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."
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.
have you tried "emerge debian-installer"? can't seem to get it to work on mine..
What's wrong with:
tar xvfz package
cd package
configure
make
make install
ldconfig
Are users getting lazy
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.
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?
with Debian is that the people who use it are way too nice. Brrr, that kind of thing just gives me the creeps.
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.
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).
They add detection for GNU Hurd, but not OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD. Funny, really.
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.
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.
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.
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?" `":" #");}
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)
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.
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.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
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.
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.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
Michael
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?
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."
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.