)

Re:Once again, the point is missed

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem I have with the statement is that it causes users to be squeezed into two little boxes. According to the Debian Desktop guys, you're either a Novice, or you're an Expert. There isn't an in between (Or, so it would seem). Thats not only niave, its dangerous. Complexity should be a sliding scale, not a system of absolutes.

There are plenty of reasons to ridicule such a statement, but hopefully it should be pretty obvious.

Re:Great! - a correction

[Sam the Nemesis]

simply sed 's/Linux/Gnu\\Linux/' and be happy

sed 's/Linux/Gnu\/Linux/' # forward slash between GNU and Linux

RMS is not going to like you ;)

Re:Once again, the point is missed

[FooBarWidget]

Well there are a lot of experts who use Windows. So what makes you think it's hard/impossible?

Apple == left handed computers

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree i wouldn't think Apple is the holy grail of interfaces

i mean these are the people that put the close/max/min window controls on the left hand side of the interface !

whats wrong with that you cry ?
the greater number of world users are right handed and the scrollbars of said windows/documents are on the right unless you are reading Arabic etc)
therefore just to close a window the user has to navigate their mouse across the entire window area which seems to be bad usability design as the distance travelled is the greatest (meaning increased hand motion and time taken to close window slower)

Surely more sense would be to put the main window controls closest to the scrollbars (like windows(TM)/kde etc have done with hidden lh controls) as only a few document languages have the scrolling mechanisim on the left (and btw none are english)
that way the mouse distance travelled is kept to a minimum making to match the users righthandness and the documents scrollport

makes sense no ? but Apple think different

so take a few pointers from Apple but dont think they are the gods of UI design when clearly they are not from a usability p.o.v after all remember quicktime and its virtual thumbwheel ?

AJC

Re:Apple == left handed computers

[bay43270]

I don't claim Apple to be the gods of UI, but don't you think the mistake was putting the scroll bar on the right? Being right handed would only matter if we had to use our hand to scroll. The mouse pointer doesn't get in the way when you're scrolling, and the text IS already on the left. Why not put the scroll bar over there next to it?

Re:Apple == left handed computers

[Zorikin]

I put everything I can on the right. Tasklist panel, gkrellm, galeon/xchat/whathaveyou tabs. If I could right-justify and reverse the order of menus, I'd do that too.

It's more comfortable to throw the pointer over to the right side of the screen and then figure out what I want to click on. I'm not sure why. Might have to do with the way the muscles on my arm are set up. Having text, etc, on the left side of windows isn't that big a deal, because the keyboard doesn't suffer as much from spatial factors, and it's better for text control.

I think the bigger mistake was not making the scroll bar position configurable.

Re:Apple == left handed computers

[NeXTer]

This was in fact the way NeXTSTEP was designed. Never made any sense to me unless they assumed their users were left-handed... Using your right hand to operate a widget on the left side of the window seems... Illogical.

Re:Apple == left handed computers

[ProfessorPuke]

It's perfectly logical, as long as your favorite language isn't semetic. In English and most languages, you write from top to bottom and from left to right. Thus in general, for any random window full of content, most of the stuff will be towards the upper left. So your mouse is normally going to be in that area, and controls will be easier to access if they're above or to the left of the window. That's why we have menus and toolbars on top of windows, and why its argued that scrollbars should be to the left.

Force of history has moved scrollbars to the right side, though, because other motivations trumped speed of access. Maybe because having more space between scrollbars and content looks less cluttered. Maybe because menus & buttons already owned the top/left edges of the window, so scrollbars got pushed to the bottom/right. Whatever the reason, it was a mistake. Vertical scrolling is important enough that it should be on the more accessible left.

This problem is particularly annoying if you're using one of the now-common tiled tree|details views, like found in Microsoft Explorer(tm), Microsoft VisualStudio(tm), or Konqueror (some modes).

In the case of VisualStudio, you'll have a list of files on the left, and the contents of the currently selected file on the right. But if you're browsing around, you often want to open up a file and start scrolling up and down within it. But to reach the rightside scroll bar, you have to pass all the way over the content before you can scroll. A leftside bar would be much more convenient (of course, people with mouse wheels can just use that instead- but if you're gonna do that, you may as well remove the whole scrollbar)

Redundancy

[supabeast!]

In other news, it turns out that there already IS a successful Debian desktop project, code named Lindows.

Re:Redundancy

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else find it odd that the current Pay-For Windows-Wannabe distros are all based on the I'm-Free-As-In-Speech Debian GNU/Linux distro?

Re:Redundancy

[supabeast!]

Actually, it makes a lot of sense. All the companies have to do is create a stable base, and handle updates and software add-ons with apt-get, which blows away any of the rpm based package fetching tools as far as speed and ease are concernced. All they have to do is make Gnome/KDE more user friendly (Mostly just renaming and rearranging the software and menus.), and then host some high-speed file servers.

Sticking with Debian also keeps people from screwing with the OS very much, because most Linux users are on RedHat/Mandrake or SuSE, and those who prefer Debian know it well enough to just run plain Debian without the extra stuff.

WHY the Graphical Debian installer focus?

[3t3rn4l]

I just successfully installed Debian on my notebook about a week ago. For the most part, my installation experience was uneventful, but one of the first things I was surprised by is the lack of a graphical installer. ( I flashed back to installing Minix on my A500 and my first install of Slackware back in 1995! :)

SO WHAT!?! It installed fine.

Some of my minor complaints include:

Ease of install of Xwindows

X installation has always been a bitch for me irregardless of the distribution Linux or BSD. It seems that it's something that always needs tinkering. I did get this going fairly quick after some help from my BSD admin guru--thank the Gods for buddies!

Ease of install of sound

I still don't have sound working, but I haven't given it the one two punch!

Ease of install of APM support

I probably haven't looked in the right place or good documentation doesn't exist. And I'm lazy? :S

Up to date install documentation

Let's face it, I think that once most people get their configuration working they don't think about giving back to the community. Something that should definately be reconsidered.

Package Manager selection at end of install

Aggravating. I don't want to sit and select then download and install 200M of software after I get it installed, but I DO want an easy way to get back to package management once I hastily exit out if it. I want my cake and I want to eat it too.

Overall though, my Debian install was a pleasant experience.

If I didn't have ~10 years of XP working with *NIX as a user and ~20 years of XP working with computers I certainly wouldn't know where to begin. That's why I think better documentation is certainly in order.

OVERALL, Debian is everything that I would expect it to be for what I consider to be a non-commercial distribution of Linux.

Re:WHY the Graphical Debian installer focus?

[Anonymous Coward]

> WHY the Graphical Debian installer focus?

Yuor complaints about needing ease of install of X, sound, APM and initial package selection (and networking/dialup support, I'd add) are all handled well by the other distros' modern (and graphical) installers. The efforts on a new Debian installer are both (a) graphical and (b) more auto-detection/configuring.

The "text" portion of the installer isn't nearly as important as its primitive autodetect/config abilities; a user having to know the names of the various hardware modules in order to manually pick the right ones has got to go.

Re:WHY the Graphical Debian installer focus?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I didn't have ~10 years of XP working with *NIX as a user and ~20 years of XP working with computers I certainly wouldn't know where to begin.

I bought a computer pre-installed with XP. XP is not, shall we say, known for working with computers.

Re:WHY the Graphical Debian installer focus?

[rweir]

X installation has always been a bitch for me irregardless of the distribution Linux or BSD. It seems that it's something that always needs tinkering. I did get this going fairly quick after some help from my BSD admin guru--thank the Gods for buddies!

Little known fact: if you install mdetect, discover and read-edid before X, then it will automatically detect your monitor your video card and your mouse. It's documented in the install docs somewhere...

I still don't have sound working, but I haven't given it the one two punch!

Have you added yourself to the `audio' group? That's one of the most common issues people seem to have on IRC.

I probably haven't looked in the right place or good documentation doesn't exist. And I'm lazy? :S

apm worked fine for me out of the box. apt-get install apmd.

Let's face it, I think that once most people get their configuration working they don't think about giving back to the community. Something that should definately be reconsidered.

Have a look at both Debian QuickReference and the NewbieDoc guides. I've heard good things about them.

Aggravating. I don't want to sit and select then download and install 200M of software after I get it installed, but I DO want an easy way to get back to package management once I hastily exit out if it. I want my cake and I want to eat it too.

Then quit from dselect and let it install just the base system. If you want to add packages later, then run aptitude or dselect. Easy.

Only two flavors of Windows?

[brokeninside]

there is only 1 Windows (okay, there are two, a prof and a home)

1. Windows XP alone has more than two versions:
2. Professional
3. Home
4. Media Center
5. Tablet PC
6. Embedded

1. If we add Windows 2000 to the mix, we get even more versions:
2. Professional
3. Home
4. Server
5. Advanced Server
6. Data Center

And then we ought not to leave out Windows CE and Stinger ...

Re:Only two flavors of Windows?

[SomeOtherGuy]

Most of the difference in the flavers above is just in pricing structure and what is enabled or disabled.

Overloading of "K5" acronym

[yerricde]

It's an old K5 machine that runs at 100mhz

Does that help explain why that other site is so slow sometimes?

Re:Overloading of "K5" acronym

[Cro Magnon]

LOL!!

It doesn't say: "Remove preferences"

[gnalle]

I agree that the report is very well made, and I would wish for more opensource projects to be examined in a similar way (gaim would be an obvious candate). The report notes that the menus in the Control Center are confusing for a novice, but it does not specifically recommend that a experienced user should not be allowed to tweak the system the way she wants it. Usability for the novice and usability for the expert need not be opposites.

NeXT and Aqua are brilliant examples of this :)

What I want to know is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't people just use TWM? Small, fast, runs GNOME and KDE apps fine, very configurable, and (as the Vi fans always say): IT'S AVAILABLE EVERYWHERE.

Yip, virtually all X installations include TWM. If that argument works for Vi, a similarly minimal piece of software, why not TWM?

Oh, and before the uninformed start arguing, TWM DOES support RandomPlacement, extra titlebar buttons, keybindings, icon regions, multiple menus and submenus, and loads more. There are even variants with virtual desktops for those who want them.

Long live TWM! Who else uses it aside from me? :)

Re:What I want to know is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't people just use TWM?

Because it's not as much fun as playing around with some of the slicker, newer interfaces. Most of the WM's out there will support most of the functionality most users require...the rest is just personal preference.

It's the same reason everybody doesn't drive a blue vw bug.

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

It won't do much good as long as long as the installer sux0r so much. Let a sleeping dog lie. I have really tried to like Debian but cannot.

Drive On!

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

[tswinzig]

This is exactly what is missing if Linux is going to make it to the mainstream desktop.
As soon as Linux is recognized as a userfriendly, easy-to-use desktop with lots of free (as in beer) software by the average user Windows will get into real problems. Such an opening would generate a *huge* increase in the number of users and thus in the interest in supporting Linux from different companies.

Making Linux easier to install, use, and maintain would be a huge leap forward. However, the VAST majority of end-users do NOT install operating systems. Realize: they can't even install Windows XP, which continues to make installation on x86 easier than previous versions of Windows. How can you expect them to install Linux?

End-users buy computers with OSes pre-installed. That's the key.

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Rubbersoul]

For a long time I would have 100% agreed with you on your point. My opinion of this changed last week though when I got a phone call from my rather computer illiterate mom. She told me, much to my surprise, she had decided to install XP on her computer all by her self not even consulting her very own geek son ... My first question was why and she told me that it just looked better and she heard from a friend it was better. Now I have to think that my case is not completely unique, I know everyone is not like this but my case proves some are.

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong.

[spitzak]

Upgrading the system should be much easier than installing it. The new system can read the configuration of the old one. Unless MicroSoft is idiots (they are not) then this should not be difficult.

I agree with the earlier poster. Nothing is going to change unless Linux is available pre-installed on consumer machines. If all the machines at Walmart had Linux on it, even if it completely sucked, and MicroSoft gave away a free "upgrade to Windows today" kit in the mail, there would be about 20 to 40 times as many users of Linux as there are today.

Fundamental issues before desktop usability

[blueworm]

The linux community should address problems with the driver model among other things before they focus on desktop usability. There needs to be a standard driver model based on annually solid kernel versions. Only one stable kernel should be released per year with minor patches, like network security updates, or critical fixes.

Re:Fundamental issues before desktop usability

[Anonymous Coward]

"Standard driver model"? So, the kernel crew should maintain years of backward compatibility to stop people typing "make xconfig ... make bzlilo"?

Find an OS which has developed from scratch as fast as Linux, and which can support all drivers from any time. I mean, even Windows NT scrapped the old driver model for XP.

Re:Fundamental issues before desktop usability

[Derek S]

There's a tradeoff here. It's definitely bad to enforce backward compatibility since the dawn of time. But with the Linux driver model you can't even assume compatibility between minor revisions of the same kernel. That's disruptive for both users and driver developers.

I kind of like Apple's approach to backward compatibility. Every few years they make some major change that pushes everyone to replace a bunch of hardware and software (e.g., the PowerPC switch or Mac OS X). But in between you can count on a reasonably consistent environment. And you can usually still use your old stuff with some minor inconvenience.

Unnecessary debconf prompts

[Kakurenbo Shogun]

* Work on removing unnecessary debconf prompts from packages, and making the ones that are necessary easy to understand.

Bravo! Aside from wading through 5 million packages to decide which to install, this has been the worst part of installing Debian for me (which I've done on a number of computers because I LOVE how easy it is to keep my system up to date using dselect). In fact, all the prompts may be even worse.

Here are a few ideas for reducing prompts without causing problems:

1) Make a log of all the prompts that WOULD have been shown so that those who want to can go back and see what else they might have customized.

2) Another reason to make a log of the prompts is in case you accidentally okay one of them and then realize you wish you'd read it more carefully. And it would save you the trouble of writing down anything that it suggests you might want to do later.

3) Give people the option of seeing more or less prompts. Some people may want to see them all. Others may want to only see prompts for things that could make their computer stop working if configured wrong. Others may want more than that, but not every grizzly little detail about configuration files they've never looked at and never will look at.

4) If you really want to get zealous, you could add the ability to make a list of packages that you want to see all prompts for (you'd build it over time) so that you can run on minimal prompts for most things, but for packages that seem to get messed up every time you upgrade them because the default isn't right for you, you get all the prompts.

Re:Unnecessary debconf prompts

[Anonymous Coward]

It already does #3

Re:Unnecessary debconf prompts

[TrentC]

1) Make a log of all the prompts that WOULD have been shown so that those who want to can go back and see what else they might have customized.

That might be a good amendment to the Debian packaging policy: we could have a debconf-options file included in the package's documentation. Also, there's always the source code for the package...

3) Give people the option of seeing more or less prompts. Some people may want to see them all. Others may want to only see prompts for things that could make their computer stop working if configured wrong. Others may want more than that, but not every grizzly little detail about configuration files they've never looked at and never will look at.

debconf does that. When I installed woody, it asked me what priority level I wanted to see configuration messages for:

• low: set a few reasonable defaults, prompts for everything else
• medium: the recommended threshold, ignores most braindead config options
• high: makes a few more assumptions about various config options, prompts for the rest
• critical: makes you pick stuff that HAS to be configured in order to make the package run, sets reasonable defaults for everything else.

If you're seeing too many debconf prompts, do dpkg-reconfigure debconf and select a higher threshold priority. Also, dpkg-reconfigure [packagename] should allow you to re-select all of your options for a given package.

I'd love to see debconf used more, personally; let's get all of the configuration handled through one interface with multiple frontends -- it even has a GNOME interface (so far as I know, no one's made a QT/KDE-based one yet).

Jay (=

Re:Unnecessary debconf prompts

[Spy Hunter]

You *can* set debconf to skip some of the prompts. It is actually one of the first prompts you get after the base system is installed. If Debconf skips some prompts later on because you said you wanted to, it sends emails to root explaining what the prompts were and why they were skipped. You can then go at your leisure and read them, file them away, or just delete them. Seems like that satisfies most of your complaints.

Wow...

[motox]

Another desktop... how exciting.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try to read the article, moron.

Libranet Has Done This

[mo wiggley]

I use Libranet 2.7, and for anyone whos interested in using the basic concept of what this article is talking about, give it a shot. You've got Gnome 2 and KDE 3 very well integrated, a VERY easy text based install, Adminmenu is an excellent system config tool that covers a lot of very important territory like networking, X , software management, security updates, and on and on. No, I have zero relation to them other than as user, but I promise you, it is very well done, and well worth the price for anyone who would like to explore Debian, but for one reason or another cant get it happening. Im not pushing a product, Im just saying, for the sake of those who may be interested, and anyone else can use whatever wonderful distro you use.

an exercise for the reader:

[Anonymous Coward]

How would the universe and its associated mathematics differ if the ratio of circumference to radius was not fixed?

Discuss

Re:an exercise for the reader:

[Mr_Dyqik]

If the ratio of the circumference to the radius of a physical realisation of a circlular object _was_ fixed, then gravity wouldn't work.

Or was this supposed to be a trick question?

Re:an exercise for the reader:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wouldn't gravity work? If you define circular object without specifying a metric tensor then gravity modifies the metric tensor and gravity works just fine... or am I missing something here?

Re:an exercise for the reader:

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider a circle with radius r. To find the circumference of this circle, we have to integrate the path around the circle.
We'll call the smallest possible angle dO (think, d-phi). Then the smallest possible part of that circle has a length rdO.
We integrate this from 0 to 2*pi to cover the whole circle: int(rdO,O,0,2*pi). (I don't know latex, but I know how to punch it into my TI-89 :) ).
Integrating, we have 2*pi*r - 0*r, which is 2*pi*r.

So, the ratio of circumference to radius will always be fixed, but tied into how many radians we consider to be in the circle.

AMD bought NexGen, that's where the K5 came from

[Anonymous Coward]

and quite a bit of the K6 as well. Many of the
K7/Athlon developers are former DEC/Alpha people.

Debian already has a great desktop...

[Brad Wilson]

...it's called Lindows. This is an OS that can install in 2 minutes, has an extremely friendly UI and software download system, and has Debian at its core. Seriously. It's the first Linux distro that my mom could install and use.

Not affiliated except as a happy $99 contributor.

picking nits...

[Anonymous Coward]

Irregardless is not a word. Use "regardless" instead; it really does mean what you intended. You have the added bonus of being grammatically correct.

Re:picking nits...

[dondelelcaro]

We'll pick nits some more.

Used as an adverb, irregardless is a synonym for regardless, much as would be expected. Granted it wasn't a word used in the english language in 1913, but it certainly is used now. [Whether it should be or not is a different matter, but it definetly is a word now.]

Menu != Meal

[Gerry Gleason]

You people are confusing the universe with maps of the universe. e and pi are mathematical objects, and important tools for understanding the highly detailed and fairly accurate *maps* of the world, but they should never be confused with the world itself.

Category errors are a bitch.

What would make Debian a good desktop OS?

[Large Green Mallard]

Imagine this if you will.. several student labs, comprising about 80 machines running dualboot Debian/XP. Using Lilo to choose OS is bad. Students don't like a block 320x200 display. GRUB good! GRUB can support 640x480 backgrounds in vga16 mode.

But oh, not the Debian GRUB. The Debian GRUB package is maintained by the same guy who maintains the GNU GRUB distribution.. and he's not porting RedHat/Connectiva's patches to provide the 640x480 background and high res text into the current release, preferring to wait until GRUB 1.0 to include them.

GRUB is at version 0.91, and was first released in.. 1995.

Forgive me for not holding my breath.

Re:What would make Debian a good desktop OS?

[shallot]

% dpkg -s grub | grep Version
Version: 0.92+cvs20020923-1

I'm not sure what you are talking about there.

Re:What would make Debian a good desktop OS?

[Arandir]

If your students are so shallow that they need a 640x480 background for a boot manager then someone needs to whack them upside the head.

A boot manager that is easy to install is Good. A boot manager that is easy to configure is Good. Who cares about a boot manager that is pretty.

Re:What would make Debian a good desktop OS?

[Large Green Mallard]

I'm running 3.0r0 stable.. what are you running?

Re:What would make Debian a good desktop OS?

[Large Green Mallard]

Users care about a pretty boot manager. It makes them less fearful of the computer. It makes them want to use it. This makes it a good desktop OS.

Of course, I happily use LILO with just a one line text messsage.. but then I do know what I'm doing.

Remember the topic of this post is about making Debian a desktop OS. This means pretty stuff that makes the machine usable by joe user. We are not talking about Debian being a wonderful server platform in this topic (tho it is :)

Re:What would make Debian a good desktop OS?

[shallot]

I'm using the unstable distribution. You can get the newer package as well, please refer to the grub packages list for more information.

Other wishes

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok - the following comments are now just about Debian - they are more wide ranging and generally on Linux/Unix and desktops, with some Debian specific comments sprinkled around.

Text mode installer? This is years behind even other Linux installers. I am a long time Unix/Linux user (not expert), but if Debian has to go on my desktop, it has to have a graphical installer with most likely defaults, and automatically identify hardware (I can help it on the rare occasion it can't identify hardware).

One of the most annoying things about the many Linux desktops is the lack of feedback in many instances. For instance, how do I know my Firewall is running, for instance? Why can't a "tray" icon come up by default?
(Oh, sure, I can type ps -aux and grep it but that's too much to remember for the normal desktop user).

Another important thing about linux is the names (words we use) themselves. "Word is God" - so it matters a lot more than people generally think, especially over the long term. Call anything you create in the simplest terms so most people understand (dd for "copy and convert" - because cc was taken?? makes a nice geek story, but absolutely useless from a usuability perspective). The above is just an example. If we want more people to understand us, we should use clear and simple language instead of contrived and obfuscated language. This applies to commands/program names AND to directory names and other words. If we use the language of the common man and throw in a very few geek terms (eg.,grok), we can even influence the language itself, instead of being seen as being on the fringe. We use such confusing and clique language to alienate oursleves.

The menu system - cooperate, people of many desktops! At least have a high level framework agreed to, so things are not scattered around all over the place!

Don't give the user multiple options to perform same operation - give ONE well chosen option. The user can always add other programs (and give them the choice of adding that to a particular place(s) in the menu) - in which case he/she will know where to go in the menu.

I would really like to see Debian succeed, in addition to a few other distributions. The installation and desktop usablity is a very important step that must happen.

X-Windows? Really?

[VoidMain]

Myabe I'm just to too cynical, but X-Windows? Really? I don't care how well the Frame-Buffers work, what they programmed in to bypass all the network layers, X-Windows is never going to cut it in the desktop world.

Why don't these software companies do what their supposed to do and actually program something. If all they are going to do is take a bunch of packages, slap them together, put in a few utilities to make configuring these mammoths easier and put their logo on a cardboard box, Linux will never make it to the desktop.

Come on people, the Linux community has to stop thinking like Sun, W3C and all these other monstrousities that crank out new ideas less frequently than LucasFilm does. They need a revolution of thought that makes customers proud to stand behind their product.

Re:X-Windows? Really?

[bmalia]

Do we really need to re-invent the wheel? What's wrong with X-Windows? What advantages would completely replacing X-Windows have?

Re:X-Windows? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

X-Windows is never going to cut it in the desktop world

Please explain why X-Windows won't cut it. I hear a lot of people bashing X, because X is supposed to be slow, tedious to program for, a memory hog, and a pain in the ass. However, I've noticed that my X desktop doesn't eat memory like the gluttenous pig it's being accused to be. I've noticed that it's really not that slow on a halfway decent machine (a P-200 was pretty responsive, even when using enlightenment with all bells and whistles). I've noticed that other APIs to do programming for proprietary windowing systems can be just as tedious and nervewrecking as Xlib/Motif/etc can be (gtk+ and QT are actually pretty good alternatives, but that should be pretty old news by now). A pain in the ass, I can't debate with that, but so are other windowing systems in different areas.

Why don't these software companies do what their supposed to do and actually program something.

Debian is not a software company, it's volunteer based

Linux will never make it to the desktop.

Perhaps we won't, perhaps we will... I've had hours of fruitless debates about this, and we've always come to that conclusion. Only time will tell. The apps aren't there yet, but getting there. The desktop isn't uniform enough, but Redhat is making the first attempt, with many others including debian.

the Linux community has to stop thinking like Sun, W3C and all these other monstrousities that crank out new ideas less frequently than LucasFilm does

I doubt that most of us think like Sun and w3c. Most kernel developers don't think like sun, and I think that w3c is overall a good thing (except for the patenting issues) because we need some standards. Oh, I don't mean that everyone should use XML for their new applications (goddess forbid), but at least HTML should be HTML and not some derived alphabetsoup with proprietairy extensions.

They need a revolution of thought that makes customers proud to stand behind their product.

How about freedom? That thought is still quite revolutionary to most people when it comes to source code.

If you're not happy with XFree, try to find an alternative... You'll find that you'll be switching back to X very quickly. But you can always contribute to one of those projects. Perhaps by programming, or perhaps by testing and sending bug reports or writing documentation. There won't be any good alternatives unless someone does some work on them.

Re:X-Windows? Really?

[FooBarWidget]

Another "X sucks" post again.
Yeah sure, you claim that X* will never cut it in the desktop world. Why? OK, network transparency is not imporant to you, but it doesn't hurt you either! What's so wrong with X that it needs to be replaced?
It's got support for lots of video cards, 2D graphics, 3D hardware acceleration (OpenGL/DRI), hardware YUV acceleration (XVideo), video mode switching (XVidMode), translucent rendering (Xrender), antialiasing (Xft), and soon root window resizing (RandR) and perhaps translucent windows.
And most important of all: X is designed to be extensible!
All the other 'replacements' are big jokes. DirectFB/GGI/Berlin don't support nearly as many video cards and aren't nearly as mature.

* It's the X window System, or just X! NOT "X-windows", "X-window", "X windows" or "X window".

Re:X-Windows? Really?

[pmz]

...X-Windows is never going to cut it in the desktop world.

What is so wrong with X Windows? If anything, it should be refined to smooth out things people complain about. I'd hate to throw out X's abstractions (client-server; layered architecture: server, window manager, applications) in favor of something new and flashy but architecturally neutered.

I think the fundamental concepts behind X Windows are sound. If there are implementation issues, address those before trying to reinvent everything badly.

Re:X-Windows? Really?

[IamTheRealMike]

X-Windows is never going to cut it in the desktop world.

X-Windows is going to totally kick ass in the desktop world. Network transparency is the BIGGEST deal ever. Why?

You can run thin clients - for corporates this is a good thing, as it means they get control of their own machines again. Thin client setups are easier to administer, and can work out cheaper than having thousands of breakable PCs that have to be upgraded by hand every few years.

People can try out Linux with only an X server. No really, I've done this several times for people on IRC - they install a Windows X server and I launch a few apps to them to play with. It's a first taste, and often gets them interested. It's how I started

People can "swap" apps between machines on home networks. Well, OK, right now xmove is slightly broken, but the XFree developers are definately considering repairing it and then integrating it into X. Let's say you have 3 computers. One of them has a music setup, as a member of your family is a musician. Another is in the lounge, and another is in a bedroom. You're working on a document in the study, when your eldest daughter wants to come in and write some bangin' tuneage. No problem, you just click in the control button in the window and "Move screen" it to the computer in the lounge, where you can talk to your wife at the same time. A few hours later, she wants to watch TV, so you move again to the bedroom. No need to restart the app. This is easy with X, near impossible with anything else.

You can have logins within a window. XNest lets you do this easily. Can Windows or MacOS do this? No, I think not.

Dude, X-Windows is going to cut up the desktop market. Network transparency is useful to everybody, it's just we've never really had it before so nobody can think of why it's useful to them.

you can use apt-build to optimize selected apps

[Anonymous Coward]

The gain in optimizing for 686 is not signficative at all for 90% of packages. For the rest (kernel, intensive cpu, etc.) you can use the new (not in Woody) apt-build to recompile automatically the selected packages optimized for your architecture...

2 camps here, and that's good.

[mindstrm]

One one hand, we have those who want unix. For them, most current linux distributions are okay... the less graphical and messy, the better.
Those are the ones who like stability and control.

Now, those who want an integrated desktop the likes of Windows... the sacrifices required to make that system easy to use for the target audience are the same sacrifices that make us think of windows as unstable and unreliable; standard users with too many rights, automated configuration tools that hide things from us, and possibly break if we tweak what's under the hood too much.

flawed premise

[pgilman]

"If you look at the kernel, there is a great deal of uniformity between distributions basically because there is a single, widely accepted head-penguin who is doing an excellent job (Linus). I'm sure that there are very few people who would argue that it would be great if we had dozens of incompatible kern[e]ls. The desktop space however doesn't have a head-penguin and it really shows."

your point, while thought-provoking, proceeds from a false premise: that the various window managers and desktop environments are made only for linux. you imply that there's only one kernel, and many GUIs.

in fact, most of the free unix GUIs generally work in any of several base environments: linux, of course, but also free/open/netBSD, solaris, etc., each of which has a "head penguin" of its own.

with this in mind, it becomes apparent that the more accurate model is that of many kernels and many GUIs, a sort of "choose one from column A and one from column B" paradigm. the user gets to mix-and-match to suit his own tastes and needs, and that, to my mind, is REAL freedom.

Re:flawed premise

[KshGoddess]

it becomes apparent that the more accurate model is that of many kernels and many GUIs, a sort of "choose one from column A and one from column B" paradigm. the user gets to mix-and-match to suit his own tastes and needs, and that, to my mind, is REAL freedom.

That would be fine if the issue were choice. The issue is usability. For the common user. For Joe and Jane Average. The book I've been reading on UI says that you should respect your userbase and have little respect for them at the same time.

As a newbie programmer, and a long-time computer user/sysadmin, I try to pick up books that cover subjects like usability to keep from making mistakes with the stuff I write. I don't want to create the next app people love to hate (ie. MS Bob).

The point that's run through this thread (and the others on this page) is that Linux is not ready for the average user's desktop. Not because you don't have enough choices, but because there are too many, none of them quite adequate.

I'm not trying to incite a riot, just to point out that people in general aren't ready to embrace Linux because there isn't an interface that's easy enough to set up and use for the common user.

Re:flawed premise

[pgilman]

dear goddess:

thanks for replying to my post.

here's my take:

my point: there are many kernels as well as many GUIs (remember, by post was inanswer specifivally to the guy who implied that all the free *nix GUIs are made only for linux).

your point (i'm paraphrasing; please correct me if i'm wrong): there are many *nix GUIs, none of which are accessible enough for the common user.

my conclusion: our points are not mutually exclusive; we're both right.

Re:flawed premise

[KshGoddess]

Sadly, we're both right, and until something comes along that expands across all kernels, with consistency, that can also work for the average user, linux is not ready for prime time, morning drive, etc. It's a hobby OS. Until a cohesive group of coders can make huge strides to create a truly user-friendly GUI, Linux will not gain much ground on the desktop.

Joe and Jane user don't really care (to an extent) what the OS is on their new computer. They care about the price point, and how shiny and easy-to-use it seems. Since most desktops in the business arena are Windows, users consider familiarity as easy-to-use. If there were a viable alternative that will allow home users to surf the web, send/recieve email, and perform some small word processing/spreadsheet tasks without having to call their local geek to set it all up for them, they'd consider it. Especially if the pricepoint were considerably less. Enter "Lindows". Maybe.

Re:flawed premise

[pgilman]

i agree, but i think the bigger problem is office and its closed file formats.

kde (which i use*) is pretty close to windows in terms of layout and the way things work (task bar along the bottom of the screen, start/kde button at bottom left of taskbar, "close window" [X] at top right of windows etc.).

the real hurdle, i think, is that everybody in every business gets word docs and excel spreadsheets every day, which they need to be able to manipulate. in this regard, i'd say kde and gnome are closer to their goal than openoffice/staroffice & abiword et al are, and that's the larger issue vis-a-vis widespread adoption.

i could be wrong, though; my world is 98% server room and 2% desktop-user-land. but that's very much my impression.

--

*sometimes; other times i use blackbox, and most often it's no gui at all; depends on the purpose of the system.

Daunting?

[xercist]

Other than the sometimes daunting install process, Debian is one of the best linux distributions.

Excuse me? Debian's install process is the best I've used. I figured it out the *first* time I tried it out, and it installed beautifully, using the network to download only what packages it needed instead of making me download a whole 700 MB's worth of packages most of which I won't use.

Some of you I've heard complaining about how complicated debian is to install and/or use. Maybe you missed this, but debian is not for newbies. It's a great operating system and does just what I want it to, but if I knew nothing about linux, and didn't *want* to dive in and learn, I'd look at a more newbie-friendly distribution.

The Debian Menu

[steveha]

Actually, the Debian menu is one of the cool features of Debian.

You can use a menu editor and rearrange your menus as much as you like. But the Debian menu will always be there, and will always have the same things in the same places.

The Debian menu is nice if you misplaced a launcher, or if you are using someone else's highly customized Debian desktop, because you know you can always find things in the same places under the Debian menu.

steveha

FUD

[Sam Gibson]

LILO can do that too asshat. I'll send you my lilo.conf file for debian that does a 640x480 logo and nice colors and stuff if you don't believe me. STFU and stop spreading FUD.

Re:FUD

[Large Green Mallard]

It's not FUD.. I spent fricken 3 hours and about 40 reboots trying to work out why the background image wasn't coming up.. then I do some web searching about the history of the GRUB patch to do this and find out that it doesn't work because the guy who maintains Debian's GRUB packages has a conflict of interest with the GNU GRUB release with regards to importing downstream 3rd party patches.

Last time I looked at LILO, it couldn't do anything other than 320x200 images.. but I would be interested to see it to 640x480 (tho GRUB's ability to hide menu options until a password is entered is handy for a lab situation.. I'm going to have a "Boot from floppy" option, which with GRUB I can hide until a password is entered, but I have no problems with waving in the face of users and saying it's password protected)

And as am avaid fark reader, I am honoured to be an Asshat ;)

Re:You ignorant nazi

[fussman]

yep, but if you're going to go into that much effort, BE ON TOPIC. It will be much more rewarding.

And your point?

[brokeninside]

Most of the difference in the flavers above is just in pricing structure and what is enabled or disabled.

Most of the difference in the flavors of Linux is just in pricing structure and what is enabled or disabled.

Aside from that, there are very real and very large differences between W2K Advanced Server, XP Embedded, Stinger, and XP Home. That there aren't many true differences between "home" and "professional" doesn't mean much when products like Advanced Server exist for multiple processor machines and products like Stinger exist for multiple processors.

Lastly, if a singular company sees the need to offer over 12 different flavors of its flagship product that it has complete control over, does it not make sense that a product owned by no one company should not also have multiple flavors?

There are a number of different ways to look at this.

debian can really do this right

[RestiffBard]

often, ok always, it is said that debian is hard to use but the package management is solid as ft knox.

well, I'd rather have a solid package management (PM) tool than a simple gui for everything. but now that I've got the solid PM sure go for the solid gui or solid config tools.

I think debian has it right in hitting the important bits first and getting it right before moving on to somthing else. they don't do it half assed.

Daunting Install Proccess?

[norweigiantroll]

Gimme a break. How about the daunting Red Hat dsektop install process on a 800 meg hard drive!!! Good luck!!! (Even base size of Red Hat is 430 megs, vs Debian base about 150 or so!!!)

Re:Debian = good multi-user system

[Anonymous Coward]

The newproject is so kde and gnome-specific,
and so less newbie-friendly, that I doubt it will destroy one of the advantaged of Debian:
multi-user desktop systems in large computer-pools like in university campus.

KDE is already not usable there, as Debian's version still has the KDE-menu. Some for gnome.

Obligatory reminder of review and Libranet

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

I think Libranet is much closer to actual Debian while maintaining an installer not my grandmother but my dad could definitely use. Free download, too! Check this out for a review. The reviewer skimps quite a bit on apt-get IMHO, I think he should have shown exactly how easy it is to install w/apt-get vs. rpms. here's the link:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/1,3973, 646011, 00.asp

Re:Obligatory reminder of review and Libranet

[Ziviyr]

Free download, too!

Wicked! I was vexed that I couldn't try it for free a few months ago (when a local user group member told me it existed) and gave up right there.

If the demo version doesn't make me self sufficient I may end up buying it now.

D00d you're right!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is one fucking stoned looking Gnu. All in favour of using it as the new GNU logo, raise your hand!

Damn! And I was just about to go back to Debian

[libertynews]

but if they're going to be jumping on this 'desktop usability' fad then maybe I'll just stick with my stripped down RH 8.0 laptop install.

Re:You ignorant nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but did they use Debian? Otherwise you're off-topic d00d.

________________
I Am The Bungi!

An honest question: why Debian?

[umoto]

Honest, I'm looking for an answer to this question.

I have a good deal of experience in Linux and software engineering (especially C, C++, Java, and Python). The sentiment I hear on Slashdot is that among the Linux distributions, I should use Debian, Slackware, or some other similar distribution that's "very stable" and "developer friendly".

But I don't understand why. I've learned how to do just about everything I need in Linux regardless of distribution. I don't see why one distribution should be more "stable" than another; what matters is the stability of the software itself. If there's a buffer overflow in the kernel, all distributions are affected.

So what I look for in a distribution is ease of installation and a breadth of precompiled software. In the words of MrOutlander, "Other than the sometimes daunting install process, Debian is one of the best linux distributions." To me, this seems contradictory. If it's hard to install, what gives Debian the edge that earns it the label "one of the best"? Other distributions have all the same software, and often more recent versions.

Mandrake's rpmdrake (graphical) and urpmi (text mode) utilities beat everything I've seen, especially "apt-get". (The only hurdle is getting your urpmi.cfg right.) Because Mandrake is the only distribution I know of that supplies these utilities, I choose Mandrake.

So I'm asking, sincerely, in what way is Debian superior to Mandrake?

Re:An honest question: why Debian?

[WasterDave]

If you're hating apt-get, then don't use Debian.

Dave

Re:An honest question: why Debian?

[The_Dougster]

Yeah. You do have a good question. For me, I have just always used it. It has existed since around 1993 when I first installed it, it was always a free download of some boot disk images or nowadays some cdrom iso's, and it just works well.

Debian is a coherently put-together system that tries its best to conform with the IEEE POSIX specification for a well-engineered operating system. You won't find a bunch of weird directories with distro specific things scattered willy-nilly all over your file system. If you attempt to compile a tarball, chances are that everything will be exactly where it is expected to be.

Debian is kind of like the NetBSD of the Linux world. It's code is extremely well audited which allows it to compile on a very large number of architectures. I run it on my HP9000, my Netwinder, and my Tyan Thunder, and aside from performance differences and a slightly lesser number of working packages on the non-X86 machines, it is for all intents and purposes the exact same system and is transparent to the user. When you boot it up it looks and behaves like Debian and everything is just where you would expect it to be. I like not having to run HP-UX on the C200, RedHat on the Winder, and Mandrake on the X86. Its all Debian and it all works together great on my LAN.

I suppose a lot of people don't care about POSIX compliance, or a very tight adherence to the GNU defaults, or how well the C-Compiler works, or the elegant filesystem structure, or the System-V style init system, or anything other than how easy it is to install. For me I love it, its more like Unix than Unix ever was, which is all I ever really wanted anyways. I expect to unpack a tarball, run ./configure and make and it better dang either build cleanly or at most require a minimal amount of editing. Debian is primo for building GNU sources.

Ease of installation, what FUD. Its a hobbyist's system. You should expect to spend a bit of time messing with it. You might even learn something for your troubles. I hate to say it, but if you are afraid to take the time for a few install iterations to build the ultimate system then you really have no business running any version of Linux. Stick with whatever version of Windows came on your Dell, "Dude" and come back to Slashdot when you have a few more years of computer experience under your belt.

You could probably group Linux people into "Those who use Debian" and "Everybody Else". I really doubt any Debian user would seriously consider switching to another distro, except maybe try Gentoo, Sorcerer, or Linux from Scratch for some kicks. It is actually quite fun and rewarding to compile your own kernels and programs. Debian gives you a huge bulk of precompiled mundane stuff, and a world-class development system to compile whatever other things you want to install into /usr/local, like maybe QuakeForge, or BRL-CAD, or who knows what.

And lastly, don't forget Hurd. If you want to try the pure GNU os, Debian is your only real choice right now. Its weird, its buggy, and definately doesn't have a Linux kernel. It's also a lot of fun for such an exotic os that it is.

Thats why, dang it!

Re:An honest question: why Debian?

[umoto]

Ok, I see the usefulness of adherence to POSIX and support for multiple architectures. Thanks. Interestingly, no one has ever told me they preferred Debian for these reasons.

However, I don't understand why you added the Windows remark or the "Debian vs. everybody else" stereotype. You're making a lot of assumptions and undermining your own point.

Thanks for trying anyway. :-)

Re:An honest question: why Debian?

[Cro Magnon]

IMO, Debian (and Slackware) are more flexible than Mandrake. Mandrake (and RedHat) tend to dump everything they think you'll need on your HD when installing. Debian & Slack are much leaner. Also, Mandrake emphasizes eye-candy. Debian doesn't give a hoot about eye-candy. The reason why Debian is said to be one of the best, despite a really crappy install, is the emphasis on stability over bleeding edge (sometimes Mandrake is too bleeding), and ease of upgrading.

Re:An honest question: why Debian?

[umoto]

That's a good point. Personally, I prefer bleeding edge over stability for my desktop boxes, so that must be why I choose Mandrake over Debian. It's generally pretty easy to fix the breakage. :-) If I were running a real server, I'd probably have a different mindset.

zero all the way

[CCRancor]

naturally zero is the ultimate number, just look at the properties:

0' = 0
0'' = 0
n*0 = 0
0+0 = 0
0-0 = 0
intergral(0,x1,x2) = 0
Math.round(0) = 0
0^2 = 0
0^0 = 1
n/0 = damn!

You are kidding! Go LFS

[myowntrueself]

Linux from Scratch (www.linuxfromscratch.org)
is *way* easier and faster to install than Debian!

Now theres a savage indictment of a distribution...

So compile your own

[myowntrueself]

Linux from scratch is actually easier to install than Debian, and you get to compile everything with whatever compiler optimisation flags you want.

If I recall correctly, memory

[myowntrueself]

Its because TWM is one of the most memory inefficient WMs that exists.

FVWM was originally based on the TWM source; the main change was the way mouse bindings were handled.

All by itself this increased the memory efficiency by an order of magnitude. IIRC

I had the same problem!

[quakeroatz]

Ya, what the hell is with Linux?

I did an "apt-get upgrade", and when it asked:

Do you want to replace your existing, perfectly working XF86Config-4 with a default one that won't allow X to start? Y/N

I type yes, and it went ahead and did what I asked! The nerve! ;)

Re:I had the same problem!

[cptnapalm]

Amazingly what you seemed to do out of stupidity happened to me without so much it even asking!

Great News for a Great Distro

[Chicks_Hate_Me]

Of course there is no such thing as a "best distro" but this Desktop Debian will bring the best of both worlds. Sure, Debian's stable branch may be a bit outdated but it's stable, and that's one of the main things Linux should be advertised as an alternative to Windows. I'm sorry, but when programs in KDE start crashing, it makes Linux look bad. I know KDE crashing doesn't crash Linux but end users will still see this as instability in Linux.

Also Debian offers easy maintaining and upgrading, all was really lacking was ease-of-use for desktop users and newbies. If this "Desktop Debian" becomes a success I see it as a great step forward for Linux on the Desktop. Mandrake has made some great steps forward with things like universal menus, and easy configuration tools, we just need that and some stability without all the bloat. All in all, I still have faith that Linux will be a success on the desktop.

Debian Users Take Arms!

[Spyffe]

Yep. The submitter seems to have forgotten the power / server user:

Other than the sometimes daunting install process, Debian is one of the best linux distributions

Pardon me, but I though Debian was one of the best anyway, and for the record I had no difficulty installing it the first time.

Yes!

[extrasolar]

Part of the idea was that the whole free software community would use a single styleguide. At least, that was what it sounded like. Personally, I'd like more customization on keybinding.

On the other hand, whats with all the Mac people attacking this thread?

What focus?

[NaCh0]

Debian focusses on whatever the Debian developers care about.

This, along with the zealots who recommend debian to everyone (newbies included), is why debian will fail. No one is interested in doing what it takes to make things interoperate well out of the box. Every debian 'expert' has hundreds of workarounds dancing in their heads. A system like this doesn't scale.

-KDE 3 Unofficial packages are available

Ohhh!!! People wanting KDE should go to davidpashley.com. Now thats obvious!! KDE 3 was released at the start of April. You guys are only 7 months behind.

Geez, the more I learn about debian, the more I wonder how it lasted this long.

Well...

[Ziviyr]

Given about a year of off and on fighting and tinkering with Debian to provide a comfortable working environment for me. All I have to say is:

YES!

Try this

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

You're not using a demo version,njust the last full version. Merely updating your /etc/apt/sources.list to Libranet's sources and running apt-get dist-upgrade oughta do it. Here's the sources deb http://libranetlinux.com updates/2.7/ deb http://libranetlinux.com security/2.7/

Yes it does

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, RTFM again....my usb mouse and usb keyboard are working perfectly under debian right now as I type this. Please try again later.

I admit, it was kind of a pain to install -- you have to figure which uhci(?) or the other one to install. I did mess it up my first time, but the second time I just included most uhci for human interfaces stuff and it worked.

Autodetection would be very nice. In fact, it would kick-ass. But to equate non-auto detection -> not supported is pure flamebait.

From debian-dev

[gnalle]

In Debian-dev some guy wrote

Another thing we should do is add the regular user created during installation to the 'audio' and 'video' groups, along with installing sudo and setting them up with it by default. Along those lines, it would be good to configure applications such as cd-recording apps to use gnome-sudo. Anyways, that's all just off the top of my head.

Re:Required Reading... Mac OS 9, KDE and GNOME

[Anonymous Coward]

I absolutely agree with you. Mac OS 9 has ascetic but very efficient GUI. Aqua is just a toy, with too many annoying features like the Genie/Scale Effect.
But who am I to say these things? After all I think KDE and GNOME are all I need.
I'm happily running rootless X11 with GNOME on top of Aqua.

Timeline?

[m_evanchik]

So when will this thing be ready?

One other huge complaint about Debian is it's lack of timeliness. Updating versions every couple of years is not novice-friendly.

And stow the complaints about the up-to-date-ness of testing and unstable. This initiative is supposed to simplify things.

So with these things in mind, I'm expecting to see this desktop Debian released in 2005, by which time noone will really care anymore.

I'd love to be proved wrong, but unless the people working on it release a schedule and try to stick with it, I don't have too much hope.

Re:Timeline?

[The_Dougster]

I really wouldn't consider Debian to be "untimely" because it doesn't rely on constant updates to fix pesky bugs that trouble you. A Debian stable release is a rock-solid foundation for a computer system. Take my old Compaq Contura 425/c laptop which runs Debian 2.0, everything on it works very nicely, and though it is a somewhat old system, it doesn't crash and it "just works."

I rather doubt that I will ever upgrade it. When it was new, Debian 2.0 was the current stable system and it supported the hardware and video nicely. Since then the bar has been raised and I doubt that it would perform well running Woody, and I know that Compaq AVGA video support has been dropped from XFree86-4. So what I have is an old laptop running an old stable Debian which is frankly just fine!

Of course I'm one of those "Experts" so I really don't care when this thing ever comes to fruition. Yes it would be nice to welcome a gaggle of newbies to Debian, but then again, having them cut their Linux teeth on something like Mandrake or SuSE isn't necessarily such a bad thing. I personally do take some time to answer the occasional newbie question on selected Debian mailing lists, but I really have a lot of better things to do. I adamantly refuse to ever help anybody with Windows if I can possibly avoid it, but I genuinely enjoy helping Debian gnubies.

Actually, if you want a painless Debian install, get Libranet Linux, install that, then apt-get Debianize it. It will be very close to a pure Debian system.

+4, <aol>ME TOO!!!</aol>

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't reinvent the wheel, perfect it.

Yes. Yes. Yes. People..read this line and chant it.

Score:4, Insightful?! Since when should the AOL-style "me too!" posts get moderated as +4 Insightful instead as -1 Redundant? Did I miss the memo?

Software which Just Works

[joee]

Boy, I wish their motto were:

Software That Just Works

instead of:

Software which Just Works

Besides which-where-that-would-do being a pet-peeve of mine, the latter sounds to me like they're trying to say it just BARELY works.

Re:Software which Just Works

[Anonymous Coward]

Software that works.

Re:Sniper is a NIGGER

[Anonymous Coward]

Please do not feed the trolls.

"People of Earth, you can rejoin galactic society without shame, without stigma. If any of you are still white, we can cure you."
-- Arthur C. Clarke

It will be.

[smcv]

By the sound of it, sarge (the next stable version) will have dselect as an optional alternative package and aptitude as the one you get on installation.

Re:+4, ME TOO!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

No..infact I missed the memo.

In europe NO-One knows Anything about "AOL-style me too!"

Gues where I come from.

Re:+4, ME TOO!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, don't insult your fellow people, I'm sure not everyone is to stupid to use Google, even in Europe! Here, I will try to write slowly and loudly: U-S-E G-O-O-G-L-E N-E-X-T T-I-M-E Y-O-U T-H-I-N-K Y-O-U D-O N-O-T K-N-O-W A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G A-B-O-U-T S-O-M-E-T-H-I-N-G.

Re:+4, ME TOO!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, please! Use Google sometimes, like the other AC pointed out! Why are some people so damn stupid?! There is no God...