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.

19 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. 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 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
    3. 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."

    4. 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.

  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!

  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 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. 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

  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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
  10. Want a Debian installer w/hardware detection? by pegr · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's called Knoppix...