Slashdot Mirror


Progeny Ports Red Hat's Anaconda To Debian

JoeBuck writes "According to this message from Ian Murdock on the Debian developer's mailing list, the Progeny folks have ported Red Hat's Anaconda installer to Debian. They have also written a tool that "facilitates the creation of Anaconda-based Debian installation CD sets". They are also engaged in other interesting unification work, and hope to be able to allow collections of managed RPM and .deb packages to coexist side-by-side." uberkludge points out an article with more details at Ars Technica.

199 comments

  1. Re:debian is crap by grub · · Score: 2, Funny


    Bill has you working this early on a Saturday morning?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  2. Historical note by Xpilot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ian Murdock is the "ian" in Debian. Deb is Debra, his wife.

    --
    "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
    1. Re:Historical note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see why they hitched up together, it must have been love at first site

    2. Re:Historical note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i dont get it, why is it everyone who likes gentoo gets modded down and called a gentoo idiot. the optimization systems DO make a difference and the stable is stable AND up to date unlike debian, the unstable is more stable than debians unstable.

      "Shit, gentoo is so leet it doesnt even have an installer"
      -some poster
      It has a livecd with specific instructions on installation that arent that hard to follow, it can be easily installed from within debian so you can browse the web/listen to music/whatever while its compiling. on any decent modern system shit doesnt take that long to compile and all the big packages (kde, gnome, OOo, X) have optimized precompiled binaries if you dont want to wait. the forums and the gentoo community are INSANELY more tolerant of "n00b" questions yet still full of advanced topics relating to stuff on the bleeding edge than the debian community is.

    3. Re:Historical note by moranar · · Score: 1

      That should be GNU/Deb/Ian

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    4. Re:Historical note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GNU/Deb/Ian

      Bestiality, Mature, Threesome, Posers.

      Yuck!
      That sounds as bad as those pictures that the trolls posted.

    5. Re:Historical note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way, he uses Windows XP on his Tablet PC, or should I say GNU/Windowz ? Heh..

    6. Re:Historical note by rweir · · Score: 1

      HAHA.

    7. Re:Historical note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i dont get it, why is it everyone who likes gentoo gets modded down and called a gentoo idiot. the optimization systems DO make a difference and the stable is stable AND up to date unlike debian, the unstable is more stable than debians unstable.

      Why do we hate Gentoo zealots? Because they make a lot of noise and post propaganda in any story they can. As for the optimisations... no, only a tiny number of subsystems can benefit from compilation on your machine (most important, the kernel which most distro offer in different version)... the rest makes no difference.

    8. Re:Historical note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that test was totally fucked, tester didnt optimize gentoo conf files, if same conf files were used and gentoo had optimizations (as gentoo would) gentoo would obviously win.

    9. Re:Historical note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Deb is Debra, his wife.

      Huh? Correction please. That should read:

      Deb is Debra, his "wife".
    10. Re:Historical note by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      no, only a tiny number of subsystems can benefit from compilation on your machine

      Yes, but that's are better than nothing. While users of other platforms often had to wait up to a whole minute for OpenOffice.org 1.01 to boot, on my Gentoo box it came up in under ten seconds. Optimisation for Pentium4-specific features creates visible improvement in the performance of EPSXE and Mupen64.

      Because they make a lot of noise and post propaganda in any story they can

      I don't think so. This thread, for example, was started by a troll, not a Gentoo zealot.

    11. Re:Historical note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Optimisation for Pentium4-specific features creates visible improvement in the performance of EPSXE
      How? As far as I can tell, there's no source code available for EPSXE.
    12. Re:Historical note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but that's are better than nothing.

      Not for the amount of work and hassle involved -- as I said, Gentoo often ends up compiling huge amounts of code for the simplest updates as dependencies work themselves out. It's not better than nothing.

      While users of other platforms often had to wait up to a whole minute for OpenOffice.org 1.01 to boot, on my Gentoo box it came up in under ten seconds.

      ooohh... goody, solid evidence. Someone else's messed up box running some other distro took one minute to load OO, mine took 10 seconds. Is that supposed to be a sold metric of the excellence of Gentoo. Compiling software from scratch is not something that guarantees quality. BTW: my RedHat 7/8/9 never took a minute, more like 10 seconds.

      Optimisation for Pentium4-specific features creates visible improvement in the performance of EPSXE and Mupen64.

      Optimisation for certain apps (or rather, certain small parts of the app) can make a difference. If they are heavily processor intensive... but more often, such case can be handled by run-time detection much better than compiling from source. Gentoo is a solution looking for a problem -- it's found a noisy and obnoxious zealot base.

    13. Re:Historical note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      indeed, the anti-gentoo sentiment is strong, im not saying its the best distro or for all people but jesus it does have a niche of ultra-power users who want an innovative package management system and a distro that is still very much in development and is affected by users a lot.

  3. Re:Is it true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's true. You couldn't get a first post to save your life.

  4. installation packages by Dreadlord · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... and hope to be able to allow collections of managed RPM and .deb packages to coexist side-by-side ...
    I hope that all other distro creators work towards this too, so many packaging formats just confuse new Linux users, and make it even more difficult for Linux to take part in the desktop world.

    --
    The IT section color scheme sucks.
    1. Re:installation packages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And curse the person who prefers tarballs.

    2. Re:installation packages by after · · Score: 0

      Not too many, basically, there is the RPM and the DEB format that I have heard much hype about.

      There is always the assurance that any package that you are looking for is somewhere in one of those (or both) formats. This was one of the things that inspired me to use Linux and co-exist with Windows at the same time (my big switch, you could say).

    3. Re:installation packages by grub · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with tarballs? It's universal in the UNIX world. I don't want to have to install a port of RPM just to grab some source.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    4. Re:installation packages by Jameth · · Score: 1

      Oh yes! Especially Slackware. I know that those stuck-up .debs and RPMs will just love having to move into the .tgz ghetto.

    5. Re:installation packages by jilles · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's nothing inherently wrong with them except that you need to do several things manually that happen automatically with rpms and debs (pre & post install scripting, keeping a record of what gets installed where for updates/upgrades/uninstall).

      --

      Jilles
    6. Re:installation packages by creathon · · Score: 1

      How about adding support for emerge,cast etc to apt? One installer to rule them all.

    7. Re:installation packages by flossie · · Score: 1
      What's wrong with tarballs? It's universal in the UNIX world. I don't want to have to install a port of RPM just to grab some source.

      You don't need to install any packages to use a deb (or an RPM, presumably). Just use "ar" to extract the tar.gz from the package.

      ar -x mypackage.deb
      One of the files extracted data.tar.gz is the tarball that you want.
    8. Re:installation packages by Dwonis · · Score: 1

      And Debian sources consist of a tarball, a .diff.gz file, and a text .dsc (description) file.

    9. Re:installation packages by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I have historically used a simple solution to this problem...

      Every 3-6 mo.s I see a new distribution that I want to try out, so I back up home & downloads, and do a clean install. Then, of course, it takes a bit to set everything back up, but I find I don't usually bother. Some of it is still being used, and that I install. Some has come out with new versions, so I install upgrades (and move the older version to /historic, where it will be wiped at the next cycle).

      Well, it's not a server...so this suits my needs.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  5. good news by after · · Score: 0

    Wow, finally someone did something like this. I have been baffled by the Debian installation process for some times now. I will really enjoy this. Thank you very much, mkay?

    I just hope that this one won't fuck up my partitions like it did last time - I was lucky enough to fix the partitions, but I could not find the files I have been working on for 3 weeks after that.

    I want my 3 weeks back!!!

  6. AWWW YEAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    My anaconda don't want none unles you got buns, hon.

  7. Re:FISTING POST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can understand typing "!!!!!11" but hey, how on earth did you manage to type "!!!!1!!!"?

  8. Alien by rf0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    One very nice utility they might be able to use is Alien which allows you to convert from rpm's to debs and many other formats as well

    Rus

    1. Re:Alien by ninkendo84 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If alien truly did work well, this story wouldn't be big news. What they're talking about is potentially allowing rpms and .debs to coexist on the same system. Obviously, given the differences between the two package formats, that is a difficult task.

      Right now, it's easy to just convert .debs to .rpms and vice versa, via alien. But you dont see anyone (practically) taking the entire debian/unstable repository and converting them to RPMs, do you? No, because the two package types don't work well together. They have totally different configuration frameworks, and as of now, don't coexist well at all. Hell, you can even install Redhat's package manager onto a debian system and start installing rpms to your heart's content, but that's generally Not a Good Idea.

      So for the short term, unless debian's and redhat's project leaders really sit down and discuss what their goals are in this situation, all I see is a very unstable package management system.

      And I wouldn't hold my breath, either. It took the debian package maintainers over a month to just put gnome2.4 into sid. Think of how long it would take those same people to encapsulate an entire distrobution's worth of packages (or at least the technology to do so) into their mainline repository.

      --

      $ make love
      make: don't know how to make love. Stop
    2. Re:Alien by revividus · · Score: 2, Informative
      For some reason alien was not included in redhat 9. I'm not sure why. Now I'm using gentoo, though, and I'm very happy with it.

      Probably for the average newbie who doesn't want to compile things from source (okay, I admit, typing `emerge -u world' doesn't really require you to understand what's going on), having .deb and .rpm work together would be a good thing.

      apt for redhat is a good idea, too, and I believe that can be found at freshrpms.net.

    3. Re:Alien by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, RPMs generally do not follow the Debian packaging guidelines, and are frowned upon with the utmost of eyebrow usage. Native Debian packages are highly preferred.

      Still, Alien is definitely useful in a pinch.

      --Dan

  9. it will by after · · Score: 0

    rule suck!

  10. WARNING WARNING WARNING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WARNING: Parent post contains links to beutiful people. Click now to see!

  11. YOU FAIL IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NO FP HERE

  12. WARNING DONT CLICK PARENT LINKS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they are links to goatse and tubgirl, extremely disgusting and oweful, please dont click, you will be sorry if you click, for more info search wikipedia.com for shock sites.

  13. Anaconda Screenshots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    These Anaconda Screenshots look good and could make Debian a lot easier to approach for Joe Average.

    --
    I have a truly marvellous reason to post this as an AC, which however the margin is not large enough to contain.

  14. What does this mean in practice? by Pflipp · · Score: 1

    Progeny had a graphical installer available for their Debian-based distro for years, and instead of taking over this one, Debian started creating its own graphical installer despite of a great lack of human resources for the project.

    Now I don't know much about Anaconda or what it really is, and I also don't know much about Debian's reason not to use the Progeny installer, but you'll understand that I'm not really convinced that this would change installing Debian until I've heard confirmations from the Debian side of things.

    --
    "We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
    1. Re:What does this mean in practice? by super20 · · Score: 1

      IIRC the Progeny installer was i386 only, hence the Debian folks couldn't use it, since the ditro supports numerous architectures. The article doesn't say, but I imagine since RedHat also supports several archs, Anaconda for Debian will as well.

    2. Re:What does this mean in practice? by demon · · Score: 1

      From what I understood, the Progeny installer went mostly ignored in Debian proper because it only worked on x86, and would take yet more retooling and fighting to make work on the _many_ other architectures that Debian supports (like the PowerBook Pismo I'm typing on now - a PowerPC). The Debian developers wanted a truly architecture-neutral, extensible installer framework, and nobody really provides that. I don't know how much work the YellowDog crew had to put in to make Anaconda work in YDL, but I have no doubts that it was significant. Unfortunately, if you want a product you can package and sell, the "must support ALL arches" requirement seems to be the first to get kicked to the curb.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    3. Re:What does this mean in practice? by quadelirus · · Score: 1

      Anaconda is really easy to use (I use RedHat). To me PickAx is the coolest part of Progeny's project (because I use redhat and not debian.) From my understanding (very limited) it would allow me to create my own linux distribution based on Debian and have anaconda as the graphical installer which is exactly the kind of tool I would love to play with. Does anyone know if this is a correct assumption?

      If it's true I could create very specialized linux distributions for the different types of computers desktops/servers/media which would be a fun toy to play with.

      What is a subversion repository? And will someone update slashdot when they make the move from internal CVS to comminuty subversion repository? I wan't to get my hands on the code!

    4. Re:What does this mean in practice? by damiam · · Score: 1

      Debian didn't use the Progeny installer because it only supported one of Debian's twelve architectures. Anaconda also falls short here, so it'll never be the official installer.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    5. Re:What does this mean in practice? by demon · · Score: 1

      Yes, it makes it easy to _install_ but keep in mind how many architectures Debian supports: x86, Alpha, PowerPC (which covers OldWorld and NewWorld PowerMacs, CHRP and PReP systems, and Amiga PowerUP machines), MIPS, MIPS little-endian, ARM/StrongARM, HP PA-RISC, Motorola 680x0 (which covers 68k Macs, old Suns, Ataris, and Amigas), IA64, SPARC, and S390. How much effort has it already taken to make Anaconda work as a Debian installer for one architecture? (And note those are just the architectures that woody supports, I'm not even counting the experimental ones that are still only in sid.)

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    6. Re:What does this mean in practice? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2, Informative

      What is a subversion repository?

      Subversion is a CVS replacement that tries to fix some of the weirdness that is CVS. I've been using it for about a year, and have found it to be very nice -- not much new to learn, and acts in a much more sane manner than CVS. It's still alpha for now (and using it ATM requires that you update fairly regularly), but it seems to be rapidly approaching the beta milestone.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    7. Re:What does this mean in practice? by albalbo · · Score: 1

      "PGI is a multi-architecture graphical installer creation system for Debian GNU/Linux" -- from the PGI homepage, http://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/

      Debian appears to be wanting a completely abstract installer using the debconf system (where code knows how to ask questions and the ui knows how to show the question to the user). Personally, I can't see how that will ever be easy to use - for example, how do you abstractly ask the question 'How should the disk be partitioned?' uniformly across text/gui?

      An abstract, hardware independent installer is probably a pipe dream, I don't even see why it could be considered desirable except for some implausible code maintainence issue. Different archs are different archs; the installer is always going to need to tailor itself to the arch for the best user experience.

      --
      "Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
    8. Re:What does this mean in practice? by Erik+Hensema · · Score: 1

      Personally, I can't see how that will ever be easy to use - for example, how do you abstractly ask the question 'How should the disk be partitioned?' uniformly across text/gui?

      SuSE's Yast does this. Yast had both a Qt and a ncurses interface. They share the same backend. The backend is mostly platform independent.

      SuSE installs using the graphical yast by default, but on the second CD in the cdset the text version of yast is included.

      Both versions are very easy to use.

      --

      This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

    9. Re:What does this mean in practice? by FreakinHippie · · Score: 1

      So did the Storm Linux 2000 (Stormix) installer. IIRC, they had created a widget set that worked with ncurses or X. I'm surprised that it didn't catch on. I thought it was quite impressive at the time (circa 2000).

    10. Re:What does this mean in practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      porting anaconda to different architectures isn't rocket science... stop whining! The hard part was getting anaconda to install debs; anaconda is C at its core; and python after a certain point.. which means its portable.

  15. Re:Redhat ads in installer by pilot1 · · Score: 1

    They'll almost certainly be taken out, there's no reason for a Debian install to have RedHat pictures.

    But I wouldn't say they were really ads, at least not for other companies. Some were interesting facts, and others told about stuff like RHCE's/up2date/etc.

  16. Skolelinux and the new Debian Installer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Debian do have a new installer. Petter Reinholtsen, Michael Cardenas, Tollef Fog Heen and the the others of the Debian-Installer team has made a new installer for Debian Sarge.

    Skolelinux uses this new installer today!:
    http://developer.skolelinux.no/index.html .en

    URL to the new Debian Installer:
    http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-ins taller/

    Todo list for the new Debian Installer:
    http://cvs.debian.org/debian-installer /doc/TODO?re v=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup

    1. Re:Skolelinux and the new Debian Installer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is needed information.

    2. Re:Skolelinux and the new Debian Installer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Debian do have a new installer

      The installer you are referring to is very incomplete - the latest status updates indicate that not very much has been done on it for quite some time.

      Anaconda is a complete and rather good installer. Married to an apt package backend it seems like a very good offering to me.

    3. Re:Skolelinux and the new Debian Installer by HiThere · · Score: 1

      However, as I look it over it appears that this distribution may only work on i*86 machines. Or at least has only been tested on such. And as such it isn't a very strenuous test of the Debian installer. (Progeny had a good installer for that.)

      That said, it's good to see that work is continuing, but I wonder whether it would be easier to finish the Debian-installer or to port Anaconda to the remaining architectures. Somehow I suspect that Anaconda might be the simpler task.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:Skolelinux and the new Debian Installer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have any direction from the looks of it... They have no goals... What is the point of the installer, to install the OS or what? Why not put that as one of the goals?

  17. So... by jav1231 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Debian finally overcomes a huge obstacle for mass acceptance: a decent installer!

    1. Re:So... by Cochonou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, I think the main obstacle that prevent Debian from being more widely accepted is the fact that the debian folks are very reluctant to package "wizards" and automatic configuration scripts in the distribution.
      Of course, there is debconf, but its invocation is rather tricky for non Debian-savy users.

    2. Re:So... by another+misanthrope · · Score: 1

      I've been using a Debain-based distro called MEPIS for several months now. FWIW, I've contributed to the developer because I really dig this OS.

      It features a live CD like Knoppix and lets you install the distro through the live CD w/an installation application. In addition - the hardware detection was damn near flawless - talk about your easy install of Debain!!

    3. Re:So... by demon · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah... cause you know, I'm reinstalling Debian all the time... wait. That's right, I'm NOT. I last installed Debian on my home desktop about 4 or 5 _years_ ago, and it's never once needed reinstalling. Though debian-installer, once it's done, should improve things significantly, how often do you really see the installer? Seriously, how often?

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    4. Re:So... by damiam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Debian's had a decent installer for years (through PGI or Knoppix). They're not the official installers (and Anaconda won't be either), but the option has always been there.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    5. Re:So... by Psiren · · Score: 2, Informative

      Though debian-installer, once it's done, should improve things significantly, how often do you really see the installer? Seriously, how often?

      That's true enough, but it does need work. I used to defend the debian installer until recently, as I found it easy enough to use. But I recently tried to get woody installed on two new servers and had a hell of a time getting it on there. I had to do do it mostly myself in the end, by tarring and scp'ing stuff from another server. Once Debian is installed on a machine it's damn near flawless in my experience, and a real pleasure to administer. But getting it on recent machines can sometimes be a pain. It's probably more of an issue for server hardware than desktops though.

    6. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MEPIS needs serious work. It has failed to get X up and running on every machine I've tried it on, yet knoppix and morphix work fine.

    7. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      how often do you really see the installer? Seriously, how often?

      I am Eugenia and all I use Linux for is to install Linux, you insensitive clod!

    8. Re:So... by CentrX · · Score: 1

      debconf is automatically invoked when one installs a package. Package installation is not tricky.

      Otherwise, debconf can be invoked with a simple command: dpkg-reconfigure :which is a matter of just knowing the command, but is not any sort of trickiness.

      --

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
    9. Re:So... by Seeker5528 · · Score: 1

      The debconf configuration can be called up a few different ways.

      Dpkg-reconfigure and gkdebconf to name a couple. IN newer versions Synaptic there is a filter that shows the packages that are managed by debconf and there is a configure button that will initiate the debconf configuration for a selected package as well.

      If the utilities had an option to only show the packages managed by debconf that provide user interaction it would be better, but it is not hard to initiate the debconf configuration.

      Later, Seeker

  18. Good for corporations adpoting Debian by some1somewhere · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is certainly a good thing for corporations adopting Debian... especially since Redhat now has it's 1 year End Of Life policy for it's desktop products. I've always found Debian's release policy FAR more stable than almost any other distro out there, and stability is probably the main focus of most companies (far more than the latest wizz-bang features).

    Hopefully this will see more corporations adopting Debian, Linux, and will result in a more unified installation process.

    --
    **FREE** Track and view your phone's via CellID and/or WIFI and/or GPS :- http://tinyurl.com/la6fhd
  19. Re:Is it true? by after · · Score: 0

    Someone, quick. Mod him down or Anonymous Coward 2.0 will be wrong!!!1!

  20. that's not leet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Everyone knows having a shitty installer is what makes an OS leet!

    Then when only super experts can install it just saying you use it shows instant leetness!

    Sure, you don't know why OpenBSD is more secure or how to use ipfilter but by george you got it installed on your laptop! Well now, aren't you mr. leet. When average joes and janes can just slap a debian cd in their drive and be up and running with no troubles how will you get respect as a leet dood? You'll have to switch to gentoo!

    Shit, gentoo is so leet it doesn't even have an installer!

    If debian gets an installer that anyone can use to get up and running in less than half an hour that will definatly be a problem for debians leet factor.

    1. Re:that's not leet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit, gentoo is so leet it doesn't even have an installer!

      This has got to be the funniest thing I've read in a /long/ time.

    2. Re:that's not leet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even though im a gentoo user i found that funny as HELL, i may even use it in a sig.

  21. does anyone actually read this wankers posts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As soon as I see IE or NT letters capitalized in random words I scroll on by as fast as possible.

  22. Now if we could get Red Hat to use apt instead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we could only get Red Hat to stop using what is possibly the worst package management system ever invented. I'm reluctant to use the term 'package management system' when referring to RPM but it's what they claim. Yes, I know that Red Hat *can* use apt and deb packages, but it's not native. One of the biggest flaws in Red Hat is the package management and it's the one that keeps me from recommending Red Hat as a solution to business. Once I started using debian and saw the beauty of apt, there was no going back.

    1. Re:Now if we could get Red Hat to use apt instead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > One of the biggest flaws in Red Hat is the package management and it's the one that keeps me from recommending Red Hat as a solution to business.

      Instead you recommend a distro that is difficult to install and has ancient software packages, requiring them to compile from source anyway? Do the Dew.

      I agree that RedHat needs to find a new package management tool, but I don't think switching to Debian is the answer.

    2. Re:Now if we could get Red Hat to use apt instead. by tannhaus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And exactly WHAT businesses do you recommend operating system software to? The business your dad runs?

      What do you consider so wrong with RPM? Dependencies? Use apt-rpm, yum, or even redhat's own up2date. Have you even looked at redhat in the last 2 years?

      For most businesses, debian is NOT an option. They want a company pushing the product. They want a solution...not just an operating system. They want tech support. They want to know somewhere there is a boardroom with a bunch of guys making decisions. Like it or not, those are the type of things businesses look for.

    3. Re:Now if we could get Red Hat to use apt instead. by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

      Quote from Ian's announcement: "We have ported Red Hat's Anaconda installer to Debian; essentially, we replaced calls to RPM with calls to APT, and replaced Red Hat-specific configuration hooks with calls into the configlets and debconf. We have also written a tool called PickAx that facilitates the creation of Anaconda-based Debian installation CD sets. We are also working with various parties to add/merge RPM support into the mainline APT, to allow Debian- and RPM-based distributions to be managed using a single APT codebase, and possibly even to allow Debian and RPM packages to coexist side by side. This work also aims to merge our various APT extensions (e.g., support for authenticated APT repos) into the mainline APT." Guess it answers your questions.

    4. Re:Now if we could get Red Hat to use apt instead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, actually, yes, I've looked at Red Hat in the last 2 years. I look at Red Hat with each new release. Like I said in the original post, which you obviously didn't read very carefully, I realize that other tools (like apt-rpm) *can* be used in Red Hat but they are not native. Red Hat's up2date? Please. The text-based version of that was an afterthought at best, making remote administration much more difficult than it needs to be. Management of Red Hat is much more difficult than it needs to be when compared to Debian.

      I don't know why you feel that a company pushing a product is the only one that can provide a solution for business. Like you said, businesses want a solution. Red Hat is not providing a solution, they are just providing the company. I also don't know where you got the idea that I was pushing Debian as a solution for business. Nowhere in my original post does it say that. Rather, the original post was a call for Red Hat to dump RPM for something that's simply better.

      I can't in good conscience recommend Red Hat to any business, big or small, until RPM is fixed or done away with. Red Hat is one of the problems for Linux since so many people view Linux as Red Hat. By continuing to use an immature package management system, the entire Linux community is being hurt.

  23. Re:debian is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft never sleeps! mwahahaha!

    We are committed to spreading FUD about any competing products 24/7/365. It beats the hell out of writing decent code!

  24. Re:Redhat ads in installer by Doomrat · · Score: 1

    By ads, I meant advertisements of distro's features, which I agree is reasonable. Just wondering what Debian'll put there instead.

  25. Changes by alpha713 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now I'm not usually one to protect users from computers and in particular linux, but when it comes to the computer illiterate (is that spelled right :P ). I usually try and steer them towards one of the safer distros like RedHat or Mandrake, its not because I prefer either of those two for working on, its simply that debian besides being difficult to successfully install (though not as confusing as OpenBSD), features enough different packages to make anyone a little lost.

    It has quite frankly always been the "power users" Linux. And some of those whould be repulsed at the thought of changing that. Some of my friends suggested that the reason debian was so good was that it only attracted the real geeks, i.e. those that could contribute and make it stronger.

    In the end though what are computer for if not to make the live of both computer literate and illiterate easier. While it may anger some, the masses finally having access to Debian's enormous repository of packages, amoung other benefits, will be a good step forward. And a change that move Linux closer to eroding the market strangle hold that Microsoft Possesses.

    1. Re:Changes by alpha713 · · Score: 1

      ...damn and if that ain't bad spelling/grammar I don't know what is. Sorry folks I'll use the preview function next time...

    2. Re:Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Argh, too bad I already posted to the discussion, else I'd use my points mod this insightful :-)

    3. Re:Changes by kayen_telva · · Score: 0

      i use mandrake on my laptop, but there are rumours that
      mandrake 9.2 will destroy an LG cd drive. not so safe !!
      anyway, just more grist for the mill...

      http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/8287

  26. I don't even know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what that means

  27. Oh god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This should be funny ;)

    Debian zealots unite to ceremoniously bash Red Hat and express your disgust for them and the 'god awful' RPM format.

    Red Hat rules btw :D

  28. Relation to debian-installer by hysterion · · Score: 1


    Could anyone clarify how this Anaconda installer port relates to debian-installer? In particular, is it also intended to work on PowerPC?

    1. Re:Relation to debian-installer by demon · · Score: 1

      Not in the slightest. debian-installer is still being worked on. My guess is this will be yet another effort, like the original Progeny installer (that was used in Progeny Debian) that will be isolated to x86 only. I know that YellowDog made Anaconda work on PowerPC for their distro, though. In any case, I don't expect to see any takeup from the Debian developers of this. Unless it can be made to work on ALL the supported arches with significantly less effort than what debian-installer will take to finish, I can't see why they'd care.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    2. Re:Relation to debian-installer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Could anyone clarify how this Anaconda installer port relates to debian-installer?

      1. It works, and
      2. It doesn't suck horribly.

      Or you could just use RedHat today and install apt-get.

    3. Re:Relation to debian-installer by juhaz · · Score: 1

      In particular, is it also intended to work on PowerPC?

      Anaconda is written in Python, so it will probably work or at least will be rather easy to tweak to work on just about every platform that the language does.

    4. Re:Relation to debian-installer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Anaconda is written in Python, so it will probably work or at least will be rather easy to tweak to work

      Well, apart from assembler or maybe COBOL, I am at a loss imagining a language of which you couldn't say that.

      Isn't the problem rather that hardware detection has a different logic on powerpc?

  29. Knoppix? by bustersnyvel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What happened to using the Knoppix stuff in the Debian installer? I think the hardware detection of Knoppix really kicks ass.

    The thing I think troubles new users most isn't the choise between package types - it's partitioning the harddisk and knowing what their hardware actually is. That last one can be helped by good hardware detection, but partitioning a disk is something else. What do you think would be best to make partitioning as easy as possible?

    1. Re:Knoppix? by damiam · · Score: 1

      The debian-installer project (Debian's next-gen installer) is integrating the same discover program that Knoppix uses.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    2. Re:Knoppix? by amck · · Score: 1

      The new debian-installer
      uses the discover tool (used in knoppix, IIRC) to
      do its hardware detection.

      The d-i team has priorised
      (1) Getting a stable installer working, to release sarge ;
      (2) Supporting the currently supported architectures ; then
      (3) making it easy to use, finally,
      (4) Graphical would be nice.

      For the next release, we are not going to get a graphical installer working in time; the first 3 are more important. The task of supporting multiple architectures, particularly in small environments, means anaconda was not a good starting base (see other threads).

      A Graphical installer would be a good thing (and
      coming eventually), but making it easy to use is the real goal. With autodetection of hardware, the
      d-i installer as currently used in skolelinux, for
      example, requires you to answer 3 questions:
      (1) What language do you want to use first
      (2) Do you mind if I use the whole disk (with an option to say no and manally configure)
      (3) Whats the root password going to be?

      It may not be flashy, but simple, yes.

      It also allows kickstart-type configurations and
      simple adaptation for new flavours/variants of
      Debian.

      While the anaconda work by PGI looks good, I can't help but wish they had joined the underesourced d-i team and helped get the graphical installer stable in time for Sarge.

      - Alastair McKinstry

      --
      Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
    3. Re:Knoppix? by bustersnyvel · · Score: 1

      Good to hear! IMO a graphical install is a waste of time, so I'm glad it's put at a low priority ;-)

  30. Okay, so now for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right. So now Debian has got a decent graphical front end installer all it really needs is some kind of package management system. Someone should port APT-RPM to Debian. ;)

  31. A little rearranging, sprinkle in a few words... by DrEldarion · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... and you have a /. troll!

    "I'd like to put my anaconda in Portman and create progeny."

    -- Dr. Eldarion --

  32. Unlikely by ledestin · · Score: 1
    Who in their right mind would go through install on each and every machine in the "corporate environment"? I would install and configure a system once and clone it for other machines by copying partitions to the other machine's hdd. Reconfigure as needed.

    It is different from Windows, what I said is easy to do, I've done it once :)

    1. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Anaconda could be quite useful, as it makes it possible to make unmanaged network isstalls not only possible but also simple to perform.

  33. ANONYMOUS FLAMING TROLL FOR SLASHDOT MOD SIDEWAYS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think a poster is a karma whore, just skip over their post -- or better yet, make a more humorous/interesting/informative post that will attract mod points that would otherwise go to the "karma whore." Don't just throw a tantrum because some post that doesn't meet your high standards of excellence gets modded up.

  34. Confuse users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Heck, Linux manages to confuse experienced unix sysadmins. It really doesn't help that configuration commands and files change from distro to distro, and from release to release. Right now, if I'm missing something on an install, I just reinstall from scratch. It's actually quicker than trying to install rpm's by hand. No, I tried Anaconda. It was totally useless. It would be nice if there was documentation that told you what you needed to do to actually make it work.


    And don't get me started on configuring X or on either boot loader.


    Get a clue Linux! If you can confuse unix admins who have senior level multiple unix platform experience, then you don't have a chance with normal users.

    1. Re:Confuse users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right now, if I'm missing something on an install, I just reinstall from scratch.

      You're an idiot.

    2. Re:Confuse users? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you are getting into trouble by trying things that neither a novice nor a moderately experienced user would delve into, and which an experienced Linux sysadmin would have worked into gradually, and have no trouble with.

      Do remember that Linux Is Not UNix. Being a skilled Unix sysadmin doesn't mean that you are immediately a skilled Linux sysadmin. There's a huge overlap, and there's a large number of commands that are basicaly the same with a name change. But there are some that are just different, and have a totally separate development history. grub is one of these. It started developement decades after Linux stopped looking to Unix for inspiriation. I don't know the history of lilo, but I suspect that it was developed to simplify Linux systems cohabiting with MSWind, and thus also has no similar command in Unix. So it's not surprising that being an experiences Unix admin wasn't immediate help. But if you had just stayed with the distribution's built-in installer, and not customized grub (or lilo) then you would have had no trouble.

      I will admit, however, that one can easily dive in over one's head. I did that repeatedly during my first year, and still do occasionally. I frequently wish I had a spare machine to try out my wilder ideas on. Lacking that, I know I need to be conservative, or I'll get in trouble. So I *try* to remember to make my backups current before I get experimental.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:Confuse users? by FreakinHippie · · Score: 1

      >>I frequently wish I had a spare machine to try out my wilder ideas on.

      You can create a second system within your current one if you've got enough hard drive space.

      See:
      chroot
      User Mode Linux

      Hope that helps.

  35. Re:Redhat ads in installer by kosmosik · · Score: 1

    I don't know if you ever installed any red hat's beta release but in phoebe and severn (both using new - gtk2 anaconda) there were just nifty photos of red hat's company (building), some nature, people from red hat instead adds...

  36. Fedora by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that RedHat has created the more community based Debian-like Fedora distribution, there may actually be hope that Fedora and Debian can agree on consistent RPM/DEB packaging names.

    If that happens, RPMs and DEBs will truly be able to co-exist.

  37. Re:A little rearranging, sprinkle in a few words.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dick.

  38. What does Progeny live from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could someone enlighten a poor noob. Why is Progeny doing this? How do they expect to make money of this?

  39. Re:FISTING POST by ninkendo84 · · Score: 1

    Because he's l33t!!!!!!!!!!1111111111!!!!!!!!11oneoneoneoneone! !!!11!!!!!!111!

    --

    $ make love
    make: don't know how to make love. Stop
  40. I wonder if they fixed the bugs in Anaconda by wowbagger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if they fixed the bugs in Anaconda that prevent it from understanding an fstab which contains either:

    a LABEL= line instead of a device name
    a file system type of "auto"

    (and yes, I have reported both to RH.)

    Perhaps they even fixed it so that when there is a failure, you have the option of going to another VC, fixing the problem, and trying again, rather than Anaconda's current behavior of "Nope. Had an error. Gonna reboot now. Definitely gonna reboot. [OK]"

    1. Re:I wonder if they fixed the bugs in Anaconda by NeGz · · Score: 1

      I'm quite sure they have fixed the label= fstab thing, considering RH9 uses that method in it's own fstab.

    2. Re:I wonder if they fixed the bugs in Anaconda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least it rebooted for you... When I tried it, it just locked up on me and wouldn't do shit all. Every other OS and distro (FreeBSD, Mandrake, Win2K Adv. Server, Debian, QNX, Gentoo, more) I threw on there worked just fine, but not Red Hat (not 6.1, 7.0, or 7.2).

  41. APT and RPM... by DaEMoN128 · · Score: 1

    Can be used on the same systems without using Alien anyways. They dont really coexist on the server, but my box handles them both flawlessly. SuSE supports APT and RPM's well. I have never had a problem with using either packaging format. Do other "commercial" distro's not do this? I know there is a big (and almost religous) argument on which is the better format, but to me, (just a user, not a developer) I dont see any difference. OTOH, I dont think having things get to standardized is a good idea. I like how some distros do some things and dont like how others do the exact same thing. It wouldn't stop me if everything was done a way I dont like it, but it would take a lot longer to get my box the way I want it.

    --
    Stop signs are only Suggestions
    1. Re:APT and RPM... by kondrag · · Score: 1

      This is a common misunderstanding. APT is not a packaging format. It is a front-end to managing installed packages. It supports DEBs on Debian and has been ported by Connectiva to provide support for RPMs on RPM based systems. You are using the Connectiva port with SuSE, so you can't install DEBs with it.

    2. Re:APT and RPM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't think standardized things is a good idea but you use SuSE which supports both rpm and apt ? Weren't you never happy to use rpm when apt didn't work or vice-versa ?

    3. Re:APT and RPM... by GrimReality · · Score: 1

      This is not a reply to anything you said, just something that seems appropriate (just popped in my mind).

      I know there is a big (and almost religous) argument on which is the better format, but to me, (just a user, not a developer) I dont see any difference.

      From what I have heard (and to some extend, experienced myself), .deb packaging format with APT system used to be better than the old .rpm format and system. However, the latest RPM systems seem to have fixed all the annoying stuff (that I had experienced earlier) and/or used .rpm/APT-hybrid systems, and is as good as or better than .deb/APT system.

      This does not mean that .deb/APT is bad now. It still retains all its goodness and has made usual improvements, but .deb/APT can no longer be used as the sole argument for Debian's superiority over other systems.

      [Stuff to note before you make assumptions]:
      I do use Debian. I have become used to it (and like it).
      I do stuff for political reasons. But I avoid pointless zealotry, since it won't take us anywhere; i.e. one must be ready to adjust in times of need.

      GrimReality
      2003-10-25 20:47:08 UTC (2003-10-25 16:47:08 EDT)

    4. Re:APT and RPM... by DaEMoN128 · · Score: 1

      I was unaware that APT could support RPM's. I just assumed that since apt only supported .deb's, it was a given that I was talking about deb's. Thanks for the information and making my information more accurate. I still can handle deb's though, suse has the dkpg packages (ironic that they were installed via rpm) to handly the deb's. I again thank you for letting me know the apt was getting RPM's and not the deb's though.

      --
      Stop signs are only Suggestions
  42. Before passing judgement on Debian's installer... by Amadablam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It helps to realize that the debian installer has been developed to work with all of Debian's supported architectures (currently 10 - i386, m68k, sparc, alpha, powerpc, arm, mips, hppa, ia64, and s390). Such an installer has to sacrifice some beauty and convenience for flexibility and power, and those of us who only compare debian's i386 installation to that of RedHat's or Suse's need to realize this. That all said, because of the overwhelming majority of debian users who only use i386 machines, it sure makes sense to me that it would be beneficial to develop a fancy i386-only installer to satisfy the masses. There are plenty of other debian-based distros who have done just that (with varying success). Perhaps this anaconda port is the beginning of just such a project.

  43. They should port APT and Anaconda to XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No kidding, Ian would be pretty happy. Or maybe Ian should learn when is right to use something and when it isn't. He missed Public Relations 101, sadly.

  44. Re:Before passing judgement on Debian's installer. by iantri · · Score: 1

    I honestly don't know what problem people have with the Debian installer.

    I had only installed distros like Red Hat and Mandrake before but I had no problem using the Debian installer.. I just made sure that I had done all the necessary things and it went fine. (Partition, format, install bootloader, etc. in no particular order)

    The only real problem I had was documentation -- it sucks. I wanted to do a net install and had to fight through confusing docs until I discovered that all I had to do was download the right two disk images (the bf2.4 variety) and I was done.

  45. I do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But that's because I love him.

    To the love of my life: call me, will ya?

  46. Debian variants "commercially [un]successful"? by mm0mm · · Score: 1

    From the article:
    Debian variants have been created over the years; none of them has been commercially successful.

    ...err... does "Lindows" ring the bell?

    1. Re:Debian variants "commercially [un]successful"? by bogie · · Score: 1

      Well I don't exactly think you can say that about Lindows yet. I'd say commercially available but not commercially sucessful. If they manage to stay afloat for a few more years and not die off like Corel, Progeny, and Stormix(god I loved that one) did then maybe we can start talking about how a version of Debian has been successful commercially.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    2. Re:Debian variants "commercially [un]successful"? by smcavoy · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of Libranet? Yt's based on Debian and has been around for a bit.

  47. What is a distibution (debs + rpms side by side) by bug1 · · Score: 1

    One of the roles of a distribution is to provide cohesion between many thousands of seperately managed projects.

    Distributions have policies that dictate how they achive this cohesion.

    The only way to seamlessly mix debs and rpms (or other pkg format) is if they follow an identical policy.

    If people turn to the LSB to provide a common policy then the LSB will effictively become a distribution.

    If distributions have identical policies then they loose their individuality, and their reason to exist.

    If you sacrifice the purity of a distribution you will always have to pay a price for it.

    LSB isnt the answer, distributions need to be a bit different.

    Diversity is a strength, but you need to recognise it.

  48. Re:Knoppix? Knoppix! by netringer · · Score: 2, Interesting
    What happened to using the Knoppix [knoppix.org] stuff in the Debian installer? I think the hardware detection of Knoppix really kicks ass.
    Right!

    I have a UNIX background, including a bit of UNIX on PCs going back 15 years. I'm a Linux newbie, but I've had great luck using Knoppix full time on an obsolete, almost diskless PC in the office.

    Based on the idea that "Knoppix is just Debian" I've been trying to install Debian on a PC where Knoppix just plain works. It's driving me nuts. The network install tells me the network card isn't there even though I point it to the right driver (out of 2-3 cryptically-named choices for a RealTek compatible.) I have a slight idea of the appropriate driver options after I boot into Windows and record the interrupts and such Windows sees. Still no luck.

    I juggled and made disk space and downloaded the Woody ISOs...and the Sarge ISOs where it says that Sarge will only install if you have Woody first (I think) and the jigdo docs on how the Debian updates have to be applied to the .iso files (under Linux!) and then burned.

    Anyway, I'm still willing as time allows to read and learn and try and read and learn and beat this but I KNOW it should be easier because KNOPPIX IS EASIER!

    Yeah, I know I can install Knoppix on a hard disk. I want to try and learn "real" Debian.

    Yeah, I know I can ask for help on the Debian forums. I have searched there for ideas. Asking for help is another thing I'll do when I get a round tuit.

    --
    Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
  49. Re:Knoppix? Knoppix! by bustersnyvel · · Score: 2, Informative

    Open up /etc/networks/interfaces to add/edit/remove your network interfaces. Contact me on Jabber (see www.unrealtower.org for address) if you need more help.

  50. OH NO...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This means that debian installtion is going to be EASY and any human would be able to install it!!! it is no longer a man's distribution. It became one of them bad newbies distros like redhat and mandrake. Time to switch to the only real men distro.. Slackware.

  51. Great News! But... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
    Merge? No.

    I have to say that I welcome these developments, but do not believe a merger is possible or desireable.

    Debian is not defined by its technologies, but by its social contract - whch determines exactly what software and technologies can be included in the disrtibution. True, RedHat / Fedora shares a large intersection with the licensing philosophy and package base of Debian. What they do not share makes them wholly exclusive of eachother - at least from the Debian side of the picture.

    This is not meant to be a damper on the technical and practical aspects of Anaconda/Apt! I am "champing at the bit" for this, myself! Think -- no more overriding dependancies after using alien - and subsequently breaking apt-get...

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Great News! But... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Informative
      Of course there are other issues...

      Python as a required part of the base install... Some will dance, others will puke.

      Also, tiny root partitions w/ everything other than /bin /lib /etc mounted did not work w/ Ananconda - at least with RH 7x. You needed a couple hundred MBs free in / to install. This required some fancy "behind the scenes" work - from a console between installer stages - for me to get my 6.2 boxes up to 7.0.

      Of course, if you throw the works into /dev/hda1 - there's no prob! Unless you are worried about local priv escalation and other *NIX security issues...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:Great News! But... by xant · · Score: 1

      others will puke.

      I'll be one of the ones dancing. What's the downside of Python exactly? It's small, it's heavily tested, and its a powerhouse framework for adding more functionality to the base system without adding other dependencies.

      --
      It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
    3. Re:Great News! But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Debian is not defined by its technologies, but by its social contract



      So that explains why it sucks so much!

    4. Re:Great News! But... by jelle · · Score: 1

      Now, do you think splitting your files up in partitions will help against privilege escalation?

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    5. Re:Great News! But... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      Lots (/usr) are mounted ro. /tmp & var are mounted mounted nosuid nodev noexec. /boot is unmounted altogether - just lilo/grub get it.

      These are a start.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    6. Re:Great News! But... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      Yeah.

      but it is just one more - required - interpreter for base functionality, on top of ash/bash and Perl.

      It gets messy when something like this is so basic at the root of the dependancy tree.

      I want a single purpose firewall, or http reverse proxy, or SMTP forwarder - Debian is often my choice for this kind of work.

      I don't like putting compilers or heavy-duty interperter on these.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    7. Re:Great News! But... by jelle · · Score: 1

      Unless you run with a well configured selinux kernel, or something of similar nature for controlling users (root's) capabilities, what you just described will do nothing except give you a false sense of increased security against privilege escalation...

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    8. Re:Great News! But... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      Sure. grsecurity patches...

      I get lazy nowadays, and have been pulling signed kernels from the adamantix project.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  52. Re:Redhat ads in installer by sjames · · Score: 1

    They'll necessarily be taken out. Anaconda is GPL, but RedHat's trademarks are not. Fortunatly, the images are just .png loaded up from Anaconda, with the trademark images as a seperate package. Just create new ones and you're all set. Missing images don't cause big problems, they just (obviously) aren't displayed.

  53. The dream of the universal Linux package by Rex+Code · · Score: 1

    >... and hope to be able to allow collections of managed RPM and .deb packages to coexist side-by-side ...

    I hope that all other distro creators work towards this too, so many packaging formats just confuse new Linux users, and make it even more difficult for Linux to take part in the desktop world.


    While this sounds all wonderful, how's it going to work? At a binary level, you're going to find all kinds of compatibility issues that can't be addressed by dependencies or by ensuring that the package system can use any of the various package formats. For example, you've got Red Hat all but forking glibc by adding the NPTL stuff to it... people compile against that and then those binaries aren't going to work on systems that use a more standard glibc.

    Furthermore, the idea of having the package system itself understand all package formats is very anti-UNIX. If anything, it should make a call to an external package translator such as alien. And given all the problems running binaries from one distro on another, this probably better not be a transparent process. Time to bring up the "big fat warning" dialog box...

    1. Re:The dream of the universal Linux package by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      For example, you've got Red Hat all but forking glibc by adding the NPTL stuff to it... people compile against that and then those binaries aren't going to work on systems that use a more standard glibc.

      That is not correct. Binaries built using Red Hats glibc do not have any binary portability issues due to NPTL. The only issues are those that are standard with glibc 2.3, such as thread-local locale models.

      In fact Linux is more binary compatible than people tend to think. Under the hood, it's all the same code at the end of the day.

    2. Re:The dream of the universal Linux package by Shazow · · Score: 1

      Heh well the whole idea is for all the different distributions to work towards a single compatability standard. Either that, or provide 5-10 different package versions in each universal package. :D Or at least the ones the parts that wont be compatable. Heh.

      I say we call it something like... umm..
      *.nix
      Hehehehe

      - shazow

  54. Re:Before passing judgement on Debian's installer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anaconda actually works on a pretty wide variety of platforms as well.

    i386
    ia64
    amd64
    sparc
    alpha
    mac
    pSeries
    i Series
    s390/s390x

  55. Backwards compatibility by joeytsai · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This seems awfully backwards to me. I don't mean to start a ditsro flame war, but as a Debian user I've *never* had to use a Redhat package. Debian's repository is ridiculously huge (actually, too huge, in my opinion) and is well maintained by the packagers and the high Debian standards.

    If anything, Redhat should be making it easier to have debs and rpms live side by side on their machines. In fact, Redhat's whole Fedora thing just seems like an attempt to recreate Debian. Why bother?

    This is getting a little bit off-topic, but take gnome for example. Gnome properly requires dozens of different libraries to accomplish what it needs - but many times I hear people bitch and moan about gnome's "dependency hell". I am throughly convinced the people who are complaining about that are just the people who's distros don't have (or aren't employing) proper library dependency checking, upgrading, versioning, etc. And what do you know, that's exactly the sort of thing Debian solves beautifully.

    --
    http://www.talknerdy.org
    1. Re:Backwards compatibility by LedZeplin · · Score: 1
      If anything, Redhat should be making it easier to have debs and rpms live side by side on their machines. In fact, Redhat's whole Fedora thing just seems like an attempt to recreate Debian. Why bother?.

      Fedora-Core is Redhat's attempt to have a RHL test bed that they don't have to spend any resources on in technical support. They devlop it, the community devlops it, they take the good stuff and put it in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Profit!!!

      It's debian like, but will be leaning towards cutting edge fast development as opposed to stable and tested.

    2. Re:Backwards compatibility by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1
      RPM dependencies have worked very well for me. I notice that Ximian Gnome issues quite a few release that simply fix dependency bugs - but I have never run into any. It seems to work for ordinary users also.

      My dad wanted to try gthumb on RedHat 7.3 with KDE desktop. He just clicked on the rpm in RedCarpet, and it automatically downloaded an installed all 27 megs worth of gtk2 libraries needed to support that. It all just worked. He has a Gig of memory, so having both KDE and Gnome libraries loaded is not a problem :-)

    3. Re:Backwards compatibility by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If they don't have a "stable" branch, they don't have a workable system. I see nothing wrong with what they're doing...except that I doubt it will succeed. And the reason is that it stops at "testing", which is good enough for hobbiests, but not good enough for either newbies or businesses. (Though I grant that small businesses may be able to use their "desktop enterprise" version at $180-$300 including a year of support and 4 upgrades.)

      Now I suppose that you could say that the commercial version *is* the stable branch, but AFAIKT they don't say what's contained in the release. So if your needs are unusual, then you may well not find them met. (And thus Mandrake would be a better choice, as you can tell what you're buying.)

      N.B.: You *can* install rpms that aren't a part of the basic distro in the RHE distributions...but doing so voids your support contract. So if you're going to need to do that, why bother buying it in the first place?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:Backwards compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you are suggesting that Debian Stable is good enough for newbies or as a business workstation? Ha.

      One good thing about RedHat is that they are willing to break the "something for everyone" cycle, and actually hunker down and try to make some money. They tried the "yearly stable" release strategy for years and it either moved too fast for business or too slow for the community, and it wasn't very profitable.

      Mandrake would be good choice for someone who wants the old RedHat model, but then again, Mandrake will be out of business soon and most likely will be recast as a "community" distro like Fedora.

  56. Re:Dumb People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    quote: What do you think would be best to make partitioning as easy as possible?

    It is easy for those of us who actually use our brains. If it's that difficult for those who don't know how to read a set of numbered instructions perhaps they should just be using Knoppix and boot from CD or using Wintendo in the first place. No need to change it to help the stupid.

  57. Re:Before passing judgement on Debian's installer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its lacking ARM support, how the fuck am i supposed to install it on my half-dreamcast half-pentium 2 monstrosity, ill have to go with gentoo, gentoo kicks ass

  58. Re:Before passing judgement on Debian's installer. by Uerige · · Score: 1

    You're soo right.
    People always say that Debian needs a graphical installer, but they never give any real reason. Is there such a huge difference between selecting my root partition with keyboard and using the mouse for that? The only thing this will add to the installer is unsupported hardware.
    Also, I don't really know why I'd have to plug a mouse into my server just for the installation. I could switch to Windows or SuSE if I wanted that...

  59. Re:Redhat ads in installer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NO SHIT, ASSHOLE

    Note: Stop sucking cock, Taco.

  60. Anaconda and APT by Voline · · Score: 1

    The only exclusively PowerPC GNU/Linux distro, Yellow Dog, uses the Anaconda installer in its most recent update (3.3, I think). And it is very nice. For me it bested SuSE's Yast2 as the best installer.

    Yellow Dog also uses RPM binaries but includes a version of APT to manage them. They claim that the combination of APT and RPM is not original to them but was converted by a distro in Latin America - I can't remember which.

  61. This is a welcome development by ZuperDee · · Score: 1, Troll

    Well folks, I don't know about you, but I think this is a welcome development. I have been using Red Hat for a LONG time now (>5 years), and at one point, I decided to give Debian a try, after hearing how it was supposed to be the REAL "power users" distro. Well, Debian's installer truly is horrible. Not only is it inflexible and difficult to use from the end-users' standpoint, but I understand that MOST OF ALL, it is even difficult for the Debian developers to work with.

    Personally, I think an Anaconda-based Debian installer could be a *HUGE* boom, for 3 reasons:

    1) It would make Debian easier to install. In my opinion, "ease of use" != "less powerful." Even developers and power users can benefit, in my opinion, by having things be difficult just for the sake of difficulty.

    2) Having a distribution-neutral Anaconda would be a huge boom for the Linux community, and potentially for strengthening the LSB.

    3) I'm not so sure I like the idea of having .debs and .rpms together on all Linux systems, but I think it would be nice to see some of the best features of each packaging system melded together--maybe calling the result "dpm." (lol) Seriously; RPM has some nice features (like its TOTAL automation), and DPKG also has some nice features (like OR'd dependencies. I like the idea of that much better than RPM's file dependencies).

    We all know there are plenty of dependency resolvers like APT and YUM and UP2DATE, etc.; I think these should ultimately be melded together, too. Why do we need 2 different package formats, and 3 different dependency resolvers/updaters?

    1. Re:This is a welcome development by CentrX · · Score: 1

      What exactly was horrible about the Debian installer? I've never had a problem with it. As for flexibility, the Debian installer allows nearly infinite flexibility: you can use the command-line while running the installation process. Clearly, this is not easy flexibility, but it certainly is a great deal of flexibility.

      What total automation of RPM are you referring to? If you want automation in Debian, you can set a cronjob to run apt-get update && apt-get upgrade daily, and the system will be upgraded appropriately. Individual package installation is very automated as well.

      --

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
    2. Re:This is a welcome development by ZuperDee · · Score: 1

      What was horrible about the Debian installer:

      1) The interface seems slow and clumsy. I think there's plenty of room for streamlining.

      2) It would be nice to have it autodetect my hardware. Granted, I *could* set it up myself if I really wanted to. (Yes, I *AM* a real geek.) However, I don't see any good reason why I should have to do it myself. After all, if the hardware *CAN* be identified automatically and easily, why not do it, and save the work of having to do it manually?

      3) The Debian installer asked too many questions.

      4) As I say, MOST of all, it is even difficult for the Debian developers to work with. See this if you don't believe me:
      http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-boot@lists .debi an.org/msg27830.html

      As to the total automation of RPM, I am referring to the fact that with dpkg, it typically pops up configuration screens everytime I install something. That has got to be done away with, in my opinion. It makes installing a batch of things MUCH too slow.

      Also, please don't confuse apt-get with dpkg. apt works with RPM as well. In fact, I can do even better than you can, by using yum. With yum, there is even a daemon that works automatically!

    3. Re:This is a welcome development by CentrX · · Score: 1

      apt-get was not being confused with dpkg. apt-get is very effective at upgrading and installing packages smoothly. Largely, this is because of the quality of the packages. The entire distribution can be upgraded, from one release to the next, using this tool. As I understand it, this is still not possible with other apt-get-related tools. A daemon is totally unnecessary and wasteful for automatic updates anyway.

      As for your other points, they are generally valid but reflect the intended purpose of the installer.

      1. I don't know about streamlining. Certainly a bona fide UI developer could look at it and make improvements.

      2. Hardware autodetection has a history of a couple of problems: a) it can cause a small or obscure subset of hardware to break, Debian tries to support as much as possible properly in the installer, or at the very least not cause a hard crash; b) detecting the wrong thing and using it is not desirable. Ultimately, you don't have to do much about hardware in the installer. Unless you are doing a network installation and need to specify a kernel module for your network card, there is no hardware that needs to be specified during installation, it is done automatically by the kernel with modules. I am, however, making a distinction between the installation system proper, and the configuration of individual packages such as XFree86, which could use the option of further hardware detection capability.

      3. Setting the debconf priority higher will reduce the number of questions packages ask you.

      4. This message is regarding the new debian-installer, which has not before been used in a release. The installer is currently still not in a release-quality state, but this message is from July and the new debian-installer was much less developed then. The problems listed in this message were not problems with the installer of any Debian release, and they will (hopefully ;) not be problems of any future release.

      --

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
    4. Re:This is a welcome development by ZuperDee · · Score: 1

      I agree apt-get is fairly effective; I used to use it before I discovered yum. But yum is truly superior, in my opinion. (For RPM-based distros, anyway.) Yum can also upgrade the entire distribution; I've done that before, too. (Of course, I think it is a pity packages all have such interwoven dependencies that require such a tool, but that's a different matter altogether.)

      As to the problems of hardware autodetection: Sure, there will always be fringe cases, but should we be lowering our standards just to accomodate those fringe cases, or should we be aiming HIGHER, by trying to FIX what's wrong with autodetecting those fringe cases, or at least making it handle those cases more gracefully? After all, should we eliminate GUI's altogether, simply because they don't work well on some hardware? Should we eliminate Debian or Red Hat altogether, since they aren't perfect? Obviously no--that would be absurd. Eliminating hardware autodetection because IT isn't perfect is equally absurd, in my opinion.

      As to the Debian installer: I do apologize for incorrectly citing that, but if it truly is regarding the new one, that only helps PROVE my point that the old installer was terrible. Otherwise, why are you now suddenly trying to defend their effort to write a NEW one? And if you agree a new one is better, then what's wrong with Anaconda as opposed to that new installer?

    5. Re:This is a welcome development by CentrX · · Score: 1

      Fringe buggy cases are accommodated in the installer, just like there has been no GUI in the installer so that it will install on the most hardware. Using an extraneous addon like a GUI is unnecessary when one isn't using a GUI in a setup. This isn't about eliminating GUI's completely, or eliminating distributions. There's just a difference between the installer and other purposes. The new debian-installer should provide for more options like hardware autodetection due to its modular nature.

      As for the Debian installer, the reason that a new installer is being written is largely because of a cludgy backend of the old "boot-floppies" installer that required significant modifications every release for small changes. The frontend of the old installer was not particularly bad. The added benefit of the new installer is that it should allow for adding options like hardware autodetection, GUI installation due to easier extensibility and more modularity. I don't know what's wrong with Anaconda... If it is flexible and provides power, and runs on many cases of nearly a dozen different hardware architectures, then it's probably fine. I suspect that it doesn't provide the benefits of the straight-up rewrite, flexibility, modularity of the new debian-installer, however.

      --

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
    6. Re:This is a welcome development by ZuperDee · · Score: 1

      Wrong. I'll bet anaconda can knock the socks off of the new debian-installer. Anaconda also can be text-mode or GUI, and theoretically, it should be able to run on ANY hardware architecture Python runs on.

    7. Re:This is a welcome development by ZuperDee · · Score: 1

      Hello CentrX,

      You state your position very well, and I am gratified that we can converse this way without trolling. :-)

      I just wanted to clarify a few points for you: I am NOT trying to bash Debian or its installer just for the sake of it. I am just trying to point out what technical shortcomings I see in it.

      There is absolutely *NO* distribution I can think of that's perfect. However, I am a big fan of trying to unify things in the Linux world and to do away with unnecessary differences wherever possible. I think THE single biggest problem the open source community faces is the almost total lack of coordination of technical efforts, and the almost total lack of any cohesive standards. Small wonder that some commercial companies are refusing to support Linux, on the grounds that "there's no standard Linux." This kind of situation, where we have such a plethora of distributions, all with their own packaging standards, their own file hierarchy standards, and their own installers, is well-known for being a NIGHTMARE when it comes to support.

      That being said, I think this port of Anaconda to Debian looks like a very promising first step towards creating a unified cross-distro installer. It is my opinion that this has *enormous* potential for further unifying the Linux community (and the LSB).

    8. Re:This is a welcome development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think curses is slow, wait till you try python on your system

  62. Re:Redhat ads in installer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A laxitive might help you with that problem.

  63. Re:A little rearranging, sprinkle in a few words.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    less.

  64. Re:Before passing judgement on Debian's installer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I honestly don't know what problem people have with the Debian installer.

    The Debian installer has the worst hardware detection of any distro. Prompts the user for network DRIVER name (like a new-to-Linux user will know which driver works with which card) and X setup parameters that a modern distro auto-detects.

    Otherwise, it's fine. Nice flexible layout, multi-lingual, etc. But the lack of hardware detection is a real showstopper for many new-to-Linux users.

  65. Alien - not, mixing - maybe by Seeker5528 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Alien is good for the occasional package where dependencies are a minor concern.

    The problem with Alien is you lose the dependency tracking information during the package conversion, so it is not good on a larger scale.

    I believe .rpm files can already be handled directly in Debian (not by apt) if they are LSB compliant, but the only thing these packages depend on is the LSB package that provides support for the version of the LSB specification that is required by the .rpm.

    Viewing the quote with that context in mind and including the next statement in the quote:

    "We are also working with various parties to add/merge RPM support
    into the mainline APT, to allow Debian- and RPM-based
    distributions to be managed using a single APT codebase, and
    possibly even to allow Debian and RPM packages to coexist side by
    side. This work also aims to merge our various APT extensions
    (e.g., support for authenticated APT repos) into the mainline APT.

    It is our hope that a distribution-independent Anaconda and
    a distribution-independent APT (plus, eventually, a distribution-
    independent configuration framework) will, along with a
    stronger LSB, help unify further the various Linux distributions."

    Relatively speaking, it is probably only a small stretch once the codebase is unified to add support for management of LSB compliant .rpm files on a Debian based system. And it may only be a small stretch to add support for managing an RPM based distrobution on another machine using APT from a Debian based distrobution or vice versa.

    To add full support for handling of .deb and .rpm files on the same system is a little more of a stretch. In which case the phrases:

    "possibly even to allow Debian and RPM packages to coexist side by side"

    and

    "along with a stronger LSB"

    become key phrases.

    Later, Seeker

  66. anaconda arches: ia32, Itanium, Alpha, S/390, PPC by raulmazda · · Score: 1

    From the anaconda release notes: "The anaconda installer works on a wide variety of Linux-based computing architectures (ia32, Itanium, Alpha, S/390, PowerPC), and is designed to make it easy to add platforms."

  67. Re:Before passing judgement on Debian's installer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's some other distro that has the worst. Debian doesn't have *any* hardware detection. Sure, this means you may have to use the web a bit to find the right modules for your hardware if you don't already know, but it has the added bonus of always giving you exactly what you want. I too am a bit nervous about moving to a graphical installation. Will there really be no text-based options anymore? That would really suck. I hate having to tab around a screen that only has keyboard controls as an afterthought.

  68. Re:Before passing judgement on Debian's installer. by madmonkey · · Score: 1

    Actually Anaconda is included in the Alpha port of Red Hat and works just as well on that platform as on i386. In fact I installed RH on an Alpha just to use that tool (as I had no clue what video card was in it at the time, and I was frustrated trying to get X up in Deb), saved the XF86Config file, and used it when I replaced RH with Debian (as I much prefer it). It worked perfectly. So I think that Anaconda is just as flexible as Debian's installer, only much better. Having it available for Debian will I'm sure save me some headaches in the future.

    --
    ------------------------- Thus Spoke the Mad Monkey
  69. Wish granted. by RPoet · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'll quote from Fedora Core 0.95 Release Notes at http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/ :

    The Red Hat Update Agent (up2date) now supports installing packages from apt and yum repositories as well as local directories. This includes dependency solving and obsoletes handling. Additional repositories can be configured in the /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources file.

    Fedora Core is the new name for the free Red Hat distribution.

    --
    "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
  70. Re:Before passing judgement on Debian's installer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modern operating systems don't really need "hardware detection" -- Anything PCI/EISA/MCA just uses a simple DeviceID-to-Driver mapping table. All the code for this exists in the Linux sources.

    As anyone sane could tell you, this is a job for a computer, not for a human.

    The days of poking registers to guess which ISA card someone has are long gone. The fact is that Debian refuses to add basic 1990s features like PCI support because it would somehow impair the "freedom" of their core userbase of impoverished 386/486 users.

  71. Re:Knoppix? Knoppix! by kholburn · · Score: 1
    Based on the idea that "Knoppix is just Debian" I've been trying to install Debian on a PC where Knoppix just plain works. It's driving me nuts. The network install tells me the network card isn't there even though I point it to the right driver (out of 2-3 cryptically-named choices for a RealTek compatible.) I have a slight idea of the appropriate driver options after I boot into Windows and record the interrupts and such Windows sees. Still no luck.

    "hd_install" command in knoppix.

  72. Re:Before passing judgement on Debian's installer. by Marsala · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know if you've ever actually worked with anaconda, but (like other open source software) it's possible to hammer it do whatever you need. There is support in anaconda for non i386 archs (s390, sparc, and IIRC, vestigial traces of the alpha installer). Yes, it's going to be a pain to implement code to handle new archs (like the PPC), but there are enough examples of how to do it that it should be possible.

    The one thing that makes me downright ecstatic in all this is the prospect of being able to use the "kickstart" feature of anaconda for Debian. RH's kickstart is pretty damn flexible (as opposed to FAI, FreeBSD's unattended install mode, Solaris's jumpstart, and even the Winders solutions that are available). With the kickstart, it's possible to build and install a customized system from modular parts (instead of having to rely on image based installs)... and that makes it easy to slide in updates or quickly implement new install types.

    Hardware autodetection is abstracted out via kudzu (yes, it's a pain after the OS is installed, but at install time it's a godsend and makes probing hardware programmatically much easier).

    On top of that, you can hack up anaconda to do some other "interesting kickstartish type stuff" (in the words of Matt Wilson).

    Kudos for the Progeny boys for making this available. :) It's going to enable some cool stuff to be done with Debian.

  73. Re:ANTIQUE KARMA WHORE FOR DEBIAN STORIES MOD DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this post gets funnier ever time i read it

    you, sir or madam, are a comedy genius

  74. Installer by Random832 · · Score: 1

    am i, like, the only person who liked the old one better than most other dists?

    --
    We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
  75. Re:Knoppix? Knoppix! by BoysDontCry · · Score: 2, Informative

    Tip of the Day If you're having trouble figuring out what kernel modules you need, boot from a Knoppix cd. The output from dmesg should tell you modules you need.

  76. linux to the masses by neonprimetime · · Score: 0

    isn't this a good thing?

    if we want to bring linux to the masses

    we need an easy installation process

    and anaconda is light years friendlier

    than the typical debian install

  77. Re:Before passing judgement on Debian's installer. by krammit · · Score: 1

    "Yes, it's going to be a pain to implement code to handle new archs (like the PPC), but there are enough examples of how to do it that it should be possible."

    Have you checked out yellow dog linux? Essentially, they have ported Red Hat (including anaconda) to the PPC and from the reviews I've checked out, have done a pretty good job of it.

    --
    "Watch your cornhole, bud."
  78. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love it... except for tasksel and dselect... but aptitude fills both holes beautifully.

  79. This will only lead to more complaints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is so wrong with the Debian installer? This is by far my favorite. Choose a language, a keyboard, partition and initialize drive(s), install the core files, don't run taskel or dselect, finally reboot and apt-get ANY of the packages YOU want.

    Now that Murdock has decided to make Debian convenient for Joe Dumb Dumb, be prepared to hear lots of complaints such as "You mean I have to give myself permissions to hear sound?? I never had to do that with my Mandrake. Debian really sucks."

  80. A long wait by m_evanchik · · Score: 1

    I look forward to all of this being integrated into a stable version of Debian. Shall we say, around 2008?

    1. Re:A long wait by aws4y · · Score: 1

      Well, well, well, this is probably a troll, or a joke but I'll bite.
      Debian has 3 trees, Stable(currently: woody), testing(currently: sarge) and unstable(Sid). A package has to cascade down from unstable to testing, the testing tree becomes the stable tree, which is a major version change. Stable is meant for servers, and when they say stable they mean stable. Almost all of the packages in that tree have no unmet dependencies or libc conflicts, period. Stable is for servers as such the emphasis is not on the latest and greatest, but on the tried and true. This may appear in about a month in the unstable tree. (Gnome 2.4 showed up yesterday) So if you want the newest use unstable, you want a nearly unbreakable machine use stable.

      --
      Did Glenn Beck rape and kill a girl in 1990? gb1990.com
  81. CD installs are primitive and burn the Net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give me three floppy disks and a network connection, and I can install Debian on most any ol' machine in an hour or two.

    Meanwhile, to install Red Hat, you have to download THREE CDs worth of shit that you're not even going to ever want or need. Because of this, Red Hat mirrors are slow, slow, slow compared with Debian ones.

    CD installs are primitive, a real step back, Neanderthal! Their only usefulness is to commercial companies that want to limit access to their code and make people pay for convenience.

  82. Re:Before passing judgement on Debian's installer. by Marsala · · Score: 1

    Nope, I haven't seen yellow dog (I'm a tightwad and since Macs are waaaaaay more expensive than PCs... just kidding :). What I've seen of other arch support has been the code included in RH's anaconda (and I admit I haven't been spelunking in anaconda for about 6 months or so).

    But it's good to know that I've got the option to change arch's in midstream if I wanna.

    Thanks also to madmonkey for the info about Alpha support... my XL300 is still running RH 5.2, so I've only ever seen anaconda in action on x86 archs.

  83. DiskDrake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love Mandrake's DiskDrake... It's GPL, as all of Mandrake's own software is, and so Debian could easily modify it for their distro... I use Debian myself, and it's been about 10 months since I've touched Mandrake, but I do keep an install disc 1 handy, in case I want to partition stuff graphically for someone's system. It sure beats Partition Magic, and doesn't cost more than a buck or two to download and burn to a CD.

  84. Re:AWWW YEAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about in Latin? [Part 1], [Part 2]