Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Linux
Review: Debian 3.1
Share
Print
CommentsOn one hand, the June 6 release of Debian 3.1 matters far less than a new version of another distribution, because many Debian users have already upgraded individual packages from the Debian test, unstable, or even experimental distributions. For them, the official release (a.k.a. Debian stable) matters only for security updates. On the other hand, stable is the Debian version of choice for networks and servers, or those for whom dependability matters more than the latest software.
Installation
The steps in the new text-based Debian installer should be familiar to anyone who has installed Linux before: language and keyboard selections, partitioning, installation of the core system and boot manager, the selection of other packages, the creation of users, and the fine-tuning of the system environment. However, the new Debian installer also has features that those used to Red Hat's Anaconda or other installation programs may find unusual.
To start with, while Debian can be installed from CDs, the preferred method is a net install, in which a base system is installed from CD and the rest of the system is installed using the apt-get package manager over the Internet. Early in the installation, the installer establishes a DHCP network connection. Once the base system is installed, users can set up HTTP, FTP, hard drive, network, or even CD sources for the rest of the installation.
Another unusual feature is the extensive use of installation schemes, which are sets of options that users can select rather making manual selections. Installation schemes, of course, are common in other installation programs, especially for packages. What is unusual in Debian 3.1, though, is the extension of installation schemes into other areas.
For example, the installer's instructions recommend a single partition for new users, as well as several schemes based on how the computer will be used. The desktop scheme, for example, consists of a root and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home partitions, while the workstation scheme consists of a root,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/var,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/tmp and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home partition. The size of each partition in a scheme also varies from scheme to scheme. While the install program doesn't explain why each scheme is appropriate to a particular type of use, in many cases, anyone who is not a complete newcomer should be able to make some intelligent guesses. At the very least, they can see some alternatives to help them develop their own schemes.
Similarly, once the core system is installed and you reboot the computer, you can select packages individually using aptitude, or choose a scheme for a particular type of server or a desktop environment. The server choices are especially numerous, no doubt reflecting the market for official Debian releases.
The installer does have a few rough edges. Some users might want a middle ground between individual package selection and all 1.7GB of the KDE and GNOME desktops. Nor is aptitude a particularly easy program to use if you're unfamiliar with it.
More seriously, while video cards are supposed to be auto-detected, detection seems either unreliable or limited. The installer detected neither of the two commonplace cards on the test systems, falling back instead on the default vesa xserver. While this default gives a graphical desktop on most systems, it is unlikely to give an optimized one. As a result, a new user would either need to install a new package and edit the configuration file or -- more likely -- restart the installation from scratch. Some provision for testing the xserver during installation would alleviate such difficulties.
Still, overall the new installer gets far more right than it does wrong. Version 3.1 is the first Debian release to include support for the ReiserFS, JFS, and XFS file systems during installation. Obviously, too, the developers of the new installer have taken considerable care to make the instructions clear without dumbing down the choices to be made. The discussion of the consequences of installing the GRUB boot loader, for example, is one of the clearest I've seen. Most important of all, the new installer manages to balance presenting novices choices they can live with while giving advanced users the chance to tweak as much as they like. In fact, the installer is so detailed that it even allows users who are partitioning manually to choose the mount options listed for each partition in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/fstab -- something I've seen on no other installer. While a few improvements would be welcome, overall the new installer should manage the difficult trick of pleasing almost everyone.
Desktop and software selection
Debian 3.1 boots from GRUB using either the installed kernel or the installed kernel in single-user mode for maintenance. If you chose the desktop environment package scheme, KDE 3.3 and GNOME 2.8 are both installed. Both are largely unaltered, except for branding wallpaper and login images and the addition of the Debian menu structure to the main menus.
Official Debian releases have a reputation for having older software versions. Given that the last official release was four years ago, and point releases are often eight to 10 months apart, this reputation is often deserved. However, at this point in version 3.1's life cycle, the available software is relatively current. It includes Mozilla 1.7.8, OpenOffice.org 1.1.3, Samba 3.0.14, Python 2.3.5 and 2.4.1 (two versions are presumably included to accommodate programs with different dependencies), and Perl 5.8.4. All these selections are comparable to those available in other major distributions. Some versions are slightly behind, others slightly ahead. Mostly, the differences between these version numbers are minor.
Two notable exceptions exist. First, Debian 3.1 is still using the last free version of XFree86 while most distributions have switched to x.org. However, since the switch was caused by a change in licensing, rather than by any improvements, the different is trivial.
Second, Debian 3.1 uses the 2.4.27 kernel, rather than a more recent 2.6 version. While no doubt disappointing to many, this conservative kernel choice is in keeping with the stable distribution's emphasis on reliability. The 2.4.27 kernel is at the end of a line of development and is therefore likely to be more thoroughly debugged than the rapidly evolving 2.6 line. Although the choice may sacrifice some speed, users not caught up in the arms race of version numbers will probably never notice the difference. For those who do, Debian's kernel compilation method offers a quick solution.
Administrative tools and package installation
Like earlier versions of Debian, 3.1 lacks an administration center like SUSE's YAST. Historically, this lack may reflect the geekiness of the user base -- in the past, perhaps, most Debian users would rather edit a configuration file directly than use a GUI tool. However, at this stage in the development of GNU/Linux, the lack is less important than it used to be. The KDE Control Center has many of the tools needed for everyday administration, and any that are missing can probably be found on either the KDE or GNOME menus.
Package installation is based on apt-get, Debian's venerable but highly serviceable program that automatically determines and installs dependencies. Besides apt-get itself, version 3.1 also installs aptitude, KPackage, and Synaptic. All these graphical interfaces for apt-get have their supporters, but apt-get itself is quick enough to learn that they are hardly needed. Apt-get is also more convenient if you want to do a quick installation by opening a root command line while in an ordinary user's account.
Whatever your choice of package manager, don't be surprised if only packages from the main Debian repositories are available. Many Debian developers dislike the contrib (free but dependent on non-free programs) and non-free repositories. Over the last few years, the project has had several discussions about removing them altogether. Perhaps as a result, the archives added during installation do not include the contrib and non-free repositories. This decision means that an install of Debian 3.1 contains only free software. If you want packages like Acrobat Reader or RealPlayer, you'll have to add the other repositories to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/apt/sources.list.
Security
Debian 3.1 is noticeably more security-conscious than other major distributions. You need the root password to mount removable drives or shut down the system. Similarly, as a minor obstacle to script kiddies, the root user cannot log in to a desktop. Nor are any unnecessary daemons configured, with the possible exception of atd.
Groups are also carefully organized. Debian 3.1 defines separate groups for basic system functions such as exim, crontab, and message bus, and membership in all groups is tightly controlled. The user account created during installation is added only to the video and plugdev groups. Users added after installation are not even added to those groups by default. Nor is any user included in the user or games groups, as they are in many distributions. The result is a system in which the security principle of least privilege is tightly observed. In other words, no user has more access to the system than is absolutely required unless it is deliberately added.
Strangely, Debian 3.1 omits enabling a firewall during installation. However, this lapse can be quickly remedied by running Bastille immediately after installation -- a step that anyone interested in security should consider anyway.
Users of Windows or commercial GNU/Linux distributions may find the security-consciousness of Debian 3.1 irksome. However, the inconveniences are small compared to the potential benefits. And, frankly, it's refreshing to see security chosen over convenience for once -- if only as a counter-example.
Conclusion
To say that Debian is no longer just for geeks would be an exaggeration. All the same, if version 3.1 is any indication, that's the way the distribution is heading.
True, it's still not a distribution to give a newcomer. Defects such as the lack of video card testing during installation or of an utomatically installed firewall still assume a knowledgeable, hands-on user who can readily overcome them.
But neither is it a distribution that should baffle any except the most inexperienced. If you've been down the install path a couple of times and always wanted to try Debian, there's never been a better time. Combining ease of use, security-consciousness, and a strict adherence to principle with a mostly current selection of well-tested software, in many ways Debian 3.1 is free software at its best.
Bruce Byfield is a course designer and instructor, and a computer journalist who writes regularly for Newsforge and the Linux Journal Web site.
Comments
on Review: Debian 3.1Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Available boot methods:
linux
Start the installation -- this is the default CD-ROM install.
expert
Start the installation in expert mode, for maximum control.
linux26
Start the installation using a 2.6 series linux kernel
expert26
Start the installation in expert mode with a 2.6 kernel
Your post helped me - I need the 2.6.8 kernel because 2.4.x does not support power management on my laptop. After installing, then finding I had the useless 2.4.27 kernel, I saw your message, and re-installed.
But for something as important as this, there really should be a better way. The tendency of most people is not to ask for help until they are confronted with a question which they do not know how to answer.
Just fire up Synaptic, click the "Search" button, type in "kernel-image", and then pick whatever kernel image you want to switch to or upgrade to.
You can also use the kernel compilation tool to custom-build a kernel to suit your exact needs, but you only need to do that if one of the available kernels doesn't meet your needs.
Debian is pure free software
so proprietary accelerated 3D video drivers don't come with the distro.
If you don't want to mess with proprietary drivers
then the quick/dirty/easy solution
is find a cheap Matrox G400.
It works fine with debian mga drivers (xfree86).
Install the 2.6 kernel-image package
made for your processor (for games).
To fine tune your video card type this (as root) from console:
dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86
To install packages from console
use 'dselect' and/or 'tasksel'.
Edit your<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/apt/sources.list to get some good repositories.
(use nano the text editor).
Here are some good entries:
---
deb <a href="ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/" title="debian.org">ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/</a debian.org> stable main contrib non-free
deb <a href="http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US/" title="debian.org">http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US/</a debian.org> stable/non-US main contrib non-free
deb <a href="http://security.debian.org/" title="debian.org">http://security.debian.org/</a debian.org> stable/updates main
# mplayer
deb <a href="ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/" title="nerim.net">ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/</a nerim.net> stable main
---
For initial package installation
I use 'tasksel' and 'dselect' to get started.
Use 'tasksel'
to get the general machine you want:
Desktop environment
Web server
Print server DNS server
File server
Mail server
SQL database
Use 'dselect' if you have to hand pick
individual packages
After you have your desktop going
use 'synaptic'.
Note: 'aptitude', 'dselect'. 'synaptic', 'tasksel', 'kpackage', etc.
are just different frontends to the same thing.
For debian system configuration I use 'webmin' when possible.
Install 'webmin' and any of the webmin modules you might need.
Then point your browser to
<a href="https://localhost:10000/" title="localhost">https://localhost:10000/</a localhost>
In my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/apt/sources.list entries
REMOVE the following from all of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/apt/sources.list entries:
[debian.org]
[nerim.net]
The cheat sheet should include that if installer fails to recognize and user is still not happy with defaults: look up google for "myhardware debian way" -- in 99% of cases you'll find a success story about your hardware and important configuration lines that fix the problem once and for all.
Now about proprietary drivers:
I am happy with current ATI open-source (add it to Matrox list).
Nvidia: use module-assistant which will download stuff for you, compile and install all the nitty kernel things:
<a href="http://home.comcast.net/~andrex/Debian-nVidia/debian.html" title="comcast.net">http://home.comcast.net/~andrex/Debian-nVidia/deb<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> an.html</a comcast.net>
AFAIK module-assistant is being extended to many more problems like installing proprietary drivers for wireless cards and so on.
This is absolutely unacceptable in 2005! Not at a time when Knoppix and others can easily detect and test a videocard, when ALL other major distros have sophisticated hardware detection and configuration scripts.
I am very sympathetic to Debian and the folks maintaining and developing it, but as long as they persist in their geek-oriented tool development policy I will not be able to reccommend Debian to my friends.
Calling text-based installer which does not detect hardware "new" in 2005 really is symptomatic of a deep problem.
On the other hand, with the lengthy development times associated with Debian, it may be another three years before we see such functionality in Debian.
Don't recommend Debian to your friends, recommend Ubuntu, Debian goodness without Debian BS.
Does it in fact?
That's what the poster below claimed
<a href="http://os.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=47419&cid=114216" title="newsforge.com">http://os.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=47419&cid<nobr>=<wbr></nobr> 114216</a newsforge.com>
And since neither Knoppix or Kanotix allow a user to choose installed packages (you have to install the full live-CD) I think I will not use Debian, or its derivatives, until Debian finally comes shipped with a modern installer.
So here, Debian project leaders, you know what we expect from you:
1) hardware detection
2) GUI installer
3) package choice during install
Will we have to wait until 2015 or 2025?
first, ubuntu is based on a snapshot of Debian Sid (unstable).
second, the hardware detection in debian is good. I've had no problems with my ATI cards (fglrx drivers are non-free and must be installed separately (deb repos: <a href="http://xoomer.virgilio.it/flavio.stanchina/debian/fglrx-installer.html)" title="virgilio.it">http://xoomer.virgilio.it/flavio.stanchina/debian<nobr>/<wbr></nobr> fglrx-installer.html)</a virgilio.it>).
third, GUI installers are not needed. Textmode is slicker and less 60Hz-headache-inducing hell, AND NO MORE DIFFICULT.
And OF COURSE you can choose manually which packages to install during install. *sigh*.
From your glib, psuedo elitist, remarks it sounds like Debian is just perfect. Indeed, it may be perfect for you. But, even you must admit that with so many complaints about it for SO MANY YEARS, that there is a problem.
There is definitely a problem. After YEARS, Debian has finally made a new release and that release is still WAY behind the times. Claims of stability and security are no longer being accepted because Debian seems to offer little or nothing more than other distributions that are far more current.
Regardless of your opinion, Debian is marginalizing itself because it is not meeting the needs or requirements of its users and other distributions, such as Ubuntu, are meeting those needs. Even Debian's new project leader is painfully aware of this and has stated that he and the Debian team are working to change it.
The question being asked now is whether or not the changes are too little too late. The underlying suspicion is that it is too little too late.
dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86
Please list a single GNU/Linux distribution that detects every single piece of hardware. Good luck it does not exist. Microsoft's product doesn't even accomplish this.
2) GUI installer
Why do you have to be able to mouse through a menu during an installation? Is there something wrong with your keyboard? Or are you looking for that small bit of eyecandy that you should only see once?
3) package choice during install
This is available in the Debian Installer, had you used it at least once and not merely reacted with your preconceived notion that your distribution is in some way better than another, you would know this.
It sounds to me like you want your PC or workstation to be configured automatically with little to no input from the end user, if this is really what you want, then maybe you are better off going with a proprietary OS like Microsoft's and not a free OS that gives choice to the end user.
Graphical installers are just eye candy to entertain you for 30 min. while the installation last. It also consume valuable resources and slow down the installation process, at least in my experience with GUI installers like RedHat or Suse.
Dos didn't have auto-detecting, just that most devices was BIOS compatible.
Auto-detection of devices during installation started with Windows 94 but it was still far from perfeck:
Detecting... yes.
Automatically configuring... not always.
Most of the time it just says it found an unknown device and asks you to supply a 3rd party driver. (And that's why Win95 had stability problems in many cases.)
What a lot of people fail to realize is that the debian installer can very eaisly be made into a graphical installer. The debian project does not really see the benifits of such a move though, thus the reason they stick with text.
Also Debian, does autodetect hardware, unlike some have been saying...
Also this is much more than a security release. The old debian had X 4.2, gnome 2.2 (I think, or maybe 2.0, or maybe 1.4), and a bunch of other old things. This is a big accomplishment for the Debian project and it has plenty of new stuff...
That's such a stupid approach: "Me, myself and I" - THEY do not see the point, so THEY will not do it. How about thinking about their USERS?!?! If it is easy to do, and since a huge number of people seem to want it, THEY SHOULD DO THIS ASAP. At least as an option. They would immensly improve the attractivness of their product if they offered a GUI installer as an OPTION (geeks could stick to CLI if they wanted)
Debian's job is to get a collection of software that works, and put it up for whoever wants it. If it doesn't suit the users, that's really not their problem.
Many other distros are commercial, and they base themselves on Debian (Ubuntu, Mepis, Linspire, and so on.) Their job is to take Debian as a base, configure it for the less geeky among us, and sell it (or however their business model works.)
Without Debian, none of these distros would exist.
Don't like it? Then don't use it. It ain't making a difference to Debian's bottom line.
You'd rather that they'd delayed the launch while they debugged the graphical gui? Or have the text installer now and maybe the graphical installer later? It's not like they're forbidden to ever add a graphical installer to Sarge, they could add that in the next minor upgrade. As Ubuntu already has made a graphical gui to the debian-installer they'd probable be asked if it's ok to ship that with debian as well.
What's with this THEY SHOULD anyway. Did you make substansible donation or something? Debian is made by a community of (mostly) unpaid developers and if you want to add some code you're free to join.
You're getting something for Free here! Wow, how totally awesome is that!!!! Can you believe your good fortune?
Not only is it free to you right now, but they promise to spend hours and hours of their own precious time scouring the code and tracking announcements to find and repair errors that have security consequences to users of this amazing free gift.
What kind of person turns around and spits in the face of such kindness? Perhaps also "a huge number of people seem to want"... a pony, chocolate cake, someone to cook them dinner. Should *volunteers* within the Debian project jump up, open their wallets and buy you a pony, some cake, free lunch?
Your attitude sucks, sir.
I still run Woody on all my servers and am quite happy with that. I plan to upgrade to Sarge next week and here's how:
1. install Sarge on my laptop using netinst with no tasksel or extra packages yielding a minimal sarge system.
2. boot knoppix
3. mount<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/hda1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/newsarge; cd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/newsys; tar cvzf<nobr> <wbr></nobr>../sarge-sys.tar.gz *
4. move services from server[i] to server[i+1%N] and make good backups
5. run dpkg --get-selections > dpkg-sel.txt on server[i]
6. boot knoppix on server[i]
7. cfdisk<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/hda; mount<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/hda1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/newsarge; cd newsys; tar xvzf<nobr> <wbr></nobr>../sarge-sys.tar.gz
8. reboot and run dpkg --set-selections dpkg-sel.txt; apt-get upgrade
9. import<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc and data from backups
10. reinstate services
11. put apt-get update; apt-get -s upgrade in cron.daily
Did you notice how I never mentioned anything about clicking with the mouse.
This is quite possibly the easiest install method ever devised and I used it multiple times with my Woody and OpenBSD servers.
This is of course a rough draft, but the gist of it is to use a single system image replicated to all servers, install using apt-get and tweak<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc by hand.
Real Admins install once and replicate.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
The whole point of the Debian "Stable" release is that nearly everything in it has been tested for about 3 years. That's the only way to know it's stable. The word "stable" really means something in the Debian world. Expect never to have to re-boot a machine running Debian Stable, unless you have to replace a piece of hardware inside the case.
If you want more up-to-date stuff then you should be using the Debian "testing" distro, called Etch. This distro corresponds roughly to the level of stability that you'd get from a Redhat distro; in other words, it's actually very stable.
Or if you really want the latest features you can get the "sid" distro, which also is more stable than you might expect, corresponding roughly in stability to the typical Microsoft Windows release. Expect to have to re-boot this every week or so.
BTW I agree with you that the installer's hardware autodetect needs work.
I think you'll find that, although Knoppix is better than Debian at hardware detection, there are still cards which it doesn't auto-detect. For those cards, the Debian way is arguably better.
The real problem with video cards is non-technical - some manufacturers have been conditioned by Microsoft to not give out complete programming information for their cards.
Thanks for the correction.
Technically I suppose you are correct, but to many people, "auto-detection that gets it wrong" is no better than no auto-detection.
It defaults to 800x600 which I find annoying but I have found most users want to use that resolution
Crap. A user who wants 800x600 will buy 800x600, which is a lot cheaper than 1024x960 especially if it's LCD. A configuration which runs my 1024x960 LCD at 800x600 is just broken.
Secondly, the installer has to work properly across many arches. It has to be bit and endian clean. The graphical installers being praised to the skies mostly only work on x86.
Thirdly, the installer has to work on things like serial links for some applications. There is a fair amount of hardware out there that doesn't sport VGA and DVI ports.
Fourthly, Debian Stable is typically only used on servers. Any admin who positively absolutely needs GUI handholding has no business being an admin. It's nice to have but any skilled admin should be able to more than cope with out it. Something like Mepis can be used to graphically install a Debian Unstable based desktop.
True, but irrelevant because what people are primarily complaining about is its poor functionality and human engineering. The fact that it's text-based instead of GUI is secondary.
Secondly, the installer has to work properly across many arches.
Having to deal with other architectures is not an excuse for skimping on functionality which applies only to x86. Please remember that the installer always knows what cpu architecture it is running on.
Debian Stable is typically only used on servers
I'm sorry, but that's complete bollocks. Debian Stable is used by lots of people who value stability very highly, who don't want to waste any of their time rebooting or recovering lost data. Debian Stable is a very fine operating environment - in some ways, the best there is. It's just the installer that is a steaming pile of manure.
I am pissed at Debian precisely because I very much admire their committment to freedom and I wish they "de-geeked" their approach to installing and get on par with the Mandrivas, Suses, Fedoras etc.
Free software should mean BETTER software - not geekier software
Really, the idea that Debian is infringing on your freedoms by leaving out a GUI installer is ridiculous. Call a referendum, we'd better amend the Constitution. GUI installers for all! It's our right!
BTW, have you ever actually used the Debian installer? By BETTER I think you meant PRETTIER...
One aspect of its universality, which makes auto-detection extremely difficult, is the fact that it works for 11 different architectures. It is indeed 2005 when you can have a distribution which works for 11 different architectures yet still maintain the level of auto-detection that Debian 3.1 does.
If all you're looking for is a user-friendly Debian that works well for x86, please choose Ubuntu, Mepis, Xandros, or dozens of the other excellent Debian-based distributions that are specifically designed for this.
huh?
Reinstall? C'mon, give me a break. And you're probably good to know what the files are and where they are and how they work if you ever want to switch monitors as well.
The best explanation I have found, the one that did it for me, and the one I refer to every now and then when I want to doublecheck what I am doing -- it's on the FreeBSD website in the handbook under how to set up (configure) an X-server. It's SO incredibly easy it's almost a joke.
become root
cd
XFree86 -configure
creates the configuration file XF86Config.new
XFree86 -xf86config XF86Config.new
tests the configuration file.
Ctrl-Alt-Backspace gets you out of the test server which is just a grey hash-type thing with an x for the mouse
it usually works.
Take your file -<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/root/XF86Config.new
and cp it to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/X11/XF86Config-4.
You're good to go.
It's the FreeBSD handbook, Chapter 5.
Now, you can buy a brand new fancy video card and not have to reinstall your operating sytem! How cool is that?
Yes, hardware upgrade w/o full OS reinstall rocks!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 24, 2005 09:04 AMI only ever reboot for hardware or kernel upgrades or to physically relocate a machines.
I also have only ever burned one Debian installer CD, reusing it except on the PPC machine which was a completely net-based install bootstrapped by the vendor supplied OS. With an always-on high-speed internet connection the latest Debian packaged software is only ever a simple "apt-get dist-upgrade" away.
Knowing how to configure X is something most people who aren't newest of noobs learn to do. It's not too much different from playing with video settings in Windows, except you have to learn how to use a text editor. THere are lots of tutorials.
No matter what Linux distro you try you are going to have configuration issues if you try it on enough hardware.
If you don't like it the Debian developers would gladly accept a patch. Otherwise Shut Up.
enjoy
It depends what you mean by "work". It will let you use your computer, after a fashion. But most people's definition of "working" is that if your equipment supports, say, 1280x1024 resolution at a refresh rate of 85Hz, the software will operate it with those parameters.
Personally, I'm not so hung up about graphics speed because I don't play shoot-em-up games. But looking at a big CRT monitor at a refresh rate of 72Hz gives me a headache pretty quickly. YMMV of course. Older eyes are more sensitive to flicker, I hear.
Please understand, I'm not complaining about Debian or about Linux. To make it work with your graphics card, you need to know exactly what your graphics card is, (you should really have selected it with Linux in mind), and you may have to edit your XF86Config-4 file. The culprits are certain video-card manufacturers who will not publish programming information for their cards.
What I'm complaining about is fanboys like this reviewer who pretend the situation is much better than it really is. Tell people the truth, please. Lying to them will turn them against Linux when they find out they've been deceived.
I discussed xservers in the context of problems with the installer. I said that while vesa would work, using it meant either more work after the install or starting again if the user didn't know any better.
How could you possibly get the impression that I thought the default was acceptable?
If you want to complain about something, you will probably find your efforts much more effective if you respond to what's actually said, instead of what you imagine was said.
Nice one, Bruce. You change the text of your review, then flame me for responding to something you didn't say.
The original version of your review did say "the default of vesa should work on most systems." If you want to claim that it's what I imagine you said instead of what you actually said, then perhaps you can explain how it is that mine is not the only response which quoted that phrase.
Your modified review is better than the original, just don't try to change history, OK?
When I responded to your comment, the text was still unaltered. For the record, my original comment was:
"More seriously, to get a graphical desktop, users must know the system's video card so
that they can choose an xserver. Admittedly, the default of vesa should work on most systems.
Yet, since the installer neither autodetects the video card nor makes any provision for testing
the selection, a mistake means either downloading another package and editing the configuration
file from the command line or -- more likely for a newcomer -- restarting from scratch."
So, I repeat: if you read in context, you'll see that I was not saying that the default was acceptable.
Bruce 1 : Anonymous 0
for idiots that think forums are a place to keep score rather than a place for discussion and learning.
It is obviously for servers - I upgraded from stable two servers this week in other cities and all went well - I am using Ubuntu for my desktop and it just plain rocks.
I was surprised that they defaulted to the 2.4 kernel.
I have to agree with the earlier posters - it is 2005 five and as much as I like hacking files as the other guy you really should have some kind of autodetection for getting into a gui at install time. I like Ubuntu's installer - it is not pretty or graphical but it works and is solid and it has detected all my graphic cards so far on all 12 boxes I have installed it on without me going into the xorg.conf file - although I have to admit I did on my workstation to allow drop shadows - but that is just me.
I just want to thank the debian team for all their contributions and hard work - they contribute a lot to open source and it is appreciated. I will always recommend them for servers - but desktops I would go with the others above along with SUSE and maybe Redhat -
I like Ubuntu's installer- it is not pretty or graphical but it works and is solid...
Uh...you do know that Ubuntu uses the same installer that Debian 3.1 (Sarge) is currently using? The Ubuntu team just modified their version a little I think, but its basicly similar to the Debian installer program that was introduced last year on the rc versions of Sarge.
So does Linux Slackware<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
The security offered by root only mounts and shutdowns is negligible, especially on the desktop. The fact that Debian and Slackware still refuse to implement hotpluggability, as per their users requests, is just further evidence of their increasing shift to irrelevance.
Fair Review, solid system, questionable usability
Posted by: Brian Masinick on June 11, 2005 11:22 AMThe Sarge installer is a HUGE improvement over the Woody installer and even a bigger leap over Debian installers prior to that (which are too ancient to be of much use except for ancient hardware). Debian packaging and the overall system continue to be a near ideal model of what software packaging ought to be.
I tested the Sarge installer a while before the release, so my comments should have that taken into consideration, but I don't think all that much has changed from the time I last tried the installer to what we see now in the released version of Sarge.
It was my opinion then (and I commented on it to the team) that everything worked OK - detection of hardware was fine on my system, but the program was WAY too interactive and lacked any useful streamlining. Because of the number of diverse systems and architectures that Debian supports, I can understand that Debian asks more questions than most other systems. I have to wonder a few things, though: 1. Why can't the Debian installer detect what kind of hardware it is running on? 2. If there have to be "twenty questions", why can't they be organized in such a way that they can be asked all at once, as close to the beginning of the installation as possible, then reducing further interaction unless specifically requested?
If the Debian project would address these issues, I think it would be a much better accepted distribution. As it stands, I think that the core system is the very best. However, I prefer to obtain it by downloading customized versions, either commercially developed or freely available. My two current favorites are Libranet and SimplyMEPIS. Both of them provide a Debian experience surrounded by a default installation and desktop environment that is easy to manage.
But I almost always use the gentoo install CD to get debian up and running. For me, it has always been xfs or jfs or so on - install on ext3, use the gentoo install cd to "cp -a" partitions around and get everything on jfs or xfs.
Nothing beats the upgrade process (but I save the previous<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.deb files). Primarily, xprint and just now libavcodeccvs previous deb files have saved me from failing mplayers and xprints.
What Debian has going for it is the upgrade process, and the "concept" of entering a URI into<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/apt/sources.list. These are extremely powerful concepts. But I find that I need to combine it with something like the Gentoo install CD, which is an incredibly powerful system that allows you to establish a chroot environment (which I haven't ever needed) -- but it has all the stuff - mkfs.jfs, mkfs.xfs, etc...
Someone should take the Gentoo installer and the Debian packaging system and combine them and it would be totally awesome, but maybe not best for beginners.
Please call me when Centos has the software catalog of Debian?
Yeah, right.
Software catalog??? Of what? MP3 players and trivial apps? Go look at all the heavy iron enterprise apps--they run only on SUSE or RHEL. Look at IBM, they support only SUSE and RHEL.
Your response is typical--kiddie with a passing fixation (in this case Debian). No wonder Debian isn't taken seriously if foul mouthed juveniles like you are the ones "prmoting" it!
Grow up, get a job, see the real world.
Could you please decide wether you want to talk about beginners(wrt Linux) who could profit[1] from a GUI installer or from professional admins (who probably won't install the machine by hand but by preseeding)?
[1] I still doubt the advantage of GUI installers -- if i doesn't work with your graphic card, you are lost (and yes, I had this experience).
They support RHEL and SLES only for the marketing and spoc reason.
Your comment on Debian is naive because you haven't thoroughly tallied the features present in Debian.
Mandriva Linux 2005 LE has this option as well. You can select the mount options for any created partition (graphically, with explanations of the choices).
<a href="http://en.jakilinux.org/" title="jakilinux.org">Linux distros compared: JAKILINUX.ORG</a jakilinux.org>
I,m done with disk installs and upgrade woes. All my old files are there on the disk whenever I need them. I can save anything I want to disk.
And it's not all that slower on my 1800 Athelon with 500 megs of RAM.
The base Sarge is not optimized for the desktop...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 11, 2005 11:42 PM<a href="http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=184&slide=1" title="osdir.com">http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?r<nobr>e<wbr></nobr> lease=184&slide=1</a osdir.com>
I think you have summed up Debian better than the reviewer. It is a good system, handicapped by a truly crap installer.
I don't mind the fact that the installer is text-based so much; the real problem is that it doesn't do its job, which is to auto-detect as much of the hardware as possible. The graphics card detection is especially lame. I would say that this installer is not ready to be released.
Have you ever tried installing GNU/Linux on a system with a high-end graphics card? While I can't speak for the open-source ATI drivers available within X the nv driver is simply not compatible with the nVidia 6800 chip (yet).
So rather than ending up at a text login where any number of problems may have happened, I would prefer to be left with a _working_ vesa driver wherein it is just a simple matter of installing the proper kernel module and editing X's config file.
For me, the installer works beautifully.
2.6 Kernel
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 11, 2005 03:40 AMkernel-image-2.6-686/stable uptodate 101
kernel-image-2.6.8-2-686/stable uptodate 2.6.8-16
#