"Debian GNU/Linux used to have a reputation as the toughest GNU/Linux distribution to install, yet the easiest to maintain. In fact, Debian's package management system has played a huge role in the proliferation of projects based on Debian. Suffice it to say that anyone who can install their own operating system can generally install Debian Etch with little or no trouble. If you've never installed Debian before, it's fairly easy to walk through the default installation without realizing you have options. Let's explore the Debian Installer, to find out just what options we do have."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-01-01
Fans: 1
Nice overview of the current state of debian-installer. Good timing, too, because the (hopefully) final version of the Etch installer, RC2, is scheduled for release in 19.3.2007.
Screenshots of debian-installer RC1, using the GTK interface:
http://shots.linuxquestions.org/?linux_distribution_sm=Debian-Insta...
Member since:2005-07-24
Fans: 35
Member since:
2005-07-06
Fans: 4
Member since:2006-10-11
Fans: 2
zizban: Back in the old days, the debian installer was even more primative. You had to know things like the PCI card indentifier and the frequemcy of your mouse. Even the current installer is 100% better.
Don't get me wrong, but WTF is the "frequency [sic] of your mouse?" My first Debian was only Potato and I have no idea what you are talking about.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 4
Member since:2006-10-11
Fans: 2
zizban: You don't remember having to set that? lucky you:
basically thats how fast the mouse sends the information to the computer. the faster the beter of course
Oh, you mean the baud rate. Yes, I remember baud rates, MS Windows 3.1 and even OS/2 2.1 (Warp certainly didn't) needed them for mice sometimes. I can't recall that Red Hat 5.2 (my 1st GNU/Linux *sniff*) expected something like this.
Thanks for the info.
Member since:2006-09-14
Fans: 0
Oh, you mean the baud rate. Yes, I remember baud rates, MS Windows 3.1 and even OS/2 2.1 (Warp certainly didn't) needed them for mice sometimes. I can't recall that Red Hat 5.2 (my 1st GNU/Linux *sniff*) expected something like this.
I remember my first 'box set' Red Hat 6.0 Professional edition during the install I was lost when it was asking about / (root), swap and so on..... In 1999 my how time has went by it is amazing how it has progressed and surpassed Windows in every facet.
Member since:
2006-10-08
Fans: 6
Personally, I like the concept of having a core application with different frontends, such as it has been mentioned in the article: Text, Newt, Gtk. This makes installation via serial console possible (or on GPUs X does not autodetect correctly).
I'd like to know if the german internalisation is acceptable. Does it differ between standard german and newspeak german (such as it differences between british and american english)? Furthermore, is a serial mouse automatically supported?
Thanks for the screenshots. They show that the installatoin preparation process is split in many single steps that do not require much "professional" knowledge. So Debian might be worth a try even for beginners (who just know the basics).
Edited 2007-03-11 00:50
Member since:2006-10-11
Fans: 2
Doc Pain: I'd like to know if the german internalisation is acceptable. Does it differ between standard german and newspeak german (such as it differences between british and american english)? Furthermore, is a serial mouse automatically supported?
German support is adequate, certainly not worse than Ubuntu's. I reported a lot of issues last year and most have been more than fixed. I do not understand the difference between standard and newspeak, but if you expect an installer devoid of IT terminology, you are going to be disappointed.
The GUI installer recognizes RS232 (serial), PS2 and USB mice without problems.
Member since:2006-10-08
Fans: 6
"I do not understand the difference between standard and newspeak, but if you expect an installer devoid of IT terminology, you are going to be disappointed."
So let me elaborate on this a bit: "Newspeak" (Neusprech) refers to a dyslexia-like use of the german language, such as the usage of capital letters, connected and disconnected words, proper cases, hyphenation and the use of ligatures. Standard german refers to the common regulated and confimed orthography, grammar, and punctuation, which is no longer part of the basic education here in Germany.
It would be nice to have de_DE and de_NS separated. :-)
The evasion of IT termini technici is not ment. Most of these terms (with their origin in the english language) are part of the common education, so there's no problem to know what "E-Mail", "Browser" or "Interface" refers to. There are some ill translations of IT termini technici floating around, but they're not common, so nobody really uses them. Just to mention an example, the term "Weltnetz" (world net) refers to the Internet and the WWW as well, because the inventor(s) of the term surely didn't know the difference.
"The GUI installer recognizes RS232 (serial), PS2 and USB mice without problems."
I'm glad to hear this. Allthoug serial mice are considered obsolete, they're still in use. For example, PC-BSD needs a manual setup to make them working, while USB mice are no problem.
I'll surely give Debian a try, I think I'll like it because it features "outdated methods" (using the keyboard and the console) along with "modern methods" (GUI solutions). Allthoug I prefer UNIXes such as FreeBSD, Solaris and IRIX, Debian with its new installer is interesting for me, at least for an evualuation if it's "good enough" do be given to friends and family. NB: First test, then share, else you'll earn complaints only. :-)
Member since:2006-10-11
Fans: 2
Doc Pain: So let me elaborate on this a bit: "Newspeak" (Neusprech) refers to a dyslexia-like use of the german language, such as the usage of capital letters, connected and disconnected words, proper cases, hyphenation and the use of ligatures. Standard german refers to the common regulated and confimed orthography, grammar, and punctuation, which is no longer part of the basic education here in Germany.
The installer mostly follows the 3rd edition of the reformed orthography of 2006. Older modules may contain 2nd edition reform orthography, but I'm not intimate with the details. It is just what I noted during my last test.
It would be nice to have de_DE and de_NS separated. :-)
Whatever that means.
Member since:2006-10-08
Fans: 6
"The installer mostly follows the 3rd edition of the reformed orthography of 2006. Older modules may contain 2nd edition reform orthography, but I'm not intimate with the details. It is just what I noted during my last test. "
So it's an outdated unofficial german dialect... BTW, the official reform orthography is dated to 1996 by law. Depending on the federal state, there are many different dialects. But that's a topic for another forum.
"Whatever that [de_DE, de_NS] means."
de_NS (newspeak) is intended to cover all german dialects (about 20 different orthographies are known at the moment), no matter if spelling, hyphenation etc. is correct, while de_DE would provide the standard (unified) german language, regardless of any reformatory nonsense or mistake. (LaTeX and OpenOffice still are able to produce accurate results, proper dictionaries are still available.)
But as I said, another topic. Non german OSN readers must think we're completely mad in Germany, teaching a different german language in every nearly school... :-)
Member since:
2005-09-10
Fans: 1
The options to fully encrypt your partitions with LUKS is great for laptop users with some notion of privacy and far beyond any other GNU/Linux installer I've seen. Now if only it was possible to input all decryption keys at the same time instead for having to babysit the boot-up process and type them whenever needed...
One thing that puzzles me though is that it is possible to select file system types for /boot which grub does not handle rendering the system unbootable.
Member since:
2006-02-01
Fans: 1
I've always found that the installer itself (textmode was my choice) was quick and it did the job very nicely.
My choice was to use the net-install CD's, and my only complaint would have to be how terrible the wireless support is in the installer, or should I say complete lack of support. It would be nice, even if I'm only to expect the most basic fireware installed by defaut (open source ones only, due to Debian's choice) it would be nice.
Otherwise, great installer, very streamlined, fast and it works.
Member since:
2006-12-16
Fans: 3
I can't see what the big fuss is about, as installers go, it's still very very primative. I remember when I was using Libranet, they wrote a custom installation wizard that worked, and worked exceptionally well, including allowing you to change partitioning details at the same time, same screen. If a single man distro can do it in 3-6 months, then why the hell has it taken an organisation like Debian so long? Sorry, but the new Debian installer might be better than previous versions, but it still falls an awful long way short of being really useful imho.
Dave
Member since:2006-01-01
Fans: 1
I really wouldn't call the debian-installer primitive when compared to the installers of other distros. I would also strongly disagree with your opinion on the debian-installer's usefulness. Maybe you could add some details and tell what kind of problems you've experienced using the debian-installer?
You ask what the big fuss is about. There are both historical and technical reasons for celebrating the debian-installer. The main historical reason is that although many people think that Debian is sweet once you manage to install it, Debian also has the reputation to be one of the most difficult-to-install GNU/Linux distros out there. The debian-installer was introduced in the Sarge release (2005) and before that Debian had just a set of install floppies.
Libranet and Knoppix became popular because they made installing Debian easy. (Well, Knoppix has also other merits -- is a good live-CD.) Then Ubuntu adopted the Sarge installer in 2004 (before Sarge was released) and people certainly didn't say "Welcome to the 1990's, Ubuntu!" Instead, they said "Hooray! Ubuntu has made installing Debian easy!" I doubt that Ubuntu would have ever become popular without the debian-installer.
More history of the debian-installer here:
http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/d-i_retrospective.html
Technical reasons why the debian-installer could be considered better than the Libranet installer include, among other things, support for many languages and processor architectures. If you have read the article we're currently discussing, you also know that the debian-installer is very flexible and you can modify the installation process according to your needs.
More technical reasons here:
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller
Member since:2005-07-24
Fans: 35
"""
If you have read the article we're currently discussing, you also know that the debian-installer is very flexible and you can modify the installation process according to your needs.
"""
Not really. I'll take Anaconda with Kickstart any day. The installer discussed does look horrendously primitive to my eye.
I don't understand why an organization with the talent, and number of developers, that Debian claims to have can't get this right.
Member since:2007-02-19
Fans: 0
Not really. I'll take Anaconda with Kickstart any day. The installer discussed does look horrendously primitive to my eye.
I don't understand why an organization with the talent, and number of developers, that Debian claims to have can't get this right.
To each their own. I think that the Debian installer is elegent in its simplicity, and works as smooth as butter, as opposed to Anaconda, which works but seems more slow and quirky to me.
If you want to "prettify" it, have you tried the graphical version yet? d-i is modular, so anyone can write an even more pleasing-to-the-eye front-end to it whenever they want. I'll take its rock-solid stability over a pretty front-end any day though.
Member since:2005-07-24
Fans: 35
"""
I think that the Debian installer is elegent in its simplicity, and works as smooth as butter
"""
You are completely missing the point.
I care more about flexibility than pretty. It's just that Anaconda happens to have both.
You can have the elegance and simplicity of the Debian installer... whatever that is supposed to mean. Seems to me, its just simple.
And the butter is likely to give you a heart attack. I would advise cutting down. (No offense, Butters. ;-) )
For deployment at client sites, I still prefer Anaconda/Kickstart.
For installation in your parents' basement, Debian's installer may be OK. ;-)
Edited 2007-03-12 22:38
Member since:2006-12-16
Fans: 3
Member since:2006-12-16
Fans: 3
Quote: "I really wouldn't call the debian-installer primitive when compared to the installers of other distros."
Well, I would. Anaconda from circa 97 is better than the current Debian installer imho.
Quote: "Debian also has the reputation to be one of the most difficult-to-install GNU/Linux distros out there"
Bullshit. I didn't have any issues with installing Debian 'Woody' going back several years.
Quote: "Libranet and Knoppix became popular because they made installing Debian easy"
Well duh, yes. Libranet offered a fair bit more than that though. Knoppix was rarely used to install Debian onto a system imho, from my experience. It was used to diagnose problematic systems.
Quote: "The debian-installer was introduced in the Sarge release (2005) and before that Debian had just a set of install floppies."
It's been a while since I've installed Woody, I seem to remember some floppies, yes, I don't remember them being particularly difficult to do. Hell, Microsoft didn't have bootable CD media until Windows 2000 and people managed just fine...
Quote: "I doubt that Ubuntu would have ever become popular without the debian-installer."
Ubuntu became popular cos it was free, and had the latest and greatest Gnome. The rest is just fanboy stuff. I still think Ubuntu is vastly overrated.
Quote: "Technical reasons why the debian-installer could be considered better than the Libranet installer include, among other things, support for many languages and processor architectures."
I see. Tell me, why is it logical to waste time developing and testing an installer on different architectures, delaying a project beyond time immemorial, when said architectures are used by 0.0002% of computer users around the world? Better to drop these archaic architectures and concentrate on the real world, where real users are. This is primarily why Debian has fallen so far behind. This belief that we must support M68K, Alpha, PPC etc etc is idiotic. There are only 2 real architectures worth supporting imho, and that's i386, and AMD64. As soon as Debian wakes up and realises this, then they'll make their life a lot easier, and I suspect their releases a lot timelier. Ubuntu realised this early on, and only supported the architectures that counted. So did Libranet.
As to languages, English is THE language. Like it or not, it's the top dog in the language arena. It is spoken by more people than any other language, it is, these days, universally accepted as the universal language by all sane people. I personally detest the English language for a variety of linguistic reasons, but that is beside the point. Libranet was based in Canada, a primarily English speaking country, so it made sense that English was supported. Adding other languages adds unneccessary complications imho. Other than that, the Libranet installer absolutely hammered the hell out of the current Debian installer.
Quote: "If you have read the article we're currently discussing, you also know that the debian-installer is very flexible and you can modify the installation process according to your needs."
Please don't insinuate that I didn't read the article, I did. Flexibility that only a very small subset of a percent of your users is going to use is idiotic imho.
Until Debian realises these issues, they are going to stay their own worst enemies. The problem with Debian is that it's developed by geeks, for geeks. Geeks are a small subset of the population, and coding for them, over the priority of coding/developing for the majority of the users is a sure way to extinction.
I like Debian. I really do. But they are their own worst enemy.
Dave
Member since:2007-02-19
Fans: 0
Dave, I can see where you're coming from, and even agree with a lot of it (e.g.: the over-hypedness of Ubuntu), but I think you're missing some of the point of Debian.
As much as Debian is my preferred distro, I don't think it's the "distro of the masses" (but neither is Fedora), nor does it need to be. Being completely non-commercial, it can reach people (say, those 0.0002% still running m68k Macs) that no commercial distro would reach because it wouldn't be worth their while. It can reach people who only speak a remote Pacific Island language. It is the exact opposite of a geek-only distro; it's an inclusive distro. Now, you're right that it means that they can't move as fast, but I think it's a good trade-off for being the most inclusive distro there is.
Now what about the majority of us that are on a x86 or amd64 machine that want more of the latest-and-greatest and tailored to the average computer? That's where Debian's obsession with stability comes in handy. Other distros can use it as a base and add the latest on top of it, and make it more a seamless experience without making it too unstable. Ubuntu, however over-hyped, being the prime example of that. Taking Debian as a base and making it as non-geeky as you could ever want. Not to say that the Fedora camp is bad, but the Debian camp isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be.
One more thing I disagree with: As a genuine English-speaking American who has lived in other countries for years at a time, I can assure you that although lots of Westernized countries can speak and read English just fine, they still prefer their native language. And it is nothing but cultural narrow-mindedness to assume that English will be the dominant international language forever. While some things (stability, polish, etc...) may be more immediately important, internationalization shouldn't be ignored in any distribution.
