I can’t take anymore comments like “Debian/Gentoo/OpenBSD/etc. are not good/user-friendly because they lack a graphical installer.” Searching the web, I couldn’t find a comprehensive site describing the good and the bad about graphical installers for various OSes throughout the years, so in this article I hope to debunk a few of the myths on the basis of my own personal and professional experience.Editorial Notice: All opinions are those of the author and not necessarily those of osnews.com
Browsing the OSNews forums, you can find many comparisons of the form “OS A has an excellent text installer, but OS B has a mediocre GUI installer, therefore OS B is better, simpler, and easier to use.”
Granted, I’m oversimplifying somewhat. And of course, in general they leave out the adjectives “excellent” and “mediocre,” so the comparison reduces to “having a GUI installer means the OS is better and easier
to install.” But there’s the rub! Without describing the
quality of the installer, you’re only seeing half the picture: the point should be the excellence of OS A’s install process, not the fact that OS B’s install is graphical! That quality and functionality are more important than icons and eye candy should be the title of the first chapter of every introductory text on software design, which leads us to our first myth.
Myth: A GUI install process implies a simple install
This is at best an oversimplification, and at worst completely wrong. Simplicity is multi-faceted, and it means more than merely having a GUI to guide the user through the process. If there is going
to be a GUI, it had better be intuitive and well-designed. I would far rather have a well-documented, simple text install than a bad graphical install any day!
As an example, consider Tsu Dho Nimh’s excellent article
Migrating to Linux
not easy for Windows users. Here’s a guy who says right on page 1
in bold face “It must have a GUI interface for installing … the
system.” I can respect that (to each his own, right?), but he
certainly doesn’t make the mistake of equating “pretty GUI” with
quality, and his article has several good examples of bad graphical OS
installers. To take just one example, he says of the “Linux for
Windows” install (when trying to install a dual-boot system with
Windows):
If you follow the installation steps as prompted, you end up
with a full installation of Linux and a partitioned, formatted hard
drive, just as if you had bought the standard version. You would lose
your Windows system and all your data.
That doesn’t sound particularly simple to me: an installer
that doesn’t do what the prompts say it’s going to do?
Let’s contrast that with the OpenBSD installer, which
is completely text-based. It fits on a single floppy disk! Surely
this must count for a few simplicity points! Also, it is very well
documented: my first install of OpenBSD, with the help of the
excellent docs, took about half an hour, and I had no previous BSD
experience! Granted, you end up with a very minimal install, but
that’s fine, because I personally like the idea of conceptually
separating the installation of the system from the installation
and configuration of programs. I find this very
flexible, which brings us to myth #2.
Myth: A GUI installer implies a flexible install
Nothing debunks this myth better than one look at the Windows
installer. The install guide for the Windows 9x/ME series could have
fit on a single page: give in your license code, select your time
zone, and watch the countdown for an hour. For all intents and
purposes, the Windows installation process is a huge glorified
hourglass icon! To this very day, when a sysadmin or a power user
needs to do a more complex install of Windows 2000 or XP, what do you
do? Admit it: you pop in the four diskettes and use the text
installer! The mere fact that you have a graphical install process
doesn’t mean that process is flexible.
Compare this with FreeBSD’s sysinstall. It is extremely powerful
and flexible: you can configure X, set up network services, do user
management, software installation, and tons more stuff. Not to
mention the fact that (excluding the critical install-time tasks), you
can do it all when you want to! At install time, later, it
doesn’t matter. So much flexibility from a text based installer
… who’d have thunk it?
Myth: All OSes/Distributions are vying for desktop supremacy
I apologize: to all the sysadmins and seasoned OS veterans, the
fact that this statement is mere myth may seem completely self-evident,
but the fact of the matter is that apparently many people don’t realize
this. The fact is that niche markets are just as common in the OS
world as they are anywhere else, and it is not the case that
the Holy Grail of all operating system development is the coveted
desktop market. An operating system can be specially designed for
real-time considerations, for security, or maybe it’s just
somebody’s hobby. Let’s take just two examples, though there
are dozens more.
OpenBSD is very popular in security-sensitive settings, and its
minimal install process is an excellent example of the principle
of least privilege. Gentoo’s flexible install appeals to the hacker,
the power user, and anyone eager to learn about what’s under
the hood of a Linux system. Granted, there may be
desktop potential in each of those niche markets, but their
install processes are tailored to their respective target
audiences.
Conclusion:
A comprehensive install process
is a massive plus
for any OS. After all, in operating systems,
much like in … ummm … dandruff management, “You never get a
second chance to make a first impression.”
(For the benefit of any foreign readers, that was the slogan of an
anti-dandruff shampoo in Canada.) And if that install process is
graphical, so much the better. A GUI enhances the user experience
and is generally more newbie-friendly.
That being said, I’m seeing comments like “that OS has no
future … it doesn’t even have a graphical install!” far too
often. I think such comments often result from the myths
we’ve discussed here, and also from people forgetting two
important points.
Firstly, installation is supposed to be a one-time
thing (for the user, not the hacker/power-user/sysadmin): surely
the quality of the system you end up with at the end should be
more important than what you’re looking at during the one-time
install process! Have we gotten so caught up in eye candy
that we can’t stand to look at a text console for an hour?
Finally, it should be the quality that counts. In the
spirit of using the best tool for the job, I’ll always choose a
good, well-documented text install process over a
“GUI-for-the-sake-of-GUI” install.
About the Author:
Paul Hankes Drielsma currently works as a researcher in the area of information security at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. He previously worked as a system administrator and has been an OS hobbyist for several years. He can be reached at [email protected].
I, for one, am happy that someone stood up and said this. I have done mutliple OpenBSD installs on a rack of 1U servers al l by console cables. I would love to see someone do that with a graphical installer.
Plus when I build my servers, I use barebones video cards…I don’t need 64 MB vid cards, hell 4MB is too much…but I use them. That’s all you need when you’re running SERVERS.
I never knew 2000 and XP had non graphical installers. How do you get that?
Flawless article Paul. It is about time someone said “Enough is enough!” People bash text installers far too often. The ones I see the most frequently bashed are Gentoo and Debian. You know, people have discussed this a lot in the Gentoo forums and I’m sure the Debian forums as well. I really don’t think most of the users of these systems even want a graphical installer. Designing an intuitive, yet flexible graphical installer is difficult. Chances are it will need some updating for all major releases and it will pull human time and resources away from other, more important things.
This goes doubly for systems like Debian, Gentoo, and (I believe) FreeBSD where you really do just install once and update everything else through apt/portage/ports.
Yeah I’ve been watching that thread. Luckily they’ve toned it down to a cli install…just someting other than a pure do it yourself style
Luckily the majority of those I see participating aren’t developers for gentoo yet. Just people looking to help that aren’t interested in writing things like emerge files or doing debugging.
It takes all kinds.
I personally feel the Gentoo install is just fine as it is when one is just installing it on one computer (which is all I had to do), but I can see why people do want a decent cli installer when they may be installing on several systems.
Hopefully a good one will be made. However, certain things just don’t lend themselves to automation, and I would imagine most of those wanting this worked on have no experience with OS installers. I sure know I don’t. In fact, I don’t know anyone who does (to be honest I don’t think I even want to have experience with it
.
Well, I’ve been wanting to throw it on a couple of systems here besides my blade 100. I’m really looking for a good kickstart like script for gentoo…hopefully it will include that.
I think with enough good ideas, the lack of experience will be overcome, it just needs direction and the ability to be both user friendly and power user friendly
Layout will be important.
I don’t agree. As concluded in the article, “A GUI enhances the user experience and is generally more newbie-friendly. “
Installing the OS is as much part of using it as running it. The text-age should come to a close now, time to move on and conquer the desktop.
All those people who think Linux is already there are just holding it back.
But that’s just my 2 ct.
— G.
No! Linux is NOT ready for mainstream desktops, no one claims it is. The text age is here and it is now. Each Operating system has it’s own interface in how to interact with it. With Unix and Unix like OS’, it’s much easier to interface quickly with a command line. Develop a GUI, fine…but it’s usable for many people right now, and they claim they love it.
We are not holding back, you are just glued to the idea of eye candy and happiness. To each his own.
Thanks for your comments!
The Windows 2000 installation CD has four floppy images on it (I may be wrong here, but I think they were called something like .IMG). If you copy those onto disks, you can get access to a text installer. Similarly for Windows XP, booting from the installation CD (or a rescue CD from your manufacturer) can get you into a text-based install.
I apologize for my heated response…but those Operating systems that don’t supply a GUI for install are actually aimed at either power users or for servers, which are usually headless.
*BSD, Debain and Gentoo are not for newbies. In fact, I would bet that *BSD runs better as a server than a desktop, due to the fact that the majority of software ported to them is definitely aimed at the server.
Maybe i’m dellusional and more advanced than normal, but I don’t like having to hook a monitor up to a server to install operating systems, i like them to either be done as scripted installs or by serial console. That way I can use a console server and do multiple installs at one time.
Cook, I will check those out next time I have to install. It might save me a little time not having to deal with point and click.
Can you do scripted installs of Win 2k/XP via command line? That would just rock.
That was supposed to be cool
Sorry.
I will summarize my opinion about this matter with Tsu Dho Nimh own words:
“I want an operating system that works like a Honda Accord and not a kit-car project.”
Most of us are USERS not operating system conceptors nor teenager computer geek alike. We want it to work from the first time we insert the CDRom until the time we need to upgrade one of our favourite application and this with less user interaction or at least with minimalistic OS internal knowledge. Windows and OSX are d
Don’t tell me that you prefer an american car …
Nice to see recognition of what for many has long been obvious. I would go even further and say that the FreeBSD wannabe GUI install is not the way to go. Sure you can do a lot with it, but there are a lot of things that are counterintuitive like going back one screen (you have to click cancel). Contrast that with say, the OpenBSD installer. It’s a breeze. I don’t know what people are on about. Here you have an installer which asks you simple questions which have simple answers. For a long time before I ever tried a bsd, the opinion pieces I read about them scared me off (no graphical installer, yikes!). So I stayed with hold-your-hand suped-up installers like SuSE and never learned a thing about my system.
Then one day I felt daring and tried out OpenBSD. I found myself actually ‘getting it’ immediately. It wasn’t scary. It was great. I was already learning stuff about the underlying system from the moment I started installing it. I never had that with a hold-your-hand linux distro.
seriously though, gentoo debian and the bsd’s do each hold a candle of delight, since neither of them are meanth for joe schmoe.
and if joe and vera tries any of them out well then they are on their own since neither debian or gentoo are developed for “new users” but for “Advanced Users and developers” I think that needs to be said before we go into yet another heated debate …
had this been a discussion about the big three, i could have agreed somewhat but flint, your comment is a fair bit offbase.
No! No! No! The text age should absolutely _NOT_ come to an end, at least not while I’m alive
So you like GUI’s. Fine, go ahead and use a GUI-based OS, there’s plenty of those around.
But I (and though it may well be a minority, I’m not alone on this) prefer text-based systems. Sure I do use X because some apps need to be graphical (image viewers etc.), and to be able to nicely fit a lot of xterms on my screen. But I do not want kludged and bloated GUI config tools. And I absolutely not want to be locked out on certain areas of the system (like M$ Windows does, and some Linux distro’s are starting to go down this alley too…)
Look at it this way: Suppose you prefer wine over beer, should we all stop drinking beer?
I must say I totally agree with the article.
Text based installers are fine. Of course, end-users would prefer a GUI based one, but I don’t think end users should be installing nor maintaining an OS in the first place.
An OS should be installed and maintained by a specialised company or other knowledgeable person. Like with a car: who still changes the oil himself?
So, in my opionion it is not the installation process that is the problem. It is the service and knowledge of computer vendors that is the problem.
A user should be able to have a technician look after his PC and keep it in good condition for a reasonable amount of money. He should not have to worry about installation of software, virus updates and whatever.
It is time for the IT industry to start and take responsibility for their products. It should be the responsibility of the vendor to make sure the system is installed and maintained properly. Of course, this cannot be done for free, but if you spend the money you would otherwise spend on SW licenses on proper maintenance instead, Open Source systems could be very attractive.
A vendor should be liable for damage to my system if it has catched a virus that used a hole for which a patch has been available for months.
I do fully agree with the author.I remember Red Hat’s and SuSE’s first GUI installer which operated in a ‘kind of interlaced mode’ and you had a pretty nasty -because flickering- screen. What advantage did I have over a well looking simple text based, yet colourful screen?
i for my part installed debian got it updated and installed both gnome2.2 and kde 3.1 so easily. well sometimes not what looks good that will solve the problem but something that just does the job. heheheh. kudos to all debian maintainers for that.
I’m glad someone finally said it. Even Windows XP installs with a (bluescreen-based
) text-mode installer. When I had a CRT screen, I even much preferred text-mode to the (say) Redhat flicker graphics installer. Debian 2.2, as I remember, was just as easy to install as XP now. Debian 2.1 was my first Linux (after one year prior exposure to Win98), and I never understood why people claimed it to be unfriendly to newbies…
In the Debian manual it said “a chicken can install Debian, it just has to push return most of the time”. Damn right they are!
No! No! No! The text age should absolutely _NOT_ come to an end, at least not while I’m alive
So you like GUI’s. Fine, go ahead and use a GUI-based OS, there’s plenty of those around.
It’s much easier to find some option in a good-designed GUI if you don’t remember its exact name, than to find the same option for a CLI utility. Not all of us are blind typers, and it is generally easier to do two clicks and not to type “–option-one –option-two”.
But I (and though it may well be a minority, I’m not alone on this) prefer text-based systems. Sure I do use X because some apps need to be graphical (image viewers etc.), and to be able to nicely fit a lot of xterms on my screen. But I do not want kludged and bloated GUI config tools.
And I do not kludged and bloated CLI config tools / configuration files – yes, there are such. And it’s much easier to perform some little typo in a text configuration file and to make the application unusable. Or let’s suppose you erroneously selected some parameters which can’t be combined, e.g “A and B” and “A and C” is valid, but “A and B and C” is not, and you enabled “A and B and C”. A good GUI would prevent you from doing that.
In short – GUI is not necessarily easier, but good GUI may help . OTOH, CLI is not necessarily leaner and meaner and clearer. There may be bad GUI and there may be bad CLI, neither is a panacea.
And I absolutely not want to be locked out on certain areas of the system (like M$ Windows does, and some Linux distro’s are starting to go down this alley too…)
Look at it this way: Suppose you prefer wine over beer, should we all stop drinking beer?
OTOH : what would you prefer – going to a supermarket and purchasing a bottle of beer ( Windows ) or growing all the ingredients and making your own beer at home ( Linux from scratch)? In the first case, you never know what they have put in the beer and of which quality it is – but all it requires is a bit of money and a bit of time. In the second case, it requires a lot of efforts, a lot of knowledge and a lot of time – and at the end, a fair amount of money.
Home brewed beer is often much better than the watered down american swill that I see available in Tops or Wegmans…
Plus I can tweak it the way I want
There sure are bad CLI-configs (sendmail for example), but there are bad GUI’s too.
CLI’s are not for everyone. While they may require a little more knowledge (eg. you have to read the manpage first), they are far more flexible.
In the end it’s all a matter of what you prefer. And that’s why both should exist. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be GUI’s, I’m just saying that there shouldn’t be _just_ GUI’s. Choice is a good thing, so don’t take that away from us
As to your beer-analogy: I know some people who brew their own beer, and I can assure you, one can’t buy such strong beers, at least not in the average American supermarket. Here in Belgium, there however are a few that come close
(but this is really getting off topic now 
)
But I find your analogy a little exaggerated; I’d rather compare the CLI-stuff with driving a few 100km to some little abbey where they make a fabulous beer. That suits better because most of us don’t really code the OS we’re using ourselves. Only the developers are real home-brewers
But still, you somewhat proved my point: While some may prefer to take the easy road, others will want to do a bigger effort, in order to end up with something they like better.
Just provide both. Unless your operating system is aimed at power-users, developers or servers EXCLUSIVELY in which case you can probably get away with a CLI one only.
I’m using gentoo and I’m actually enjoying having no installer, because I’m learning a LOT about the inner workings of a linux system. But I can imagine that if I had to install this again on another desktop machine, it would start to get tedious. I hope that when they finally do make the CLI installer that they would provide an easy way to reuse some other installation (at least all the files you downloaded so that you don’t have to waste precious internet bandwidth to download X, Mozilla, Gnome/KDE, etc from the net again…) and/or a kickstart script.
Home brewed beer is often much better than the watered down american swill that I see available in Tops or Wegmans…
Pay attention to what you’ve said – “is often much better”. To continue you, “and sometimes equal, and sometimes much worse” 🙂 It all depends on whoever brews it. The same with Open Source software – some program may be completely Open Source and utterly and extremely inconvenient, up to the extreme that it makes you think that the developer doesn’t understand how to make UIs – neither CLI nor GUI.
Plus I can tweak it the way I want
Wasting a lot of time and ending with some completely undrinkable liquid :-). And then you go to the supermarket and purchase a bottle of beer 😉
I’m surprised your article didn’t get modded down by Eugenia
Linux installers have come a long way in the past few years. There are still a few things that need to be worked on, but they’re approaching a very polished and refined state. But I myself prefer Linux From Scratch. LFS isn’t hard to install; it just takes a user with more intelligence than an eggplant, who has the ability to follow directions. Now, what I’d like to see is a LiveCD-based ncurses/graphical LFS installer that lets you install an optimized LFS system, without having any other OS on your machine. It’d let you create/edit partitons; choose to use an autogenerated set of config files, or code your own; that sort of thing. It could use the partiton with /usr/src on it to compile the packages, and it could just download whatever package it needed. Like some bastard child of Mandrake and Gentoo. Imagine if Gentoo had Mandrake’s installer, with emerge support. Now that’d be cool, IMHO.
But I find your analogy a little exaggerated; I’d rather compare the CLI-stuff with driving a few 100km to some little abbey where they make a fabulous beer. That suits better because most of us don’t really code the OS we’re using ourselves. Only the developers are real home-brewers
I didn’t compare CLI vs GUI stuff with beer, but rather Windows vs Linux distro.
The problem is that very often what you get at this abbey is not beer yet. You need to complete the brewing vs just opening the bottle and drinking.
The author is right that a command line install can be just as easy to do as any GUI. I have installed Gentoo and had no real problems other than the slow speed(I understand why, this is just an observation). I have tried OpenBSD a couple of times and it is not so good. I believe the installer is designed to keep people away for at least two reasons. First, the part where you partition the disk make no sense until you already know the system. Secondly, I have read that Theo likes it that way because it discourages people who are not “serious” enough. It discouraged me, since FreeBSD worked well enough that I could not see why I should have to guess myself through OpenBSD’s installer. I hope they change this someday, since I would like to try OpenBSD.
This analogy is getting a little out of hand, not? I’m getting thirsty
Back on topic (sort of). I wouldn’t want to do a windows vs. *nix comparison today, because the *nix-world has far to many faces to be treated as just one OS.
There are linux distro’s that are very similar to MS Windows, or at least strive to be. There’s also Mac OS X, which is very userfriendly and graphical, yet it a UNIX-like OS.
Then there’s commercial Unices, like Solaris, HP-UX and IRIX, that aren’t used much as a general desktop, but are often used for very specific tasks, like simulations and such. And towards the user, they are rather userfriendly too.
On the other side of the spectrum we find operating systems like OpenBSD (my personal favorite
), which have a totally different goal, target a totally different group of users, and thus (no surprise) are totally different.
There’s a lot of choice in the *nix-world, and I’d like to keep it that way.
Hi
I think the reason why people bash the Debian installer is not because it is not graphical.
In fact, that’s what THEY say but I’m pretty sure that’s not what they really want. IMO, what users really want is an easy installer. One with hardware auto-detection, one that only asks VERY important questions, one that can be acheived in ess than 10 clicks etc…
The fact is that most graphical installers are user-friendly for the reasons I’ve just given while most text-based graphical installers aren’t user-friendly for the same reasons.
So, people tend to think that making a graphical version of the Debian installer would make it easy, which is wrong.
For example, I recently installed Redhat 8 using the text-based installer and it was a real joy. No problem found. All my hardware wasdetected etc… while I always have problems with Debian installer because it asks too many questions I can’t even undertsand…
I thought I’d say an unoffical thanks from the boys and girls at MS. Your angry tone and indignance to people not using Linux in the way only helps there cause. Has it dawned on you that Windows is popular because it has pretty little buttons that make it go? Has it dawned on you that not everyone that uses a computer is interested in its inner workings? Yes, Debian is harder to install, but only slightly. You need to have a little more understanding than selecting the “C” drive and hitting the install button. Most server admins and tech savvy users will sit down and figure out what their partition layout and fs should be. The desktop crowd doesn’t care. They want an interface that is built with Flash that morphs in dinosaurs during the install. Give them what they want. Without them, the developers, both hardware and software, will never fully back Linux. RH still offers a text install as well as a GUI install. The choice is left to the end user and not forced upon them by someone’s philosophical installer belief. If you don’t like it, build your own text only distro. Isn’t that the whole point to OSS anyways?
Again, you’re forgetting a few words…
“The OpenBSD installer is bad [for me]”
I personally find the OpenBSD installer perfect for my needs. It’s simple, quick, yet versatile.
Sure you have to know what disk slices are, but hey, that’s what the FAQ is for. Instead of displaying screens full of basic information most of the people installing OpenBSD already know, they have chosen to nicely bundle that information in the FAQ.
There’s a complete installation-log in the FAQ, providing quite some hand-holding for first timers. Maybe if you read the information that’s available, it would’ve gone a bit better?
It is true that Theo (and he’s completely right on that) wants to discourage people who are not “serious” enough as you call it. Theo wants to discourage people who don’t read the FAQ/manpages/… because they’ll end up wasting developer time asking already answered questions on the mailinglists anyway.
This may seem harsh, but then again, it isn’t OpenBSD’s goal to be a mainstream OS. If you want that, use Linux or Windows. In the end, it’s all about the right tool for the right job, not?
the gui-installer should offer the same options as the textbased-installer (and in good distros it DOES) but with the opportunity to easly roll back changes and decisions.
If you run a server and you want a text install, then (usually) you are given the choice just after the cd-boot, but think to a linux newbie that doesn’t know what a kernel module is……
First off, I see people trying to argue between the virtues of a GUI vs. a CLI. I love text and the command line, but it needs to be understood that the *nix OS’s provide a choice. One person can use a Linux distro that focuses on perfecting the GUI, and someone else can use Linux or a *BSD via a serial connection using only text. In the end, it’s the same OS driving the system, but they’re both being used in a completely different way and for different reasons. ‘Choice’ is one of the many beautiful things about the open source world. Learn to love it.
Now, regarding the automation of a Linux install, Slackware has been able to do this for as long as I’ve been using it. You simply create a directory structure somewhere that mimics the directory structure on the ftp site or the install cd, and include your customized tagfiles in each of those directories. You can have the installer install a package automatically, ignore the package completely, or ask whether it should be installed or not. Then to install, all you need to do is configure the partitions, choose your install source, and then point the installer to your custom tagfiles. Then go have a cup of tea or something.
I’m not trying to sound “angry” at any users who don’t use Linux (several of my examples were from the BSD world anyway). I’m a firm believer that a computer is a tool and everyone should use that tool in the way that helps them get their work done efficiently. Whatever fits your needs, use it.
My point is not that Windows has a bad installer, but that it’s not a very flexible one. That being said, it’s a very simple one to use (which is in itself kind of a moot point, as many users never install Windows themselves, but buy a pre-installed PC or use a rescue disc).
I think you may have missed part of the point. Your average Joe computer user wants bells and whistles. That’s fine. I agree, let him have them! He (or she) doesn’t care about what’s under the hood and he definitely doesn’t want to see the words “segmentation fault” or worse “kernel panic” … what the heck are those and why should he care? He shouldn’t. I completely agree with you, and I’m not trying to say everybody should only use text consoles all the time. But my point is that just because it’s text doesn’t mean it’s bad. I’m tired of people who seem to think that. There are bad GUI installers just like there are bad text installers, and of course there are also examples of excellent GUI installers and excellent text installers.
And I agree with you that bells, whistles, and desktop presence are probably where the money is in the desktop computer market. But one of the points I’m trying to make is that not every OS or distribution is actually trying to get a huge desktop following and conquer that market. If certain potential desktop users of an OS are turned off by a text installer, that’s not always the end of the world. Like the thread on the OpenBSD installer says … the OpenBSD developers probably don’t care too much, because they have an installer that allows the average OpenBSD user to get the job done.
I’ve heard from one of my collage teachers that there is a way to install Win2k with a floppy that has a text file on the disk thatselects all the appropiate options during the install for you. Makes life easy I guess – but never tried it. Would be great for this type of thing in installing linux box, bsd or debian type instal I think. Just think, type a text file with all the options that you need, rebook the computer with the dostro install cd 1, put in the floppy and away you go. Becomes even handier when rththe distros are installed using a DVD.
Um, no, it isn’t. Most peope I know can install/build computers and whichever OS they prefer. We’re all techs in my circles.
Most of us can sit in front of any machine and generally figure out how to USE it. We do NOT know how to install 18 different flavors of Linux, 2 or more BSDs, Mac OS 9 or X. We can use them just fine.
The vast majority of the people I deal with outside of my friends, do NOT know how to install an OS, nor do they want to. Either the damned thing works, or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, they ask around for someone who knows how to fix it.
Think cars. How many of you can install an engine? According to the analogy you want to use, I would have to know how to install the engine, drivetrain, etc. in order to use it. Nope. I buy the damned car assembled. This is the path the VAST majority of people take.
You’re missing the point entirely. People do NOT install an OS. They USE an OS. Techs and admins install an OS. A hobbyist will install an OS. If you can’t figure out how to do that, you’re either using an OS designed for a different crowd, or you don’t really want to deal with the odd quirks of that particular OS. No one said installation needs to be easy. It’s nice and vastly preferable, but if the system runs well once installed and rarely if ever needs to be reinstalled then it’s a moot point. I have NEVER seen anyone buy a boxed set of Linux or BSD in Best Buy that wasn’t already spouting tech speak. These people already know what they’re doing.
The Joe Six Pack guy everyone keeps talking about when speaking about ease of this or that, apparently never goes into those software aisles. I have never seen this mythical beast at all to be honest. I suspect that’s because he can’t be bothered. It’s so much easier to have someone who WANTS to tinker with the guts of computers deal with all of that for him. He could probably care less how the OS gets on the machine, just as long as it works.
The most important point that surfaced in the article hasn’t been mentioned in the comments at all: Configuration after installation must be easy.
It’s true that the Debian installation is actually quite simple and straightforward. The problem is that once the initial install has finished, you’re on your own. If you want to go back and change your selections there’s really zero assistance provided by the tools. And _that_ is the real problem.
It’s not the fact that they don’t have a graphical installer that doesn’t make them suitable for newcomers to linux, it’s also due to the fact that debian comes with some quite old software, though stable and Slack doesn’t configure the sound and graphics during the setup.
Now, if the respective newbie really wants to learn linux he will overcome those shortcomings, and in doing so he will learn a lot about the inner workings of linux
This was my own case.My first distro was slack 8,and i still found it irrtitating because my sound and graohics card were not working.In it’s current form, Debian is better suited for servers, it ain’t for someone who just wants to play moives, surf the net and listen to music beacause of two things:
1)The packages are older versions, chosen for stability, but for a normal user, newer packages are recomende, especially in linux, were the graphical environments are evolving very quickly
2)Slack doesn’t detect the graphics and sound during setup, and this can be very frustrating, while debian’s setup is less user friendly tha Slack,It’s quite powerfull, but it requires a somewhat deeper understanding of linux.
finally someone who understands…
text installers rock!
Though I’m mostly installer-agnostic, I personally like slackware’s installer best…
I can agree that some people don’t like the debian installer, it quite confusing sometimes. But even then, that doesn’t make debian a bad distro!
By Alex (IP: —.broadlight.com) – Posted on 2003-04-15 08:56:22
…
It’s much easier to find some option in a good-designed GUI if you don’t remember its exact name, than to find the same option for a CLI utility. Not all of us are blind typers, and it is generally easier to do two clicks and not to type “–option-one –option-two”.
…
And I do not kludged and bloated CLI config tools / configuration files – yes, there are such. And it’s much easier to perform some little typo in a text configuration file and to make the application unusable. Or let’s suppose you erroneously selected some parameters which can’t be combined, e.g “A and B” and “A and C” is valid, but “A and B and C” is not, and you enabled “A and B and C”. A good GUI would prevent you from doing that.
…
OMFG!!!
Sorry this just annoyed me immensely – has this guy USED a text installer???
A CLI install (al la gentoo / LFS) is NOT the same as a Text install al la slack,FreeBSD,Debian etc.
Obviously he hasn’t used one of these installers or he would realise the difference between a gui install and a text install basically the pretty graphics. The slackware installer couldn’t be easier to use.
Before anyone says anything – yes i do realise that Alex was referring to CLI utilities – but I just want to make the point that a TEXT based installer does not mean a CLI nightmare.
I agree with the artcle. I actually prefer a good text based installer to a graphical one. I love the old RedHat menu based text installer. It was so easy to use… Easy to select packages, setup networking, etc…
The old text based Yast from SuSE is also a good one.
I really haven’t seen a graphical installer I would consider easier or superior to previous text based ones.
Graphical doesn’t always mean better…
Even tough Gentoo has a very elitish feel to it, it is more simple than, say, red hat. The only stuff I had to learn was how to configure pppd, XFree and which gcc flag does what, when I first installed gentoo. Add compiling kernel to the mix (which I had known about before) and “things you have to know for installing gentoo” list is complete. Rest is blindly following install document. Once the installation is complete, using and updating it is easier than all distros I’ve ever tried. emerge ‘just works(tm)’
OMFG!!!
Sorry this just annoyed me immensely – has this guy USED a text installer???
Will MS-DOS 3.x manual install ( fdisk, format etc) count for using a CLI installer?
Will Redhat 5.2 installation count for using a text installer?
I was talking not only about installers, but also about CLI vs GUI tools in common.
A CLI install (al la gentoo / LFS) is NOT the same as a Text install al la slack,FreeBSD,Debian etc.
No argument here.
Obviously he hasn’t used one of these installers or he would realise the difference between a gui install and a text install basically the pretty graphics.
If this is the only difference, it only means that the particular GUI installer is bad. GUI as such provides for a lot of possibilities to make user’s life easier ( and harder as well). Graphics may be ( and is ) very informative, if used right.
The slackware installer couldn’t be easier to use.
To each his own. I’m pretty experienced with text, CLI and GUI installers ( doing all kinds of installations for around 12 years ), and I prefer good GUI, but wouldn’t refuse good CLI or good text, operative word being “good”.
This is why preferences DO matter.
I find it much easier to man find use the option and get the result if I even have to look an option or syntax up than to go through a gui and the preferences panel and re-adjust options and then get the results. I can type faster than I can click is what I mean.
However, to each his own. Really. The author had some good points and I think that is just as elitist to sit and say that its 2003 why are you still typing as opposed to clicking as it to tell someone they are not techie or l33t because they use gui tools.
Why? Because sometimes the command line is the fastest easiest way. Notice I said sometimes. For larger office apps I have no desire to go back to the CLI days of WordPerfect 5.2 or Lotus 1-2-3 or whatever. However, for system utilities I find in my opinion before I get flamed that the command line is the way to go.
BTW, most linux installers including redhat have a text-based mode for those that want it.
Sometimes the move to eyecandy is not always good though I still want a Graphical background to my RedHat boot process like on SuSE :->. BTW, I know its coming just not fast enough.
Even tough Gentoo has a very elitish feel to it, it is more simple than, say, red hat. The only stuff I had to learn was how to configure pppd, XFree and which gcc flag does what, when I first installed gentoo.
My cable ISP and almost all ISPs of Israel have some curious setup – you must run PPTP/PPPD over DHCP-ed interface to connect to the internet. Yes, exactly like this. In Windows it’s configured in two clicks. It’s a hell to configure this in Linux. Is Gentoo installer able to cope with that? Does it contain pptp client?
Add compiling kernel to the mix (which I had known about before) and “things you have to know for installing gentoo” list is complete. Rest is blindly following install document
Yep, really little list… Makes Gentoo a nice first distribution for a masochist newbie… :-((((
One thing overlooked is that in the Windows world, the majority of people never install the OS — it comes pre-installed on their computer. Most WinUsers view the computer as an appliance to write letters, surf the net, play games, etc. They don’t have or want a clue as to how the innards work.
My hope is that the Dells, Compaqs, & Gateways of the world will start offering Linux pre-installed. They did at one time, but it wasn’t cost-effective because they had to buy a MS OS license for each box sold whether it had the MS OS installed or not. Maybe they still do, but it’s not obvious in a casual perusal of their sites.
This was a very good article, and there have been some really good comments as well. There really isn’t much to add, but I would like to say something about a couple of installers.
OpenBSD: If the point of an installer is to get the OS from the install media to the hard drive, then OpenBSD’s installer has to be one of the best. You can have a fully functional system up in a matter of minutes with the OpenBSD text-based installer and it is very easy to do.
Gentoo: I like the way Gentoo is installed because it gives people new to Linux and even those familiar with Linux a glimpse into what is going on behind the scenes. I like that it forces you to compile your own kernel during the install too. It is an educational experience and learning is ALWAYS a good thing.
The Gentoo install document is almost 30 pages of good information written in a clear format. Anyone who can read and follow directions should be able to set up Gentoo. The only complaints I would voice against Gentoo are regarding the order of certain tasks in the install documentation (such as setting up your network card prior to partitioning your hard drive. They have it backwards in my opinion.)
Anyway, this was a very good article. Thanks.
Hi all,
I am totally blind, so the question of which type of installer is almost always (until much later, I feel, when GTK is fully supported) undisputably going to be text. Text is conceptually simple to represent as speech or braille, so making a character-based semi-GUI using ncurses or whatever is alright but linear prompts are even nicer, especially since the dawn of Windows whose screen readers understand the GUI and no longer – as older DOS ones did – ASCII art to represent basic GUI features. Since I have had assistance with stepping through a number of graphical installers for Windows and Linux alike, I have traditionally felt that – as a savvy and complex-minded individual – text-based installers are the way to go. Consoles can be accessed on a Windows machine for which the GUI is fully available to run a terminal to drive a Linux box, not during just installation but in typical operation. Script automation is also desirable – wherever present, it is a great feature to be able to install an OS such as 2K (possible with XP but I dislike it) using simply an unattended setup script, and I owe Microsoft for not only offering this feature but realising that such a niche audience require it. To answer Aesiamun – dig on your CD for a file named deploy.cab which you should open and read unattend.doc. HTH 🙂 I use this method, I don’t even need to connect the monitor!
I love the concept of open source. Yes, whichever is your preference, for whichever audience, determines your choice. I only ask or hope that wherever such a variety of choices is made available, the same functionality – to the very letter – is made available in all installers. Debian’s new debconf present in features in the Sarge installer (along with brltty to display the console install debootstrapped) sound excellent, giving the user the choice in the best fashion possible. A pretty observant and generally good article, I thought.
I am trying to install Slack 9 (whose text installer I find to be among the nicest) using parameters “console=ttyS0” but for my recently purchased CD set or floppies made from it it doesn’t appear to work… Hmm… Any ideas?
Cheers.
This is why preferences DO matter.
I find it much easier to man find use the option and get the result if I even have to look an option or syntax up than to go through a gui and the preferences panel and re-adjust options and then get the results. I can type faster than I can click is what I mean.
I am blind typist and type pretty fast 🙂 All this is good and well if you know what to look for in the man page and if there is a man page at all. “Now, there used to be some option about not checking a CRC? –no-crc-check? Ah, –verify-cyclic-redundancy-check=no? Go figure…” The same for GUI – you don’t need to go looking for an option if the UI is designed good. And if the UI is bad, you have two choices : going through 100 pages of a manpage or through 100 tabs of a preferences window, the same hell.
However, to each his own. Really. The author had some good points and I think that is just as elitist to sit and say that its 2003 why are you still typing as opposed to clicking as it to tell someone they are not techie or l33t because they use gui tools.
I tend to support an opinion, that CLI is quickest and most efficient ( but not easiest ) way for you to tell smth to a computer. And GUI is the most efficient way for a computer to keep you informed.
Why? Because sometimes the command line is the fastest easiest way. Notice I said sometimes. For larger office apps I have no desire to go back to the CLI days of WordPerfect 5.2 or Lotus 1-2-3 or whatever. However, for system utilities I find in my opinion before I get flamed that the command line is the way to go.
Fastest, yes. But not always easiest. For the same reason of remembering exact names or looking for them.
BTW, most linux installers including redhat have a text-based mode for those that want it.
Or for those whose video card is not fully supported, as kinda last resort 🙁
Sometimes the move to eyecandy is not always good though I still want a Graphical background to my RedHat boot process like on SuSE :->. BTW, I know its coming just not fast enough.
“What is our deadline for this project?” “It should be ready yesterday” :-)))
Fast enough, you tell me… One of the bugs I’ve opened in the KDE database, sits there for around a year and a half(?). Maybe, my grandchildren ( I’ve no children yet) will see it fixed 🙁
“Installing the OS is as much part of using it as running it. The text-age should come to a close now, time to move on and conquer the desktop.”
As a blind person (or mostly blind,) who has to stare at the screen through a tiny hole in a telescope all day, and get headaches trying to follow a mouse arund, I want to thank you for this insightful comment.
Why would anyone want to *converse* with a machine, anyway?
Sorry, forgot to add,
A) Win2k’s textmode installer is not possible to use because there is no access to the 2K full-screen console when run by kernel (the same is true for OS/2) whose screen readers need the GUI. This is pointed out to emphasise that knowing the ins-and-outs is frequently vital to knowing if I’ll even get the install (however complex) to run, and
B) You may have observed that Debian and Slack are text-aware distros – Redhat could work but my choice was based on getting the system running and the amount of tutorial work at the console it takes to do stuff. Graphical applications have their place for the blind as well as for the sighted for convenience reasons (see me do word processing from the console :-)?, and when Linux finally reaches that stage where a screen reader (Gnopernicus) gets me support for X/Gnome2 there’ll only be one partition on my disk 🙂
That’ll be all. 🙂
First of all, did any of you GUI – addicts ever install win2k/xp (or even Linux)?
The first stage of the Windows installation uses a text-based installer for partitioning and such, the second stage uses a GUI, but there are about no options, the only thing you can do is set the time zone and country, enter your serial no.and give the machine a name – and that’s about all.
Afterward, you’re waiting about 1 hour ’till the setup’s finished, than you start editing sysoc.inf to uninstall all those stupid games and stuff – and the system is still not really configured.
Pop in your SuSE Linux DVD, power up your PC, and you get a real GUI install, with partitioning, language selection, user management, hardware config, software selection etc. – and setting up a complete system, including KDE, development stuff, OpenOffice and stuff takes about 30min – or simply use the defaults, so you’ll be ready in 20min.
Just go ahead and tell me sh*t like: ‘The Windows installer is easier/ prettier/ faster/ more powerfull/ whatever than Linux could ever be, therefore Linux is not for the desktop’ – believe me, you’ll just look stupid…
I agree with the author. I much prefer Slackware and FreeBSD installers to say that of RedHat and Mandrake.
I also prefer a ports type system to rpms. I guess that’s why after several years of trying out the distros I have settled on a Slackware/FreeBSD system. I find myself recommending these distros to new users too, with just about the same amount of hand holding as taking someone through a Windows install I can walk them through a non GUI intall. Want to really get a new user ‘Stoked’? Take the time to walk them through a kernel compile. They are hooked for life.
portage, apt-get, urpmi, even rpm can be used from a command line. It’s just a pain to cd to /home/jim/temp/random-app.3.5.7.0b to insall random-app.3.5.7.0b from command sometimes. Thank god for tab, but even the command line Linux installers don’t touch Winodws’ 3 click install setup.exe’s. Even if I had go to DOS to install them, the Linux install process is still a broken mess by comparison.
Maybe I should RTFA first.
My big problem with distros like Gentoo and Debian in terms of installation is not that they have text installers – the problem is, that’s _all_ they have, and they’re not very good installers to begin with. Unfriendly.
Like someone else brought up: RedHat has an excellent text installer. Doing a text-mode, network installation on my totally unsupported P166MMX laptop is a joy. However, this _does not_ obiviate the need for a good GUI installer as well. If my desktop has the power and a CD-ROM drive, why shouldn’t I get the opportunity to use an eye-pleasing installer?
The other day, the hard drive on my primary machine failed. Not an uncommon occurance these days, given the bad build quality. Fortunately, my parents had a spare 120gb drive lying around. I saved what I could off the other drive, and installed the new one.
Now, it was time to bust out the shiny new RedHat 9 CDs and install. It took me about three minutes to repartition the drive and start the package installation using the GUI installer. That’s just as fast as the Windows98 install ever was for me. Sure, it took an hour to get “everything” on the drive, but that’s a function of the media and CPU power, not of the installer.
Last time I tried to install Debian, it took at least 3 times as long. Did I mention I _grew up_ on Debian? First distro I ever used, and I used it for years. Eventually I switched to RedHat for other reasons. This was one of them.
I am now going to make a pronouncement some of you won’t like: Debian’s installer sucks not because it’s text-based, but because it’s too damn complicated. I can’t speak about Gentoo, but I’ve heard only similar complaints.
-Erwos
I have to agree with Jon Dough, majority of users get a system with OS preinstalled and when they buy a new comp it again comes with OS. Those who tinker around are usually strongly opinionated people so what is a good installer depends on who you ask, basically they (tinkers) and we (occasional tinkers) prefer control over design. Win 2k and Win XP instilled from 4 or 6 floppies start of with a text based install and a good one. RH (I have had experience since 6.0) and SuSE (since 7.3) always have had good installers, text or GUI, but their concepts are different-step by step in RH or all in one page in SuSE- and there’s an ongoing dispute what is better, ask Eugenia. Author of the article made some good points in regard to this hot topic.
>. I find myself recommending these distros to new users too, with just about the same amount of hand holding as taking someone through a Windows install I can walk them through a non GUI intall.
*Boggle*
And what reality do you come from?
Please tell me you aren’t saying a Slackware install is as simple for a newbie as a Windows install. No wait, please do tell me that’s what you mean. I haven’t laughed hysterically yet this morning.
Hrm, I found Synaptic far easier to use than a Windows installer…
Click once to update your apt cache, click again to shift focus to the search box, click a third time to select the application, click “install” and click on start…
Much easier, IMHO, than having to go through an InstallShield…wherein you will have (generally) at least 5 or 6 clicks…and many times will have nested InstallShields to install dependancies of the Windows application…
Whereas with synaptic, you just need to know either a name of an application or some idea of a description of what you want the application to do…and it will show you a list of applications that meet your requirements, download them for you, and set everything up. Every once in a while you’ll get a question or two about the application you’re installing’s options, but other than that, it couldn’t be much easier.
…but that’s just my opinion…
What are you talking about? What text mode installer do you have to give obscure options to? Are you confusing the OS installer with package installers or something?
I think I must agree with you…
Slackware’s installer, while ncurses and thus not your flowers-and-perfume GUI installer, is by far the easiest (and one of the fastest) installs I’ve EVER done…and I’ve been installing OSes since DOS 5…
I totally agree with the article. Except that I think he is talking about the wrong audience. I don’t hear Linux users complaining about text installs vs. GUI installs. I hear that from Linux newbies/Windows users who want to switch but are approaching the problem from a different angle.
Do they even know that Windows has a GUI installer? Nope. They’ve never installed it. But in order to try out Linux they have to do an install for the first time in their life. A life that has been dominated by pretty icons and flashy graphics. When they don’t see the same on a Linux install they get nervous and complain about how Linux isn’t ‘friendly’ enough.
They aren’t looking at it as an installer. They are looking at it as just another application for them to run (this being the Linux application). They’ve been warped into thinking that they have to have one hand on the mouse for their computer to work, and a plethora of desktop icons to click on in order to get any work done.
Its just a matter of viewpoint. And really, there is no reason why different installers cannot be written for the various systems that still use text interfaces.
I’m rambling now, so you can ignore the rest if you want :> But this may be related to the tendancy of people to not want to read anything longer than a sentence. I’ve seen this since the BBS days where users wouldn’t read the main menu and on the web these days where I get emails with questions that are prominently answered on my webpages.
bcl
” Of course, end-users would prefer a GUI based one, but I don’t think end users should be installing nor maintaining an OS in the first place.”
You must be kidding! For many of us, installing is the only way we can try Linux, since we either can’t afford or see no reason to shell out the money for a new system when the one we have is perfectly capable. By your reasoning, if we aren’t already a system administrator, aren’t willing to buy a new system, or aren’t willing to pay someone to perform the installation, we must use Windows.
There is at least one other erroneous argument floating around that states distributions with text-based installers are not for newbies. Libranet uses a text-based installation yet bills itself as “a system for people to use which is easy to install and requires little, if any, support.”
I am still a bit of a newbie when it comes to Linux. I’ve installed a few distributions (Mandrake 8.0 and 8.2, Libranet 2.0 and 2.7, ELX BizDesktop 1.0, and now Vector Linux SOHO 3.2), but I still don’t know everything that is going on under the hood, nor do I want to. I have used both GUI and text-based installers. Even though I use a GUI when I use my computer, if the installer is easy to follow and straight-forward, I don’t care if it is GUI-based or text-based. And, if they think it will get them to the Linux promised land, I don’t think most new users will really care, either.
I am pretty much a newbie to linux ( < 1 year of true experience ) and I love the gentoo install. I found it to be no problem whatsoever as long as you follow the online docs. I have tried RedHat, Mandrake,and Yoper. Each one was more disapointing then the last. I was about ready to give up on linux as being just as slow and bug ridden as windows ( RPMs are evil! ) A friend told me about source based gentoo, and said that it was a lot easier to install then debian. So I thought what the heck, gave it a whirl and now I would use no other linux besides gentoo or debian. I had no trouble and am a n00b, so I dont see how anyone else with much computer knowledge should have any trouble.
A good article, but you are misinformed about current windows installs.
“To this very day, when a sysadmin or a power user needs to do a more complex install of Windows 2000 or XP what do you do? Admit it: you pop in the four diskettes and use the text installer!”
A current windows install, be it w2k or xp uses a text based install for the first 1/2 of the install and a GUI for the second 1/2. This happens weather you boot from the CD or the floppy. The floppy images exist for computers that aren’t capabile of booting from CD. They don’t change the installation process one bit.
Chunk
I bought Red Hat 9, even bought a Red Hat Basic Network subscription, and tried installing it. Now, I have a Sony 18″ LCD monitor that is connected to my video card through DVI. DVI and XFree4.3 don’t get along apparently, so the graphical installer failed. I then tried using Red Hat 9’s text-based installer. It seemed to be going well, except as soon as I finished partitioning my hard drives, Red Hat 9’s text-based installer crashed, it came out of the installer and said to reboot my machine.
So I basically said, “Screw this, I’m through with Linux,” and went back on my merry way to Windows 2000, which never gave me a problem installing it.
Linux, whether installing through graphical or text, just isn’t ready yet for desktop use.
Both GUI and Text installers have a certain GUI. The difference between them is primerly eyecandy, and for one hour I don’t mind at looking at a gray 2D button…
The main difference between the installers is the automatation of the install process, I don’t want to learn all about TCP/IP hard drives, sound blasters and so on… I want it to autodetect my hardware, I want it to tell to share my internet connection with the home netwrok and browse my windows shares.
GUI installer vs. Text installer is like 2D installer vs. 3D installer.
I don’t think it’s *really* about a GUI vs. text mode install. Either can be difficult or easy depending upon how well the programmers made them.
The real problem with any install is getting the OS to recognize and use the hardware you have. GUI or no GUI, Windows has the advantage for the same reason they have the advantage with drivers in the first place.
Windows installs don’t ask the user for much information because they don’t need to.
For *Nix and *BSD, it doesn’t matter how good the installer is, the more info it has to ask the user for, the more difficult it’s going to be for newbies to install. This is not such a disadvantage for advanced users, obviously, but I imagine that even they breathe easier when the autodetect or autoprobe gets it right.
I am a Linux newb and I was able to install Gentoo first try…the most difficult portion of the install was getting the network connection up and running…took me about a hour of reading HOW-TO’s, etc. After that, Gentoo was easy to install…just follow the directions.
Debian was even easier to install than Gentoo. FreeBSD was easier than Debian…but they were all easy.
As the article mentioned briefly…graphical installers are just eye candy and can sometimes lend to a false sense of security. I’ve read numerous posts of people who’s windows partions was wiped out by their RH or SuSE installer because they didn’t recognize what the installer was doing. With a text installer…the newb is forced to stay closer to the installation guide and is more likely to be kept from making such horrible mistakes.
The main thing to work on in my opinion as far as installers go is automatic hardware detection and possibly partion resizing…it would be cool if (for instance) the gentoo CD had better tools for resizing partions. As far as hardware detection goes…I had to setup some of my hardware manually already for Gentoo and Debian…I could do it again in snap now so it’s no issue for me anymore.
The best thing IMO about text installers, Gentoo particularly, is that you initiate each process within the installation so you actually learn how the installation process works (graphical installers hide most of this)…it was a great learning experience for me. I had the Gentoo installation guide and couple of my Linuc references so I reading up on what each command does and then was able to figure out why each step was needed.
Also, IMO…the installer has little to nothing to do with the readiness of an operating system for the desktop, especially in a business environment. Remote managability is the key…and Gentoo, Debian, or BSD are relatively easy to manage remotely. There are a multitude of articles and a multitude of ‘field proven’ installations that speak to this point. And in this venue, a text installer has as much if not more merit than a GUI installer as several people have commented above.
I am now going to make a pronouncement some of you won’t like: Debian’s installer sucks not because it’s text-based, but because it’s too damn complicated. I can’t speak about Gentoo, but I’ve heard only similar complaints.
Gentoo doesn’t have an installer.
Hrm, I found Synaptic far easier to use than a Windows installer…
Click once to update your apt cache, click again to shift focus to the search box, click a third time to select the application, click “install” and click on start…
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t you need to setup the apt repositories before all this process? And is it easier than just popping the application CD in?
The thing about some of the *nix text installers that I’ve seen is that although they’re generally a snap to get through once you learn how to navigate them, most of them are about as intuitive as the Chinese alphabet. Take FreeBSD for example – if you need to manually partition the hard drive, even if you’re familair with out to do it on Windows and Linux, if you can do it in FreeBSD the first time without consulting the handbook, you are most certainly a better man than I
If you get the rpms from freshrpms.net for example, no.
You do not have to setup the list of sources or repositories.
Install apt. Doubleclick on the rpm follow the prompts.
Go to Terminal as root:
apt-get update (updates the list of packages from the ALREADY set up list of sources)
apt-get install -f synaptic (Get the nice graphical tool)
Exit out of the terminal as root and wash your self clean of the nasty command line ;->.
Open up synaptic and choose the packages you want to install or update.
I will summarize my opinion about this matter with Tsu Dho Nimh own words:
“I want an operating system that works like a Honda Accord and not a kit-car project.”
No, that’s not what you want. You say that you want this, but it’s a half truth.
If you want this, then go and buy a machine that’s preconfigured and preloaded, just like your Accord.
If you want this, then go and buy a machine that has a list of “Honda Approved” accessories, rather than trying to leverage something for a Ford Taurus into it.
When something goes wrong, be sure to take it to your Honda Certified Technician rather than dismantling it into it’s components bits on the front lawn and complain how difficult it is to put back together.
The closest thing to a PC Accord today is an iMac. It does everything a computer can do, it has elegant engineering and design and solid performance.
Now you’re going say that well, yeah, I like Hondas but don’t want to pay Honda prices. You find that there are fewer accessories for this Honda than, say, a VW Bug.
But there is a handy Apple dealer that will supply your most every whim, just like the Honda dealer down the street. So, now why aren’t you there?
“FreeBSD the first time without consulting the handbook, you are most certainly a better man than I
”
hmm.. 😛
Nope.
Not with Apt4RPM or with Debian…
Not unless you want to either add an unofficial repository or change which apt feed you want to pull from…
AND, that can all be done through Synaptic.
Want the latest copy of mplayer – the media player that’s everything WMP wants to be (potential licensing issues aside)?
Simply open the repository manager in Synaptic and cut and paste the information from apt-get.org.
…and if you want to go the optical-meduim route, I bought a copy of StarOffice 6 a little while back.
To install on Linux? All you do is put in the CD, mount it (which can be done automagically within Gnome by right-clicking the background and going to disks or automagically through Konqueror) [or if running Mandrake or some automounting distro, let it mount itself] and either single or double click (depending on how your user profile is set up in Gnome/KDE) on the “install” script on the CD.
You’re prompted for the administrative password (which is common if installing a program in Windows if logged in as a non-administrator) and away it goes.
I have my issues with Linux, sure…it’s not perfect. It’s my OS of choice, yeah, but that’s beside the point.
The point is that software has NEVER really been that hard to install.
The hardest thing has been dependancies…and with apt4rpm starting to gain ground, that’s becoming less and less of an issue.
I mean, honestly, how hard is it to type “./configure; make; sudo make install”?
I have my issues with Linux, sure…it’s not perfect. It’s my OS of choice, yeah, but that’s beside the point.
It’s mine OS of choice, too. I rarely use Windows – just for some IE-only websites and for occasional games.
I mean, honestly, how hard is it to type “./configure; make; sudo make install”?
And what about setting sudo up? 🙂 To type this is not hard – but it is much much much harder to cope with some possible compilation error because of some missing development package, or because some good program has not been updated to correspond to some newer library version. I have no problem with that ( almost), being a programmer and therefore being able to repair the code if I have time, but some non-programmer newbie ? Go figure.
“A comprehensive install process is a massive plus for any OS. After all, in operating systems, much like in … ummm … dandruff management, “You never get a second chance to make a first impression.” (For the benefit of any foreign readers, that was the slogan of an anti-dandruff shampoo in Canada.)”
An anti-dandruff shampoo in Canada? I believe Head N’ Shoulders is an American shampoo, thank you very much. We’re the ones with the damn dandruff problem, don’t try to take that from us
Seriously, though, good article. The fact that a particular OS has a GUI installer is completely irrelevant.
Text-based installers take up fewer computing resources. While that isn’t so important for most of today’s desktop machines, it is important if one is, say, using an old 386 for a firewall, or installing over a not-so fast network. Text installers are probably not the best ones for Joe User, but they do have their place.
and here’s why …
The whole point of a GOOD GUI install system, is that it that there is only one thing the user needs to know … double click a certain icon … and even that was too much for some people, so they added “autorun” (anyone smart enough to turn off autorun, is smart enough to find an installer manually) … and this philosophy is COMPLETELY CORRECT …
when a 12 year old’s mom buys a game for Christmas, and she brings it home to install, on windows, she puts a disc in and clicks NEXT, NEXT, NEXT, and typing in the CD-KEY, and that’s it! (people like me change default locations and such, but THEY (the masses who are buying most software) do not.
A CLI would be fine, IF AND ONLY IF, for a particular OS, there was exactly one command to run it with default options, and it worked for EVERY consumer software package available (developer packages, SDKs and libraries are allowed to required extra knowledge, but not APPS). And if such a CLI existed … then someone would wrap a GUI around it anyway … so EVERYONE would be happy.
Debian hard to install HAHA!!!!!!!
Use the Knoppix HD install, one of the easiest Linux installs ever.
Then explain the power of apt/synaptic, installing multiple applications, web browsers, office suites, patches, updates, whatever then even the most ardent Windows fan is jealous. It is so easy and so powerful.
“Myth: A GUI install process implies a simple install
This is at best an oversimplification, and at worst completely wrong.”
mabey if you are used to the crappy gui installers on linux. The GUI in windows and mac’s are much easier than typing anything in.
yes thats right, everything he said was correct from that angle. people who claim that a gui installer makes for a better os and all that jazz. good for him point taken. here is the counter point…
where is your article that calls out all you os nazis for suggesting joe windows switch over to gentoo or debian claiming it is greatest. newsflash, people who claim the gui installer makes for a better system are right. for themselves. those that claim gentoo,debian, and like are the best are also correct. for themselves.
now way to vent, but get over yourself. people have different needs and will continue to comment as such despite your lopsided article.
But why must they comment with such ferocious hatred towards the article?
Jesus christ folks. this is an operating system, it’s a conversation of an install of an operating system on a hunk of silicon and particle board surounded by a metal case…what’s the point?
Stop fighting! This isn’t a “my momma can beat up your momma” argument. If you like windows, congrats! Use it! If you like linux, congrats! I don’t wish failure upon either of them…I just wish you would SHUT THE HELL UP with all the fighting.
I certainly don’t have a perfect memory and I sometimes forget something. In this case, I did not. I was making a statement as to the quality of the OpenBSD installer and I believe what I said was accurate. I read the FAQ and spent quite a bit of time reading anything on OpenBSD’s homepage that seemed appropriate. Nothing explained the partitioning process in a way that made any sense to me. I could almost use the scripted example included in the FAQ, but I could not tell why the values listed were chosen. My hard disk was a different size that the one in the example and I am sure some values should be adjusted. Once you understand the system, I bet it makes a lot of sense. Theo has every right to design the system any way he wants and evidently he want the learning curve to be steep enough that I can’t see why I should move from FreeBSD. I don’t claim to be a guru, but I am no beginner, either.
And since several others have commented on the FreeBSD installer, let me say that I think it is confusing as to what to do in a few places. But it was good enough that after a little while I had a nice working FreeBSD system without the reference to anything more than a few looks a the readme file.
In reply to the words of rabbit:
Again, you’re forgetting a few words…
“The OpenBSD installer is bad [for me]”
First off some people do claim linux is ready for the desktop.
Secondly gui installers are easier to use, which makes them superior for newbies. Instructions for installing nvidia drivers in windows “double click nvidia*.exe and reset when prompted”. While in the nix world its much more complicated. Txt is more flexible, but the ease of gui makes it superior as far as most people are concerned.
btw a half hour for a minimum install is crap. I installed xp in about 45 minutes earlier. And since xp is installing more stuff it proves that txt isn’t faster (which you seem to claim).
I’m not really trying to claim that text is faster, but I think you’re comparing apples and oranges. That’s half an hour for a minimum install on a P166 installing everything via FTP.
And that GOOD gui installers are easier to use is clear, but I don’t think a user who just had his hard drive wiped out by the Linux for Windows install would claim that their GUI is superior for newbies. My point is not that I’m anti-GUI … not at all. I just don’t like it when people make the blanket statement that “GUI=good.” There are bad GUIs just like there are bad text installers, and I think people should focus on the quality of the installer.
I don’t care whether it’s text or GUI. I want an installer that tells me what hardware I have, not the other way around. I want an upgrade installer that doesn’t expect me to tell it what partition is mounted to what directory, I want it to figure this out from the existing system. The fewer crib notes I need to make before installing, the better. A proper sysadmin will remember to write down everything beforehand – disk geometry, chipsets, monitor settings, IRQs, etc, but a regular user isn’t going to know these things. If Linux is ever going to be used by Joe Soap (without getting his friendly computer expert to install it for him) then it needs an installer that detects EVERYTHING. And if it does that, it doesn’t matter how it looks.
My €0.02
I was curious about two of his “myths”, “A GUI installer implies a flexible install” and “All OSes/Distributions are vying for desktop supremacy”. I’ve never heard either of these. I’ve always heard that a GUI installer implies fewer choices, not more, which can be a good thing when introducing an O/S to someone. As far as the other “myth”, I’m not sure where he picked that one up. I’ve always heard just the opposite, that the reason we have open source distributions is that there’s something for everyone.
James
Graphical or text based i dont care about,
but if you dont do automatic hardware detection then
i wont even consider you distibution/os . you shouldnt
be trying to catch up with win95 8 years later.
Mandarke does it, debian doesnt , guess which one i will recommend to a newbie???
BeOS had a graphical installation, decent autodetection of hardware, and you could be up and running in 15 minutes, not an hour.
Why can’t Windows or the *Nixes do that?
> Debian hard to install HAHA!!!!!!!
> Use the Knoppix HD install, one of the easiest Linux installs ever.
Debian installer != Knoppix installer, not by a long shot. Klaus Knopper went to a Lot of trouble improving the hardware detection/setup for his CD distro’s installer, and as a result, it’s a completely automatic install – no questions asked! We can only hope the Debian project folds his work into the Sarge installer.
“All OSes/Distributions are vying for desktop supremacy”. I’ve never heard [that myth].
That’s because it’s implied, not stated. If someone is complaining that a “hard-core” distro like Slackware or Gentoo should be graphical, that is a sign that one doesn’t understand that those distros belong to a different niche than, say, SuSE, Red Hat, or Mandrake, which are vying for the desktop.
For debunking Gentoo users claims of having learned what goes under the hood once they installed Gentoo, I do think my list indeed sufficiently short.
Also, installing gentoo is complicated, I have never denied that. Perhaps you misunderstood me because of the article’s topic.
Unlike installation, though, updating and running it is a charm. For a lesson in masochism try to install oracle or kylix on an unsupported Red Hat version and Gentoo (all versions unsupported.) emerge is godsend. Only BSDs’ ports and pacages system is comparable; apt et. al. doesn’t cut it.
>emerge is godsend. Only BSDs’ ports and pacages system is comparable; apt et. al. doesn’t cut it.
Yea, its really nice that any time you wish to upgrade with emerge/bsd you have to build all those packages on your own box. apt installing it at the speed you can download is just too fast. On my box that is ends up being about 30MB/min, I would much rather spend hours doing the upgrade via emerge and having to build it all.
My download speed is slower than compiling C but faster than compiling C++ code with gcc 3.2. Anything faster than 128kbit is insanely expensive here (Turkey), while PCs are not any more expensive compared to US. So I have a dual athlon with plenty of ram and just 128kbits downstream.
While ports are source, packages ARE binary, so you have the choice with BSD. Gentoo also has base packages in binary (X, kde, gnome) and the collection is expected to increase.
That’s why the BSD’s have packages too. So you don’t have to build anything if you don’t want to. But if you want to, you can. You can even have the best of both worlds: Dedicate one machine to building packages, and use those custom cutting-edge packages on your other boxes. No need to wait until the new version of package X makes it onto the mirrors of your OS anymore
Maybe inform yourself before saying things that are just plain wrong?