Slashdot Mirror


New Debian Installer Coming Soon

gnuman99 writes "Debian just released the 4th beta of the new debian-installer, this time for 9 architectures. Some of the improvements include experimental support for the 2.6 kernel, on i386 only. The 2.4 kernel remains the default and recommended kernel for most hardware. Detection of existing operating systems. The following operating systems can be detected and will be added to the boot menu of the installed system: Windows, Mac OS, Linux, GNU Hurd, DOS. Note that by experimental support for 2.6.x kernel simply means that it is experimental in the installer, NOT the actual OS. Debian supported 2.6.x in the Sarge/Sid before 2.6.x was even officially released."

74 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. The debian installer is now pretty damn good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The biggest complaint leveled at debian is how hard it is to install. Having recently installed sarge on both my laptop and desktop I feel qualified to say that the installer is at least on par with any of the commercial distros. Don't sweat the fact that it's still text based - It's still very easy to use. And it works on 9 architectures.

    1. Re:The debian installer is now pretty damn good by MrWim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure It's easy to install now but that's only the the beginning of setting up a good linux system, suc as getting GNOME/KDE to your liking and optimising the X server etc. This is debian's disadvantage when it comes to the linux desktop, it tries to be everything to everyone (and this shouldn't change), but the dedicated desktop disros have a clear advantage in this area as they know what they are going to be used for.

    2. Re:The debian installer is now pretty damn good by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 3, Funny

      I put it to use recently as well and also give it props. It's still text based but more streamlined. If you just want to get to a boot off the disk and a login prompt you don't have to waste a lot of time. IIRC, the design allows for graphical front ends too for those who prefer them, but why miss out on that ncurses TAB TAB ENTER speed and rhythmn? It's just like playing Defender...

    3. Re:The debian installer is now pretty damn good by defective_warthog · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, It's an improvement. But, it didn't setup GRUB correctly on my laptop, I had to manually add the entries for my w2k partition. Also, first time through I used tasksel>Desktop Environment. This loaded KDE and Gnome both of which worked fine except NO terminal would give me a prompt. Xterm, gnome-terminal, kterm, aterm, wterm, rxvt, etc would open and display a flashing cursor. I was not able to enter any commands from any terminal while running X. Third time around I used expert mode, just installed the base system and then used old faithful apt-get to load what I wanted. Still can't get Xfce4 to show up in the gdm session menu.

    4. Re:The debian installer is now pretty damn good by Liselle · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, this is rich. Here I am, trying to get Debian installed on an old P3-800 machine. I'm about to strangle the installer with my bare hands, so I decide to take a break and see what's on /. this morning. +5 Informative for the article! Since this is a throwaway machine, I will be a guinea pig for them. My day is not entirely shot after all. ;)

      --
      Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
    5. Re:The debian installer is now pretty damn good by GuyWithLag · · Score: 2, Informative

      Funnily, I had this same problem when I recompiled 2.6 without legacy tty support....

    6. Re:The debian installer is now pretty damn good by wilper · · Score: 5, Informative

      I installed sarge from cdrom the day before yesterday, and there are still a few usability issues to sort out. I ran in circles for five minutes trying to partition the HD, imo the old installer is way easier to use (although not as powerful).

      And after the reboot the setup got stuck in an infinite loop when the dhcp failed to provide a good default route (small thing really, but still). An option to _not_ use dhcp would be nice or at least a confirmation that it is ok to use one if it is found.

    7. Re:The debian installer is now pretty damn good by Calmar · · Score: 2, Informative

      I recently reinstalled Debian on my workstation PC and had the same problem with Xfce4 not showing up in the gdm session menu. The problem seems to be that the Xfce4 package doesn't create a /etc/dm/Sessions/XFce4.desktop file. My (temporary) solution was to copy the default.desktop to XFce4.desktop and edit it manually to run the xfce4-session executable. I was quite impressed by the installer, it has come a long way since the last time I installed Debian (2002-ish). Still not perfect though, I had some problems with the LVM setup (although probably attributable to user stupidity :-) ).

    8. Re:The debian installer is now pretty damn good by defective_warthog · · Score: 3, Informative

      Use the expert mode, there's an option for static IP in that mode.

    9. Re:The debian installer is now pretty damn good by FattMattP · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My biggest complaint with the installer is that there's no back button. If you screw up choosing an option you have to reboot and start over from the beginning. Hopefully the new installer will fix that.

      --
      Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
    10. Re:The debian installer is now pretty damn good by robochan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So file a bug report/mailing-list post/suggestion/whatever. This is a friggen BETA for pete's sake. It's going to change, probably redically, before its final release.
      Whining on slashdot is unlikely to get you anywhere - mention it to the developers.

      --
      ...Rob
      The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
    11. Re:The debian installer is now pretty damn good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "How can I remember what was the size and filesystem of the /dev/hda8?"

      Because you wrote it down to a piece of paper (just the same for your hardware so you know which modules you have to load for your network card to be usable)?

      Usually it pays using simplest solutions to simplest problems.

    12. Re:The debian installer is now pretty damn good by pangloss · · Score: 2, Informative

      i don't remember the raid options, but i did install debian onto lvm partitions using beta3. as i recall, the interface for lvm setup could use some work, but i did get it to work in the end.

    13. Re:The debian installer is now pretty damn good by Slack3r78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because it's absolutely ridiculous to have to go to a data sheet to install a freakin display? I'm a huge Linux advocate, 3 of my 4 machines run Linux, I like the way the OS works in general. But needing to tell XFree86 low level monitor specs has always annoyed the hell out of me.

      I can generally blaze through the install of most Linux distros, but always end up burning 5-10 minutes looking up the blasted vertical refresh rate and other nonsense for my monitor. There's something wrong here.

    14. Re:The debian installer is now pretty damn good by back_pages · · Score: 3, Funny
      I found a back button on the Debian installer, that motherfucker.

      Fix Debian Installation Mistakes

  2. Re:Hmm.. by sinikal · · Score: 5, Funny

    have you tried "emerge debian-installer"? can't seem to get it to work on mine..

  3. Geez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What's wrong with:

    tar xvfz package
    cd package
    configure
    make
    make install
    ldconfig

    Are users getting lazy

    1. Re:Geez by mattjb0010 · · Score: 3, Funny

      What's wrong with:

      tar xvfz package
      cd package
      configure
      make
      make install
      ldconfig


      You forgot the "./" at the front of "./configure", because like any good Unix user you don't have "." in your path. Then it should work for you.

    2. Re:Geez by Amoeba · · Score: 4, Funny
      What's wrong with:

      tar xvfz package
      cd package
      configure
      make
      make install
      ldconfig

      You forgot the "./" at the front of "./configure", because like any good Unix user you don't have "." in your path. Then it should work for you.

      Then again, it appears he is running as root all the time. Must be a Windows convert.

      *blink*

      --
      Do not taunt Happy-Fun Ball
    3. Re:Geez by CdBee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Spoken language has been advanced for over ten thousand years because it is effective, efficient means of communicating precise information. The same cannot be said about a point and click interface."

      Firstly, spoken language is only relevant to communication between sentient entities. However when the communication is between a human and a computer, which is easier?

      1) Use a long series of commandline switches in a command prompt after navigating it to the location of the files
      2) Click on the file and tick the graphical boxes to get the kind of install you like

      Commandline switxhes you need to know, and you have to enter them with the right spaces and the right order. A graphical installer can show the available options spacially with details and descriptions, and help files on hand.

      Put quite simply, the graphical installer wins for time-saving and efficiency every time.

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    4. Re:Geez by mdpye · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not a troll, not even a Windows-only user, just someone who is fed up of zealots who want to keep us in the dark ages of blinking text prompts and teletype screens
      Ok then, try
      emerge --update world
      or
      apt-get upgrade
      There's nothing technically inferior about a command line. Perhaps you were a troll, or perhaps you are just misinformed.

      MP
    5. Re:Geez by CTachyon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I used that technique myself. For 3 years. I would install things into neat little /usr/pkg/<packagename> directories, then use a Perl script I wrote that installed the package to /usr using symlinks. However, you forgot some stuff...

      wget http://some.random.server/~foouser/some/inane/depe ndency.tar.gz
      wget http://another.random.server.in.cn/with/1k/downloa dspeed.tar.gz
      lynx http://www.google.com/search\?q=where+the+hell+is+ THAT+at\?
      http://somewhere.you.would.never.guess/ THAT.tar.Z
      tar vxzf dependency.tar.gz
      cd dependency-1.0.0
      ...
      uncompress -c THAT.tar.Z | tar vxf -
      ^C
      uncompress -c THAT.tar.Z | tar tf - | xargs rm -fv
      mkdir THAT
      cd THAT
      uncompress -c ../THAT.tar.Z | tar vxf -
      ls -l
      vim Makefile
      vim wrong-makefile-fragment.mak
      vim some/arcane/config/dir/fragment.mak
      vim README
      lynx obscure/path/to/documentation.html
      vim path/you/would/never/guess/unintuitive.h

      Once upon a time, my computer ran Slackware, but I can't say that with a straight face anymore. I don't even remember which version. Half my C++ programs don't work quite right anymore, inbetween the C++ compiler (dragged kicking and screaming from egcs-2.91) and the C library (I *think* glibc-2.0ish) getting upgraded to modern times. I won't even touch on multimedia dependencies.

      Needless to say, as soon as I get a test box to copy everything over to, the server is getting Debian and apt-get shoved up its disk.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
  4. Knoppix by hak1du · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, there is an excellent Debian installer out, and it's been out for a while. It's called Knoppix. You can test compatibility at the store by booting into it, get a live preview of everything, and install a complete system with a recent set of packages with one command. While it uses KDE by default, it's easy to switch to Gnome.

    1. Re:Knoppix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Knoppix, as with other installers such as Progeny's PGI and Redhat's Anaconda fail to meet Debian's strict standards. The installer must operate on all of Debian's supported architectures.

      If i386 with a CD drive is what you've got then Knoppix is for you. But don't ever think that it can be the installer for Debian. It just isn't up for the challenge.

    2. Re:Knoppix by djupdal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except it does not install a clean version of debian (stable, testing or unstable). I have seen someone doing a knoppix hd install only to get lots of package dependency problems because (I think) some important packages are not standard debian packages. Better use some time on the real debian installer.

    3. Re:Knoppix by anarxia · · Score: 4, Informative
      The problem with Knoppix is that it doesnt fit the "Universal Operating System" style of Debian.

      I installed Debian (with the beta3 installer) on a box for file serving/backup. Very few packages (5 or 6) in the default install were unnecessary and I only needed to: apt-get nfs-kernel server.

      With Knoppix it would take me a lot of time just to uninstall packages I wouldn't use. Knoppix is great for desktops but it's not the best for everyone.

    4. Re:Knoppix by cortana · · Score: 3, Informative

      But since it's Debian, you can just apt-get remove whatever you don't like. Or run aptitude, and interactively pick packages to remove.

    5. Re:Knoppix by luwain · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I used Knoppix to install Debian and it was so easy compared to the installation of ANY operating system that it makes up for any drawbacks installing this way may have. First of all, you can run Knoppix first, and know that all of your hardware works, your internet works, and the applications work before installing. So you know exactly what you're going to get when you do install. The install takes less than 20 minutes!

      I haven't experienced many package dependency problems, but even if I had, the strength of Debian is it's package managing system, so it's rather easy to resolve dependencies.

      Also, after installing Knoppix, I can just use my Debian CDs to install any of the 8710 packages that I want.

      Debian is now one of my favorite distros. I would have never bothered with it (why suffer through an excruciating install, when there are solid distros that are easy to install) if I couldn't get up and running so easily.

      I've converted more people to Linux using Knoppix, than with any other distro. And usually, after they've been hooked using the live CD, they do the hard disk install and they end up upgrading to the latest version of Debian, or continue using Knoppix the way it is.

      There's probably a live CD distro out by now that does install a "clean" install of Debian. It probably is trivial to create one. Also,the biggest problem I usually have when installing a new OS is hardware detection. Knoppix probably has the best hardware detection of any distro, and certainly does a better job of it than the Debian installers.

    6. Re:Knoppix by Telex4 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Knoppix is great, until you start updating packages. It's not a normal clean Debian install, so you get all kinds of crazy dependency hell, with packages suddenly becoming horribly broken.

      Add to that the time you have to spend after transferring Knoppix to disc cleaning it up, removing unwanted packages, installing needed packages, fixing configuration problems (especially, in my experience, with languages and gettext in the command line), and it's not worth it, given that it only takes an hour or so of time actually sitting at the keyboard to get a fully functional Debian system.

      About 3 months after I did a Knoppix install on my parents' machine, I had to wipe it and do a from-scratch Debian install, because an apt-get update destroyed the init system.

    7. Re:Knoppix by drfreak · · Score: 2, Informative

      It may have been that way at one time, but Knoppix is perfectly installable as Debian. If you use a package manager such as dselect or synaptic to perform a package upgrade after install, it will resolve the sysvinit problem and remove the Knoppix-specific version.

  5. great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    it's good to see my state of the art hardware will be detected along with my DOS and hurd installations... now if only we can get nvidia to release drivers for DOS and the hurd, my audigy and RAID setup... those old DOS games without the speed limiters will trully fly on a 3gighz pentium... they'll have to put epilepsy warnings on them though...

    On a side note, can anyone tell me why debian is still i386 compiled rather than i586? I heard one argument saying that although it was i386 they were optimized internally for the higher processors. Not trolling deb, just interested. Can any gurus give us a definitive answer?

    1. Re:great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, I'd like to see an i686 compiled version.

      Most of the recent binary distros are i686 compiled. Not a huge speed difference but it does appear to make the system a little more snappy.

      (currently running the i386 Debian)

    2. Re:great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's probably compiled with -march=i386 -mcpu=i686.
      This means you could still run it on 386, but it's optimized for PII, K6 and PIII.

    3. Re:great! by Amoeba · · Score: 3, Funny
      On a side note, can anyone tell me why debian is still i386 compiled rather than i586? I heard one argument saying that although it was i386 they were optimized internally for the higher processors. Not trolling deb, just interested. Can any gurus give us a definitive answer?

      Because it's not only the software packages that are 2 years behind in the stable release, it's the hardware too!

      (This was meant to be funny ha-ha... but dammit it might even be true. *sigh* If I could come up with a funny pun about "definitive answer" and the number differences I'd be rolling in karma. Some days I don't know why I even bother to ever post.)

      --
      Do not taunt Happy-Fun Ball
    4. Re:great! by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm not a guru, but I am pretty sure that i586 optimized code runs slower (or even poorly) on anything that isn't a 586. The whole foo-i586.rpm thing was a kind of marketing gimmick of Mandrake's back when they were packaging pgc and the K6-3 was considered a fast processor. The notion of "optimizing" builds like that has been brought up on the Debian mailing lists before but dismissed as being not worth the effort. After all, Debian has a huge amount of software to keep in the repository. If one starts subdividing x86 where does one stop? Should one offer libpng3 compiled for i386, i486, i586, i686, K7, and P4? Pragmatically, it isn't worth it. They might not even package 64-bit binaries for quite some time.

      The biggest optimizations to be had are already packaged in the kernels to begin with, though there's probably something to be said for tuning up glibc too (IIRC Redhat does this).

    5. Re:great! by Daniel · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is discussion from time to time about optimizing for a more recent version of the x86 processors. So far no-one has presented convincing (ie, non-anecdotal; not subject to placebo effects) evidence that this actually makes things significantly faster for most packages. In addition, the more optimizations you do for one particular CPU variant, the more likelihood that you actually make things slower on others. For instance, targetting i586 is a terrible idea (according to common wisdom, anyway) because it actually decreases the performance of code on more recent x86 processors.

      Some packages that do see significant benefit (for instance, OpenSSL, libc, the kernel) are already compiled for all x86 variants.

      Daniel

      --
      Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
  6. The biggest problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    with Debian is that the people who use it are way too nice. Brrr, that kind of thing just gives me the creeps.

    1. Re:The biggest problem by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't meet me then. I use it and I tend to be more "drunken asshole" than nice.

  7. 9 Architectures, 9 Binaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Yes, the Debian installer working on nine different architectures is interesting, but it has a glaring flaw: It requires nine separate binaries, one for each architecture. That means making a big pile of bootable CDs to install on various platforms. Boo!

    Although it is admittedly difficult, it is in fact possible to write a single piece of bootstrapping machine code that properly runs on ALL of those architectures, without faulting, that jumps to a separate section of the executable code based on the architecture it detects. (This is similar to the old eicar file which was both a text file and an x86 executable, only this is all of a PowerPC, Alpha, x86, 68xxx, etc., executable.)

    This means that a SINGLE binary installer can work on ALL nine architectures; a tremendous improvement. Yes, Debian has taken a step in the right direction with their nine platforms, but they need to work on getting the binary compatibility nailed down.

    1. Re:9 Architectures, 9 Binaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While it is technically impressive and desirable to get things to work on as many architectures as possible. I don't think it is too much of a compromise of morals to offer different isos with better installers rather than a sub-par one across all.

      I have seen some screen shots of the new installer and it will go a long way towards debian adoption in my mind. As cool as gentoo is, it is just not practical for anyone but an enthusiast (of the performance or gnu type) - a community based all-GPL distro needs to be there with reasonable ease of use, just incase the community gets hijacked by corps and a load of binary drivers.

      no this is not a troll (re: gentoo vs debian), but there are different reasons for each to exist and it's best if they BOTH exist for their various niches. I am just saying, debian can forfill it's niche BETTER if it prizes easy of use a little more, whilst still staying true to it's foundations.

    2. Re:9 Architectures, 9 Binaries by sholden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since the binaries on the CD are architecture specific what does it matter if the boot system it too?

      Do you really want to be able to boot the x86 binary CD on Solaris? How would that help achieve anything? Other than making the boot system completely unintelligible to everyone.

    3. Re:9 Architectures, 9 Binaries by kasperd · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can't remember what it's called. Gentoo?

      Yes, Gentoo is one of them. But there are others Source Mage for example. But a bootable self contained system is more than just bzip2 and a compiler. You need, kernel, libraries, a shell, various command line utils, make, binutils, linker, compiler, etc. When it is all there we are talking about multiple MB. Do you really want to have to download nine copies of this when you only need one of them?

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  8. good news by Marsala · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I used the new installer when I moved to Debian testing on my new workstation a few months ago. There were a couple of rough spots, but nothing a little command line prodding and correcting couldn't get around.

    The installer does a nice job of addressing the long-standing issues most people have had with the installer (namely, having to deal with dselect and the 4 trillion packages Debian has :), and breaks the install down into nice, manageable chunks.

    Now... if there's a way to script installs (and I believe there is, but haven't checked it out yet) like RH's kickstart so I deploy a couple hundred servers in the datacenter (yes, I know about FAI... doesn't compare to RH's kickstart), I'd be on easy street. :)

    Nice work, guys.

  9. Tried installing Debian once by mindaktiviti · · Score: 5, Informative

    I tried installing debian once, here were my impressions:

    - X & video driver didn't install properly (but I fixed it).
    - USB scrolling mouse (logitech) didn't install properly (but I fixed it as well).
    - I couldn't get the sound card to work.
    - I couldn't get the network card to work (this one sucked because I had to keep switching back and forth in order to get suggestions and then to try them).
    - The people on irc.debian.org were very friendly and helpful.

    It was the first time trying linux (about a year and a half ago), and I haven't tried it again, however I'm waiting for a slightly nicer installer. Maybe I'll try it now (It's Sunday, nothing else to do).

    1. Re:Tried installing Debian once by nadaou · · Score: 4, Informative

      Installing Debian via Knoppix should solve most of those problems.

      Debian isn't really the most newbie-friendly distribution. It's really by, of, and for linux developers and professionals (which is why once you get your head around the way things are done, bolts of sunlight start to shine out of every ventilation hole of your Debian box, and life is good). You might have a much more satisfying experience at first by installing say Lycoris instead (Debian back-end with user-friendly front-end).

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
  10. What about *BSD? by Homology · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The following operating systems can be detected and will be added to the boot menu of the installed system: Windows, Mac OS, Linux, GNU Hurd, DOS.

    They add detection for GNU Hurd, but not OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD. Funny, really.

    1. Re:What about *BSD? by niittyniemi · · Score: 2, Insightful


      > They add detection for GNU Hurd, but not OpenBSD, FreeBSD and
      > NetBSD. Funny, really.

      Not funny but sad.

      Although I suppose they can't really add an installer for
      "real" FreeBSD and "real" NetBSD when Debian developers are
      working on GNU/FreeBSD and GNU/NetBSD
      even if they both have the same amount of users as GNU/Hurd
      ....about 3 at the last count....although to be fair I wasn't counting RMS :)

      --
      The Machine stops.
    2. Re:What about *BSD? by mbanck · · Score: 2, Informative
      They add detection for GNU Hurd, but not OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD.

      That's probably because Joey Hess managed to run a Debian GNU/Hurd image via Bochs. See his journals entries here and his installation report here.

      Feel free to add support for BSD yourself, Joey is in no way a Hurd guy, he just did happen to have a BSD installation around or does not care.

      Michael

  11. Re:Hmm.. by mattjb0010 · · Score: 2, Funny

    have you tried "emerge debian-installer"? can't seem to get it to work on mine..

    Keep waiting...

  12. Hard part? by NickeB · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Would anyone mind enlightening someone who hasn't ever used debian? What was the tricky part with the old installer?
    Gentoo doesn't really even have a real installer and most people appear to be fine with it.
    Slackware and FreeBSD have pretty straightforward installers, but they're not really difficult...

    1. Re:Hard part? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The installer is pretty simple - if you know what you want. The other distros (Knoppix, Mandrake, SuSE, etc) make some assumptions based on hardware found and typical usage and set much of the system up for you, but Debian doesn't. Eg, many people won't know which modules they want to load, things like the parport module - obvious if you know, but the installer should detect a parallel port and decide to load it automagically. Imagine a new user doing that, and then hitting #linux with questions about why his printer doesn't work. That's probably the kind of thing that makes it hard for new users, especially users who haven't had much Linux experience.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    2. Re:Hard part? by zonix · · Score: 4, Informative
      What was the tricky part with the old installer?

      Numerous posts here on /. suggest that it's the missing hardware autodetection and lack of a graphical installer.

      You need to insert some kernel modules manually during install (for NIC, sound, etc.), which means you'd have to know what hardware you're running. Familiarity with the Linux kernel's 'make menuconfig' module selection is an advantage here too because the selections in the Debian installer are the same (ie. same groupings). The new installer detects hardware automatically, which is fine if it works - I've tried it twice, so far no problems.

      The point about the graphical installer is really non-essential, unless you can't navigate with a keyboard. The new installer is reworked and more modular as stated on the "About the Debian Installer" page, and as such it's should be easy to put a graphical installer ontop of it. Should make some people happy.

      I've always loved the Debian Installer! For me it was a more hands-on experience, and with the ability to select kernel modules during the install, I was able to make my old parallel port CD-burner work correctly without a fuss. But that's just me. One cool thing about the Debian installer is the fact that you can follow the standard sequential set of dialogs during the install process, like any other installer, but you can also get a list of all the tasks and jump to anyone on the fly, at any stage during the install. This is helpful if you suddenly find out that you mistyped your IP-address or forgot to create a partion, things like that. Both the old and the new installer support this.

      z
      --
      What would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
    3. Re:Hard part? by zonix · · Score: 2, Informative
      DSELECT. It will make you cry, literally.

      It sure will!

      My advice is always to skip dselect and just stick with tasksel during the install to select what you need like "X Window System", "C/C++ Development", "GNOME Window Manager", "Web Server", etc. After you're done with tasksel just agt-get what you need. You can search the package repository with apt-cache search.

      You would never want not to use APT! It handles dependencies and distribution upgrades excellently! I guess having the cd-rom included in your sources.list should have worked in your case, though a haven't had the need for this myself, so I can't really comment on what could go wrong.

      z
      --
      What would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
    4. Re:Hard part? by zonix · · Score: 3, Informative

      No problem!

      I forgot to mention another cool thing about the installer.

      The base install - for which only the first cd is needed - is quite light. The last step in the installation process is configuring APT (Advanced Package Tool) and optionally fetching the rest of the packages from the Internet (or more CD's), depending on your needs of course. If you skip the package selection, you're left with a small system that has a configured SSH server (protocol 2 only, no root login), mail and print, but no X Window System, Window Managers, or anything like that. Pretty neat.

      z
      --
      What would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
    5. Re:Hard part? by OmegaBlac · · Score: 2, Informative
      What was the tricky part with the old installer?

      Installing Debian with the old installer is simple. There are countless tutorials on the net to help you in this endeavor. This article from OSNews works very well --> The Very Verbose Debian 3.0 Installation Walkthrough.

      I think people tend to trip over the selecting of modules they need to get certain devices to work. Also I guess newbies might have been intimidated when reaching the point to selecting packages with dselect or tasksel. I tend not to use that and just do a clean minimal base install and "apt-get install" what I need.

      IMHO I prefer the old installer to the new one. It felt like a right-of-passage getting through the installation the first time and on subsequent reinstalls(practice makes perfect) I can install minimal Debian system in less then 30 minutes.

  13. Re:X11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    apt-get install discover mdetect read-edid
    will detect mouse, graphic card and monitor.

  14. More links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you're going to try the installer, don't forget to take a look at the errata. The installer also has a lot of untriaged active bug reports which Joey Hess has asked for help dealing with. Sure, file a report of something doesn't work, but make certain that it isn't a known issue first.

    Help triaging those bug reports would be a helpful task for anyone knows how to work their bug tracker.

  15. Bootloaders by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why oh why hasn't someone come out with a bootloader that detects what OSes are installed _itself_? It can't be that hard. I mean, if there's an NTFS partition, it's not that hard to guess what OS is installed there and how to boot it. For Linux, it's a little more complex. But since GRUB can read Linux filesystems, it could at least look in the /boot directory for promising kernel-type files and put them in the menu for you. I don't know about other OSes, but even if the autoconfiguration only worked for Windows and Linux, it would be a huge step up bootloaders. Think how many newbies would be saved from making their computer unbootable (the scariest thing that can happen to a would-be Linux convert)!

    --
    main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    1. Re:Bootloaders by MobyTurbo · · Score: 2, Informative
      if there's an NTFS partition, it's not that hard to guess what OS is installed there and how to boot it.
      No, the same partition identification for NTFS is also for OS/2. For this reason, unlike FAT partitions, NTFS partitions are configured manually in some distros.
    2. Re:Bootloaders by bcmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe not so good for day-to-day use, but that would make a pretty cool rescue disk...

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  16. And therefore new Debian stable Coming Soon by Rizzer · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's probably worth mentioning that development of the new installer has been the chief technical obstacle to the release of a new version of Debian stable. So with debian-installer nearing completion, this means the next version of Debian stable is also nearing completion.

    Rizzer (Drew Parsons)

    1. Re:And therefore new Debian stable Coming Soon by bhmit1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're forgetting that the recent decision to remove firmware and documentation that do not adhear to the social contract may push the next release out until 2005.
      That's not to say that there isn't a resolution to try to reinterpret or create an exception for this release. In which case, you would be right, this installer has been key to the release.

  17. that is exactly why I posted the message by hak1du · · Score: 4, Interesting

    fail to meet Debian's strict standards. The installer must operate on all of Debian's supported architectures.

    Yes, Debian has some strict standards. Yes, it is good if they work on a universal installer that conforms to strict standards.

    None of that makes Knoppix any less of an excellent installer for Debian. The Debian project should be announcing Knoppix and other live CDs prominently on their home page, rather than creating the impression that there are no finished installers.

    If i386 with a CD drive is what you've got then Knoppix is for you.

    Yes, like 95% of Debian users.

    But don't ever think that it can be the installer for Debian. It just isn't up for the challenge.

    The notion that there should be "the installer" is itself flawed. Many different people need many different kinds of installers.

    1. Re:that is exactly why I posted the message by bfree · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The notion that there should be "the installer" is itself flawed. Many different people need many different kinds of installers.

      And this is exactly the issue that debian-installer wants to address, by creating a modular framework to be used for installing debian. One of the original promises was that a gui would be slapped on around it and one of the obvious benfits of the new method is that it seems to be far easier to shape the installation (so a corporation could create their own tweaked installer internally which always does X,Y,Z). Debian-installer is not "the installer" it is "the installer framework", this doesn't stop others from creating their own independant installers, but it seems like a far more questionable occupation when you can just tweak d-i (and possibly hit 9+ platforms). I wouldn't be at all surprised if d-i is relatively ignored (except for the fact that reviews will start saying "new installer just works, simply") until a while after it reaches version 1 (sarge release?), but then I wonder if all the other OS's mightn't start asking "Anaconda, why? why not just use d-i?". The bottom line is horses for courses and debian are trying to train a horse decathlete!

      --

      Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

    2. Re:that is exactly why I posted the message by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If i386 with a CD drive is what you've got then Knoppix is for you.

      Yes, like 95% of Debian users.
      Are there numbers to back that up? If you said 95% of Linux users, I think you'd be correct. But my impression is very many non-x86 users choose Debian because it's the only one supporting their platform properly...

      Kjella
      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  18. Why libdetect for the installer ? by phoxix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Last I checked, this was some old Mandrake code that Mandrake stopped working on.

    Any reason why they couldn't use Mandrake's newer hardware detection code (ldetect) ?

    Or juse use Knoppix's Kudzu derivative)

    Sunny Dubey

    1. Re:Why libdetect for the installer ? by mbanck · · Score: 3, Informative
      Debian-Installer uses Progeny's discover for hardware detection, not libdetect.

      Michael

    2. Re:Why libdetect for the installer ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      discover contains Mandrakesoft's libdetect code, read the AUTHORS file

  19. Re:pride by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The reason debian wont be optimised is because the gatekeepers on debian-devel argue that optimisation dont make programs run faster (seriously).

    That's patently false. They just don't think the speed (around 9%) is worth the effort.

    I think the real reason is pride, they are afraid of lossing face and admitting they were wrong.

    LOL! You've got to be kidding. This distribution is regularly the butt of /. jokes that run along the lines of, "Hey, so I hear Debian is about drop a.out and maybe even make the jump to libc6." If they wanted to invest some ego in a public face there are other things that would play second fiddle to technical matters before they got around to "looking cool" in front of the "133t".

    Admitting they were wrong would make it harder to start arguments in the future.

    Uhh... Huh?

    They argue that debian packages are optimised, the kernel for example has multiple packages each optimised for a different cpu.

    Well, that is the most important optimization to make.

    The minimum that needs to be done is to modify policy to require packages that can be optimised to have support for end users compiling optimised for themself.

    Why bother when you can just install a Debian package that adds that functionality?

  20. Re:X11 by krmt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, the new installer will autodetect and select the right values for your X config. We've had a lot of successful reports about it so far, although more testing would definitely be a good thing.

    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

  21. Re:Might I ask why Debian still uses 2.4 by krmt · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because 2.4 has been heavily tested within the installer, so we know it's good. 2.6 has only just been put in, and it needs a whole lot more testing before it makes sense as the default. We'll still provide it, of course, as an alternative boot option, but there's no reason to break the installer just so the shiny new toy can be the default when the old one works perfectly well.

    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

  22. Re:debian's response by krmt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, this project has been in the works for years, well before Redhat even announced that they were ending their free distro.

    The primary motivation for the new installer was that the old one had a horrific codebase that no one wanted to touch. It was a major sticking point for the last release as to whether or not the focus should be on the new installer (then very much in its infancy) or "just" polishing up the old one and shoving it out the door. The latter choice was made, and it turned out not to be worthwhile.

    This new installer is much nicer under the hood, in that it's made up of individual components that can be swapped in and out relatively easily. Once recent example of this is a few months ago the installer switched from the old partconf partitioner to the newer partman that you see in it now. This was a very easy and smooth transition, thanks to the way the new installer is structured.

    The other advantage to the new installer was that it was a good chance to implement things that the users were asking for, including hardware autodetection, aptitude instead of dselect, grub over lilo, wifi autodetection, less questions, etc. There's still lots of requests that have to be filled in. pppoe support is only in its infancy, 2.6 needs a lot more testing, the documentation needs a lot of work, and some multilanguage issues need to be solved before a gtk interface can be slapped on. Those are only a few of the holes that I personally see, I'm sure that other people on the team can bring up others. Ultimately though, I know the core members of this team and I can definitely say that they're not concerned with Redhat at all. They, and I, simply want to build the best installer possible for Debian so that we can not only release sarge soon, but also prevent the installer from being a reason for holding up future releases. We're crafting this one for our own future.

    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

  23. And did you report any of this? by Xtifr · · Score: 3, Informative

    I hope you also sent these comments to the installer dev team? This is beta software, after all. Posting complaints on slashdot may help others avoid the problems you encountered, but is unlikely to result in the problems actually getting fixed.

  24. Re:but why? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2, Funny

    You goofed. The numbers should start with 0.