Slashdot Mirror


First Look at Debian's Next Generation Installer

An anonymous reader writes "Over at LinMagAu There is an interesting look at the new beta version of the Next Gerneration Debian Installer. Putting aside the fuss around Ian Murdock, Progeny and Anaconda, this is how Debian is constructing the future of what is known to be it's Achilles heel. It's a well done beginning." While still not a graphical installer (and the article does a good job of explaining why that's not a priority) the installer now autodetects hardware, streamlining module selection, which was previously one of the more confusing parts of the install for newbies.

56 of 454 comments (clear)

  1. It's about time by bsharitt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't really care about a pretty install, I'm just glad they finally got hardware detection.

    1. Re:It's about time by awgriff279 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can think of one good reason for Linux to have an easier installation process. I've wanted to switch from Windows for several years now. However, not having any Linux experience makes a proper installation very complicated. Consequently, I'm still using Windows until I have time to figure everything out. Unfortunartely, it's hard to learn about an OS when one doesn't have it to use. I love the idea of Linux, but until the learning curve drops on a free version, I'll probably keep using WIN98se.

    2. Re:It's about time by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your failure to do a Debian install is hardly a personal failure. I'm as good at installing Operating Systems as just about anybody. I've done some really hairy installs like Xenix on a TRS-80 and OpenBSD on a Dec/MIPS workstation. I've even done a number of successfull installs with older versions of Debian. While I eventually succeeded at installing a recent version debian on each of the four computers I regularly use, it never was easy, and usually required me to take at least one heroic measure, and typically far more. Moreover, each install was difficult in it's own special way. Anyone short of a wizard could not make a current debian install go on current hardware.

      It would have been easier if debian had just supplied a tar-ball of the minimally installed system and left me to create the filesystems, install the boot loader, etc...

    3. Re:It's about time by CentrX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be fair, the only time most people ever need to even insert any hardware modules for the install is to install a single network card driver. The modules for the rest of a person's hardware are generally loaded by the kernel after installation.

      --

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
  2. Graphical? by yoshi_mon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While still not a graphical installer (and the article does a good job of explaining why that's not a priority)...

    Who ever said we needed a graphical installer? There is absolutly nothing wrong with a good text installer. And for installing small footprint it's always best.

    And besides, this is the logical progression. First you do the text installer, then you move on to a graphical installer if you so desire. Not the other way around.

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
    1. Re:Graphical? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Amen brother! FreeBSD still uses a text mode installer, and I have to say that I don't feel like I'm missing anything. Not sure about XP, but even Windows NT/2000 does the initial install from a Curses-like interface.

    2. Re:Graphical? by BHearsum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I completely agree. The debian installer is the only one that has never failed me. It's simple, fast, and efficient. I can install a debian system in about 10 minutes flat from the standard or XFS boot disk. (That includes the time it takes for me to download the initial packages).

      Don't fuck with perfection.

    3. Re:Graphical? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who ever said we needed a graphical installer? There is absolutly nothing wrong with a good text installer. And for installing small footprint it's always best.

      Average consumers. There's nothing *wrong* with a command prompt either, but they don't like that either. Neither the cryptic C:\> prompt in DOS nor [root@mypc root]# in Linux/Unix. That is, if you want Linux to be interesting to average consumers, but I'd say having a market share that'd at least make companies take Linux users into consideration would benefit all.

      And besides, this is the logical progression. First you do the text installer, then you move on to a graphical installer if you so desire. Not the other way around.

      Mostly true. But considering that just about everyone except those installing a headless server would prefer to use the GUI if there was one available, it's not exactly a small "add-on" for a small special interest group. Particularly if you ever hope to convert Microsoft "point-n-click for almost everything" powerusers...

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Graphical? by iantri · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember.. the installer isn't a command-line, its a TUI. Basically, a GUI done in text. Its not as bad as you'd think. And have you ever installed Windows 2000/XP? It uses a text-mode installer..

    5. Re:Graphical? by digime · · Score: 4, Informative

      Whether or not it's text-based won't really make a difference with this installer. I imagine you will have a choice of front-ends that all do the same thing when this moves out of beta. From the article:

      "...but due to its modular design the developers can stick almost any front-end on it they like. There are already test builds using a GTK (ie: Gnome-style) GUI with mouse-driven menus etc, and if you really wanted to you could build a front-end using anything from a Braille device to Macromedia Flash."

    6. Re:Graphical? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I run FreeBSD on two boxes, neither of which has a screen or keyboard. When I installed them, I did so using a serial console. The only improvement to the FreeBSD installer I would like to see is the ability to run it over an ssh session (since serial ports are becomming less common). A graphical installer would add nothing for me.

      In general, I feel graphical installers for operating systems are a bad idea, since you really should not be installing an OS unless you know what you're doing. The FreeBSD text installer has the advantage of being easy to use while still looking intimidating to the kind of person who shouldn't really be installing an OS, and encouraging them to either get help or read the documentation.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Graphical? by wackybrit · · Score: 2, Funny

      even Windows NT/2000 does the initial install from a Curses-like interface.

      And there are plenty of 'curses' in the later parts of the install too :-)

    8. Re:Graphical? by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Text mode installers are fine, but Sysinstall (FreeBSD's) ain't that great.

      The user interface isn't terribly consistant or easy to navigate, although it may be curses fault as much as FreeBSD's. It's also a major fuckaround if it fails someplace -- there's no recovering, despite the fact that the installer sticks around.

      Personally I think it needs major rework to improve the UI. I'd like to see fewer seperate screens and more expandable hierarchical menus. They do seem to be kind of stuck on the two-floppy size limitation, which I'm not sure makes much sense anymore outside of die-hards that insist on doing floppy-started network installations.

      I'd also like to see it capable of doing installations for network booted systems. This might seems contradictory, but think of an installer you run on the master system that lets you fill in the blanks and generate an image for bootable floppy or .iso that would then be net bootable, or on the net-booted system itself if the HDD was to be the boot source.

      While it's been a usable install screen, it could use some UI and functionality help, all of which would require ditching the 2.88MB barrier.

    9. Re:Graphical? by evilquaker · · Score: 2, Insightful
      yoshi_mon: Who ever said we needed a graphical installer? There is absolutly nothing wrong with a good text installer. And for installing small footprint it's always best.

      Kjella: Average consumers

      "Average consumers" don't install operating systems. They get an OS pre-installed and never change (or probably even update) it.

      --
      To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
    10. Re:Graphical? by peter_gzowski · · Score: 2, Informative

      WinXP still has the curses-like insterface as well. I get this all the time from friends I'm trying to convert, "why doesn't Linux have a nice installer like Windows XP?" I tell them that the Windows XP SETUP is not the Windows XP INSTALLER.

      --
      "Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
    11. Re:Graphical? by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For instance, no one should be allowed to drive a car unless they can also tear down and rebuild an engine.

      So close, yet so, so far away.

      No one should be allowed to drive a car unless they can demonstrate their ability to properly handle it when a tire blows out. They shouldn't be allowed to drive in the snow or rain unless they've demonstrated how to handle it during a skid. They don't need to know how to build an engine, but they do need to know how to check the oil, radiator, battery, etc.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    12. Re:Graphical? by Bob9113 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is absolutly nothing wrong with a good text installer.

      Sorry to get in on this one late. You are absolutely correct, and just a hair short of the mark. A good command line interface (CLI) installer is better than a good gui installer. You can run a CLI installer on a VGA card, but have you ever tried to run a gui installer without a grahics card? If (and this may be a big if) the CLI and the GUI have all the same features (sensible help, wizards, etc), the only upside of GUI is the prettiness.

      A GUI means there is more code to potentially get wrong, and it's less user-friendly for advanced use. Many things have to be text entered for a full install (EG: static network settings) - requiring the user to switch from analog data entry (mouse) to binary data entry (keyclicks) is a hinderance both in terms of moving your right hand and in terms of mental context switching.

      There is far too much GUI in the world. This is a matter of consciousness raising - stop blindly nodding when technots imply GUI is inherently better. The invention of the GUI should no more be the death of the CLI than television was the death of radio (which is to say, CLI may take a back seat, but still has an important role).

      The litmus test of this is code editors. The two most effective code editors are Vi* and Emacs. I switched to Emacs from a GUI editor in 2000. I've since made extensive use of IntelliJ and Eclipse. Emacs is still better - it doesn't sacrifice keyboarding and screen real estate to satisfy an analog input device, which has absolutely no place in code development.

      Even the technotards at Microsoft have finally figured this out and have begun rebuilding DOS.

    13. Re:Graphical? by ifwm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "you really should not be installing an OS unless you know what you're doing"

      It's exactly this type of thinking that keeps Linux off the desktop

    14. Re:Graphical? by qtp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Average consumers.

      "Average consumers" could care less if the install is "graphical" (I'll assume you mean "X11-based"), what "average consumers" want is an install that does everything itself without asking them very many questions, and I've yet to find one (including on Windows) that doesn't ask at least one question that your "average consumer" is unable to answer correctly the first time.

      What would be nice addition to the Debian installer is an ai that can look at your disk resources, ask if you want to keep your previous OS for double booting, and then partition according to some reasonable assumptions based on the resources available.

      just about everyone except those installing a headless server would prefer to use the GUI

      Again, you are assuming too much of the users, most every one designing installers is making this assumption, but the truth is that most everyone would prefer to not interact with the computer at all until it is time to decide what applications they want installed. Building a cli installer that can accept an "assume_yes" option to get you through most of the initial install is a hell of a lot closer to this than "Click here to continue".

      --
      Read, L
  3. Silent switch to Dvorak? by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why does it silently switch to Dvorak when you select diff languages?

    "If you select "English (USA)" you'll be safe, but be warned that if you choose "English (Australia)" or "English (United Kingdom)" your keyboard will switch to the Dvorak layout! Not quite what most people expect."

    1. Re:Silent switch to Dvorak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I just installed Debian Woody and so far it's jiasm hfnns wjeucvn xmswjh wpcmsn oewmdn ekncow!

    2. Re:Silent switch to Dvorak? by Miles · · Score: 3, Funny

      On a qwerty keyboard, that's:
      cga;m jyll; ,cdfi.l bm;,cj ,rim;l sd,mhl dvlis,!

      I'm don't think that means what you thought it meant.

  4. A good graphical installer... by ca1v1n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A good installer for a vanilla desktop user would take advantage of all the hardware on their system. It should detect your sound card, and then play a sound that says "hey, we found your sound card!" and it should let you use your USB mouse, show all this stuff on your display in such a fashion that acknowledges the existence of the video card, etc.

    Basically, it should be more like Knoppix.

    Now, I wouldn't want to lock the user, who may not be a vanilla desktop user and may not even have a mouse or video card on the machine, into this setup, but it sure would be nice to have the option, wouldn't it?

    Knoppix is wonderful and all, but it leaves behind some artifacts of the live CD setup that can make package upgrades (which users ought to be able to do graphically, and with little pain) very painful. If we could get stuff like this in the base Debian distribution, we'd be a lot closer to Debian being sufficiently user-friendly that we could hand a disc to grandma without fear.

    *prepares for the "get redhat" flames*

    1. Re:A good graphical installer... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > *prepares for the "get redhat" flames*

      Try "RTFA". They state that the installer needs to work for every type of screen output from a GeForceFX to a serial cable. Being that the serial cable is the lowest common denominator that they had to support, they designed the installer as a simple text mode interface.

    2. Re:A good graphical installer... by treke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really arbitrary, it's about starting with work that benefits the most people. Since Debian supports machines without hardware capable of running a graphical installer they are starting by writing a text mode installer. Once the basics of a full installer are in place they can start working on frontends like a "kickstart" or gui installer.

      Just a matter of trying to use the available resources the best they can.

    3. Re:A good graphical installer... by niko9 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The other day I found an old pic of me tearing the wrapping off Mandrake 7.2, which was a refreshing change...

      You take pictures of yourself unwraping the latest Linux distro? My GOD man, you are a ture Geek! /chants/ We're not worthy, we're not worthy.....

  5. It's about time by Fux+the+Penguin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally, I've never had good luck with Debian. I know lots of people love it, and bully for them, but I have never been able to get a Debian system up and running to my satisfaction. I believed this was a personal failure until I succeeded two times with Gentoo, which is to Debian as Alaska is to Montana, in terms of frontier cred. Anyway, I agree that things that are dumb about the Debian installer could be improved, but I'm still a little worried that an installer my mama could run isn't right around the corner...

    As everyone knows, Debian is maintained by an organization of volunteers. When people working on the distribution support users, it takes away from the time that they could be spending to improve the distribution. Therefore, it makes sense for them to not make Debian open for anybody to install. If someone can't make it through an installer that requires some attention and knowledge on the part of the user, then they should probably be using a commercial distribution that offers support for money or whatever. That's one of the things I like best about Gentoo's root shell installer. It immediately gets rid of people that are intimidated by that sort of thing, and prevents them from sucking up tons of attention on mailing lists or forums. The difficulty of the installer should be like those little signs in front of rides at amusement parks: "You must be this tall to ride."

    The target audience of Debian doesn't need a graphical installer, so there's really no reason to put one in. If you want the easy graphical installer, perhaps you should ask yourself why you chose Debian in the first place. Besides, with distributions like Debian and Gentoo, using the installer is more likely than not a one time thing, because you can upgrade the version of your operating system without bothering with the installer. I'm all for installer improvements that save time for the core users of a distribution, but revising the installer to open the distribution to a new class of users should not be entered into lightly

  6. Installer with My Hardware? by idonotexist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I prefer to go through the difficult installation process Debian is known for - I know what hardware I have and can update drivers in the kernel if necessary, manually. So has does an installer perform? How about detecting a p4p800 deluxe motherboard with a 3com 3C940 nic? Unfortunately not. The disadvantage with installer is that users generally become lazy because of the very nature of an installer. It's purpose is to automatically detect a user's hardware - if it does not, then a user will likely give up and not naturally, say, update a drive in the kernel.

    --
    "There ought to be limits to freedom"
    1. Re:Installer with My Hardware? by Spoing · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I prefer to go through the difficult installation process Debian is known for - I know what hardware I have and can update drivers in the kernel if necessary, manually. ... The disadvantage with installer is that users generally become lazy because of the very nature of an installer.

      Lazy, hell. You don't really believe this, do you?

      I don't go to every machine I manage, I use shell scripts. When the machine boots, init configures the system. Hardware configuration is part of the entire scheme. If it fails, the user (not an admin) should then get someone else to fix it as it's not thier job to know how. If the hardware configuration software is worth it, there should be few situations where it does indeed fail. Kudzu (Red Hat's) is damn good. If the Debian folks want to reinvent the wheel, they can.

      Getting the proper modules loaded automatically is exactly the kind of task that software does well. Looking up hardware details and slogging through kernel notes is an entirely automatable process...and automation is why we have computers in the first place.

      I used to fiddle around with modules every time I upgraded the kernel -- either from source or from a new distribution. Kudzu (also used in Knoppix BTW) does an amazing job of auto configuration...so why not use it or something like it?

      1. Would you use a boot CD like Knoppix if you had to configure the modules and other drivers each time you went to a new machine? It would take the joy out of it, making you do the work a computer is entirely capable of doing.

      It doesn't make you any less special that the system figures out something that you also can figure out. Yes, experts should know how the system works. Tinker with modules.conf if you like. I personally would like to fiddle with other things beyond the base hardware configuration since I already know how it works.

      That said, if you're a professional let me put in a plug for InstallBase. This is a TK-based, cross-platform installation program; Solaris, Windows, and Linux. It provides a good balence between simple and detailed configuration, as well as a silent mode. Currently, I'm using it to bring sanity and automation to a mismanaged network.

      Here's something you likely agree with. The network management document I'm writing says -- up front -- installation is not running an install program. I'm a strong believer that If you don't know what the answer should be, using a computer to tell you is an act of trust in something that has proven itself untrustworthy; it is foolish.

      InstallBase (the tool) is used becuase it meets the goal of automation, though to use it or any other tool properly you have to know exactly what it is you want it to do. That takes concerned effort. The result eliminates needless work and inconsistant human mistakes that happen when each machine is managed a little differently. (If done wrong, you get consistant mistakes...so, there you go!)

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    2. Re:Installer with My Hardware? by Microlith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So in otherwords you like bending yourself over backwards to do tasks that could easily be automated.

      Keep in mind, this is for the initial installation. Most people like the system to be up and running after an install, not partially functioning with a pile of kernel modules that need to be downloaded and compiled (like I was last time I tried Debian.)

      The USER wants to use their system. They shouldn't have to manually configure every little bit of the OS just to get it useable. No other OS forces this (not Wwindows, not other distributions of Linux.) That's generally because doing so is like saying "we don't want anyone but the elite using this" which is a problem Debian faces.

      I gave up on Debian because Debian's installer gave up on me before my system was up and running.

      I'm still on windows though. Linux has other problems that need solutions before I move over (and I really wanna ditch XP.)

    3. Re:Installer with My Hardware? by mpol · · Score: 2, Funny

      The disadvantage with installer is that users generally become lazy because of the very nature of an installer. It's purpose is to automatically detect a user's hardware -[...]

      Yeah, automation sucks. Don't ever use a computer for that, they are not designed for it. It will just make you lazy.

      --

      Well, don't worry about that. We can get you back before you leave. (Dr. Who)
  7. Reinventing the wheel.. by spectrokid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't want to be a troll, but I thought the whole idea about open source is you can copy from each other and not reinvent the wheel. If Mandrake has a really good hardware detection, then why are these dudes writing something from scratch?

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    1. Re:Reinventing the wheel.. by Knuckles · · Score: 2, Informative

      b/c Mandrake runs only on i386 while Debian supports 11 architectures? Which has always been the only reason for the state of the Debian installer anyway

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  8. Logical progression? by FreeLinux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't really see the logic. Linux in general used to get beat up severly because of installation difficulties. Over the years many distros heard these complaints and addressed them by developing better and better installers. Today, there are numerous distros available that have such excellent installers that installation is a moot topic, except for Debian, Slack and Gentoo.

    Most, if not all, of these better installers are open source GPLed programs. It seems to me that "logical progression" would be Debian taking one or many of these better installers and adapting them to Debian. Instead they choose to reinvent the wheel and have produced a crude installer whose interface was passe years ago. Where is the logic?

    1. Re:Logical progression? by DavidNWelton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good theory, but the article explains why it doesn't work in practice: Debian has to be installable on 11 different architectures, and they have gone for a lowest common denominator approach (instead of, say, having a different, graphical install for x86 and maybe ppc).

      I agree with other comments. I can do without the graphics, but it's nice to whip through hardware detection without opening another console and digging through /proc.

    2. Re:Logical progression? by dmaxwell · · Score: 5, Informative

      Debian's installer has to work across at least 11 different arches. It has to be endian clean and work equally well on 32 and 64 bit architectures. It must also be able to cope with http, ftp, and cdrom installs. Last but not least, there is the multitude of Debian packages and the categories they come in.

      It was probably easier to write something from scratch than adapt say RedHat's installer to meet those requirements. It also doesn't sound as crude as your making it out to be. This installer has hardware detection and automatic module configuration. A pretty front-end can be wrapped around it and the article says that experimental gtk installers based on it already exist. A multi-arch installer is Not Easy.

    3. Re:Logical progression? by the+uNF+cola · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Installation difficulties != graphical installer. Installation difficulties are due to a bad user interface.

      OpenBSD has a great installer for the tecnically inclined, while dselect is just plain annoying. You have so many keys to remember just to select stuff, and the screen's view keeps changing.

      Redhat's text mode interface is quite nice, 'cept it doesn't provide all the right questions or choices all the time. If i select something and its dependencies aren't met, it should ask me right away, "Do I want to add this or forget about my selection." I shouldn't have to think, I selected some packages before, and these are the missing dependencies over all of them, now I can go back and guess which ones i fooked up on.

      The autodetect and what not is important too, getting rid of stupid questions like, "do you have a 3 button mouse." If there was a way it could figure it out, do it damnit. And this project at LEAST strives for the autodetection. Hopefully, it'd streamline the package selection process and what not.

      --

      --
      "I'm not bright. Big words confuse me. But Wanda loves me and that should be enough for you." - Cosmo

  9. I tried it... by perotbot · · Score: 3, Informative

    it works, if you stick with woody, it's pretty much a "hit enter" proposition. It's not as good as libranet or knoppix/gnoppix/morphix. But given the "Debian Mindset" it is a step forward.

    --
    ~corporate tool, but employed~
  10. Mirrored... poor poor dead server... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    First Look: Next-Generation Debian Installer

    The Debian installer has been considered its Achilles heel for a long time, but in the last couple of months things have really been heating up in Debian-installer-land. Ian Murdock recently announced to the Debian project that Progeny, the Debian-based distro that created the Progeny Graphical Installer, was dropping PGI in favour of porting Red Hat's Anaconda installer to Debian. But things haven't been sitting still within Debian itself either, with frantic work over the last couple of months to get the next-generation Debian Installer to the point where Sarge (Debian 3.1) can be released.

    A Debian-Installer Debcamp in Germany in September saw many of the core developers get together for several days of intensive coding, with the result that Beta 1 of the new installer is now ready for the world to come and gawk, and poke, and kick the tyres, and even take it for a spin around the block. It's still changing on a daily basis but the developers want as many people as possible to give it a whirl and report back any problems they have.

    So, for your edutainment and complete with pretty pictures, I present to you this first look at the next-generation Debian Installer.
    Installer Rationale

    To understand some of the design decisions that have been made with respect to the installer and why it's taken so long to get to this point, it's important to know a little about the Debian project itself. For many people this section will be rehashing old ground so if you just want to get to the guts of it skip ahead now to the next section, "Getting The Installer".

    The long and the short of it is that Debian is committed to supporting multiple processor architectures. It's famous for being the most broadly deployable Linux distro (and possibly operating system) in existence, running on at least 11 distinct architectures. Nobody has more expertise in porting software to different platforms than the Debian project.

    While that causes some problems when distributing normal user-space software, they're difficulties that can be worked around: for example, a package written in C needs to compile on all 11 architectures, but not all architectures use the same C libraries. No problem, Debian's server farm just autobuilds the package with different libraries for each platform.

    When it comes to an installer, though, things are different. An installer needs to be bootable on all platforms, but different platforms boot in totally different ways. x86 systems start up and look for local disks in a certain way, Power Macintosh systems do it another way, and S/390 is different again. Then consider that the job of an installer is to figure out what local hardware you have available and setting up the system in a way that will work on that hardware. How does it detect the hardware? Will a detection system that works on one architecture fail horribly on another?

    Probably.

    But it gets worse: think about what happens when you first launch an installer. It boots up and displays some stuff on screen, right? But some machines use an AGP or PCI graphics subsystem, while others may not have a graphics subsystem at all, only a serial interface with a character-based console. What should the installer do if it starts up and finds the host system doesn't even have a graphics card installed?

    The more you think about questions like that, the more it'll bake your noodle when you consider the task faced by the Debian Installer team.

    In essence, they are trying to make a universal installer that will run on any architecture with any hardware detection method and any display system.

    So people may bitch and moan about how it's taken so long for Debian to produce a "pretty" installer while other distros have had one for years, or they may say that Debian should just adopt a third-party installer like PGI or Anaconda, but that doesn't really take the big picture into account. Debian's mantra is to be the Universal Operating System, a

  11. Re:someday by njdj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For your information, it's a great deal easier to add a gui to an installer than it is to get the underlying functionality of the installer right. Debian is certainly not short of people who can program GUIs.

    Somebody at Debian has probably thought about whether a GUI would really add value to an installer. He/she presumably came to the conclusion that it adds little or none. He/she is probably right.

  12. Re:hardware autodetection... by GrenDel+Fuego · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean, once you install a "server" operating system using a generic kernel, then go and recompile the kernel to include support for whatever hardware you have in your server.

    What exactly is the purpose of hardware detection in this case? You won't be using X11, USB, or any of that stuff that needs to be "detected" on a server, and by installing Linux in the first place you accept the responsibility that you know what you are doing.


    Not everyone uses linux for just servers. And even on servers, installing custom kernels doesn't scale well if you support a large number of machines of different types.

    I love autodetection. I spent a lot of time setup Redhat kickstart installations that ended up being supported on a variety of hardware. Should a machine require manual work just because this particular machine included an intel NIC instead of a 3com?

    I know what I'm doing. I can compile a custom kernel, but it might not be the best use of my time.

  13. What Debian needs by Espectr0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    -Fork for architectures: i know lots of people don't like to wait for upgraded packages because they break on different architectures. This is what's happenning with xfree 4.3 not being available. If there were a debian-x86 fork, it would use optimization and wouldn't be behind other distros in package versions.

    -Dselect needs to be sent to /dev/null. The debian installer was never the problem. It isn't harder than slackware, but dselect really, really sucks.

    -Loose the restrictions a little bit: why mplayer is missing and xine not? Mplayer has been 100% gpl since 0.9 and it was rejected from getting a package because of ffmpeg, which xine also has.

    -More customization: the USE variable of Gentoo is really powerful, and it would be great when apt getting source packages. I want package X, and it wants me to install package Y that is optional and i dont want.

    -Updated versions! Slackware is current, and it's stable.

    -Re-do the stable, testing and unstable package list: they should only contain base, critical packages. So i want to run the latest kde with my stable setup? Is kde 2.2 more stable than 3.1? The security bugs fixed between them say no (yeah, i know they backport, but those packages never get the same QA) User-level desktop apps which aren't critical shouldn't be restricted in the same stable, testing and unstable trees, or at least they could mix and match.

    And lot of other things i can't remember...

    1. Re:What Debian needs by Varitek · · Score: 5, Informative
      Fork for architectures: i know lots of people don't like to wait for upgraded packages because they break on different architectures. This is what's happenning with xfree 4.3 not being available. If there were a debian-x86 fork, it would use optimization and wouldn't be behind other distros in package versions.

      Well, first of all, XFree 4.3 is available. I've been using it on Debian for ages - you just neet to add a Debian Experimental line to your sources.list Secondly, getting software to work on many architectures usually involves fixing bugs and poor assumptions. The many architectures of Debian helps QA, rather than hinder it, even if it does take longer. As far as dselect goes, I've been running Debian for 3 years now, and I used dselect exactly once - my first install. You're not forced to use it in any way.
      do the stable, testing and unstable package list: they should only contain base, critical packages. So i want to run the latest kde with my stable setup? Is kde 2.2 more stable than 3.1?

      Stable doesn't just mean it doesn't crash. It means it doesn't *change*. That's the point of the stable install. You know that installing the security packages won't introduce some behaviour that you weren't expecting, which a lot of people think is damned important.
      Updated versions! Slackware is current, and it's stable.

      New versions of software are by definition unstable. Things change, configs become out of date, new libraries are needed. If you don't mind those things, use Debian Unstable. Its packages are not only up-to-date, but they're also damned good quality.
  14. Win2k/XP move rather quickly to a GUI by Kjella · · Score: 2, Informative

    Now, I haven't clikced through it in a couple months, but I hardly remember setting more than *where* it was going in the text-mode UI. All the actual configuration (localization, components, network settings, additional drivers etc. are set from a GUI after first reboot. (Unless you need them to load a 3rd party driver to for SCSI or RAID).

    Anyway, on the Linux side I can only compare it to the RedHat installer, which I think was quite nice. Since the article is slashdotted, I don't know more about Debian's than what is in the summary....

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  15. Not just for newbies... by jdreed1024 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    While still not a graphical installer (and the article does a good job of explaining why that's not a priority) the installer now autodetects hardware, streamlining module selection, which was previously one of the more confusing parts of the install for newbies.

    While seleting modules by hand may not be confusing for non-newbies, it's still annoying. Sure, I know exactly which modules I need, and I could select them all by hand, but I shouldn't have to. One of the great things about RedHat's installer (I know, I know, RedHat is dead) is the kickstart option. I can put in a disk, kickstart a net install, take the disk out, and move on. And barring any unusual hardware, I'll come back to a fully installed system. This is great for bulk-installing machines.

    I'm glad to see Debian has moved closer to this goal by doing module auto-detection.

    --
    There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
  16. Linux has it, Debian is just a little behind... by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 3, Informative

    The right thing to do is what Windows has always done: make it easy to change.

    XFree 4.3 has an extension called randr that allows changing resolution and vertical refresh on the fly, and the latest versions of both Gnome and KDE now include control panel applets for setting resolution and refresh rate. How long it will take for that to trickle down into Debian stable is anyone's guess, but the Linux community at large is already there.

    --
    0 1 - just my two bits
  17. Re:I'm speechless. by a+whoabot · · Score: 3, Informative
  18. This is a new installer! ALERT! by Spl0it · · Score: 2

    Everyone on here is bitching away how the Debian 'installer' sucks. I think what you mean is their old installer sucked ass. How can you call this one shity, when it has everything but pretty pictures? Text is nice, and I for one don't need a picture for everything while I install a system. How can you say its only up to 'redhat 7' when it has everything redhat9.2 has and more. Realize that this is a new installer, this story is not called 'Lets bitch about the 'installer' and assume it still sucks like the old one'. This is not a flaimbait.... I just want people to know that debian did what was needed. A new installer, and look a new installer is what they've come up with. Understand something before you make statements about it. The installer 'is up to redhat7.0 standards'. Lets avoid ignorant statements, and obviously flaimbaits. This is not a flaimbait, its just my discust of having all these mod 3+ posts that talk about it sucking etc etc.. I think we all know the old one sucked, becaise it was extremely old, broken and missing important features.

    --

    No, this is
  19. Re:not yet graphical? by Arker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are a number of good reasons not to do the install in Graphics mode. It's not necessary. It would introduce unecessary complexity in a crucial operation (installation) that doesn't require such complexity - that alone is good reason to veto the idea. Setting up the video properly is one of the most difficult things to do, and when you have a graphics mode installer a failure in setting that up properly on auto becomes a fatal error rather than a minor inconvenience. Plus a lot of Linux installations don't use graphics mode anyway - why go to the windows way of requiring a graphics card on machines that should be running headless and accessed via telnet and/or console cables only? Plenty of people use linux on machines that don't have a graphics system of any kind, and that's fine, in many cases it's a good thing. Why make an installer that won't work on a sizable portion of the machines that will run the software you're installing? How much sense does that make?

    If it ain't broke don't fix it is an axiom for a reason - and making a graphic mode installer would be a great example of fixing something that isn't broke. The Debian installer could certainly be improved though, and from the article it seems they've made excellent choices in deciding what needs to be improved - and what isn't broken and shouldn't be fixed.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  20. Hard Disk Partitioning / LILO Install by AELinuxGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    For me anyway, the most difficult part of setting up Debian has been the uncertainty in the disk partitioning / Lilo setup. Unfortunately, these screenshots do not show much of a change in that area. As the author suggests, some sort of "automatic partitioning" like Anaconda does would be a nice addition.

    On another front, is there any reason why the installer cannot let you choose in between GRUB and LILO like Anaconda does?

  21. Knoppix by PurpleBob · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The easiest Debian installer is Knoppix.

    You boot from a Knoppix CD, and all you have to do is install a base system and apt to your hard disk, and you've got a Debian system that's already configured.

    They should acknowledge this fact and officially support Knoppix as an install method for desktop users. Then they can still focus their installer on people who want to install Debian on an Alpha over their serial line.

    --
    Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
  22. Re:NetBSD rules them all! by repetty · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Just use NetBSD, all you need is two floppy disks to install it from network."

    Which begs the question... what is a floppy disk?

    --Richard

  23. Debian already has a great graphical installer... by adrianbaugh · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's called "a KNOPPIX CD". Fire it up, type "su knoppix-install", choose "debian system", and sit back and enjoy. The only enhancement they probably ought to make is to have a prominent menu-item for this feature.

    --
    "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
    - JRR Tolkien.
  24. Re:Sure they are... by SquadBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

    You must be doing something wrong. My epro 10/100 works just by loading the module during the install and the CD writer "just works". /me wonders what is wrong with you?

    --

    Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
  25. Re:Sure they are... by goat_attack · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If you're working with a personal workstation, it's usualy worthwhile to use testing or unstable instead of stable. Change the references to stable in your /etc/apt/sources.list to testing. In practice, they're more than stable enough. Just don't try to do apg-get upgrade or dist-upgrade, you might break dependencies. Only apt-get the stuff you need up to date. I've never had problems with debian detecting my eepro100 though.

    I haven't seen any distro that does CD burning very easily though, so the problem isn't localized to debian by any means.

  26. Want a Debian installer w/hardware detection? by pegr · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's called Knoppix...