Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Debian Installer Beta 3 Usability Review

Posted by timothy on Tue Mar 16, 2004 07:54 PM
from the new-member-of-the-newbie-pantheon dept.
Debian GUI Operating Systems Software
Marcus Thiesen writes "Debian Installer Beta 3 was released two days ago and I wrote a small review concerning the installation part. The new debian installer is good way to set up your favorite distribution. Nontheless there are a few usability things and I thought that it might be a good idea to write a walkthrough from another point of view: Bob 'average' User."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Debian Installer Beta 3 Usability Review 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dark Lord Seth (584963) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @07:57PM (#8584555) Journal
    The new debian installer is good way to set up your favorite distribution.

    The Debian Installer can install Slackware then?

  • Bob? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Deraj DeZine (726641) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @07:57PM (#8584557)
    point of view: Bob 'average' User

    What happened to Joe User? Did he finally wise up about using GUIs and get fired or something? I never really liked Joe User, anyway (I mean, what an idiot!), I'm just curious.

    • Re:Bob? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16 2004, @07:59PM (#8584572)
      Actually, Joe User died while doing a stage1 Gentoo install. Heart attack, I hear.

    • Re:Bob? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:08PM (#8584641)

      I just did some research on this topic, and it appears that Joe User isn't the first such character to mysteriously disappear. Joe Schmoe, Joe Sixpack, Average Andy, and Norman the Norm all predated even Joe User.

      After watching a recent documentary on male models [imdb.com], I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps these average folk are being snapped up by the RIAA or MPAA to assassinate world leaders who threaten their indefinite copyrights and other ridiculous intellectual property arrangements.

  • Isn't "new" and "debian" in the same sentence (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:01PM (#8584585)
    an oxymoron? :P
  • Why not have a single selection at the beginning that says "Install all defaults"? Hit that, let the installer figure out all your hardware settings, and come back an hour later with a fully installed OS.

    Maybe throw in a warning that the whole disk will be wiped out, but how much user interaction does an installer really need?
    • "Maybe throw in a warning that the whole disk will be wiped out, but how much user interaction does an installer really need? "

      Seeing as how the big mindset is that Linux has choices upon choices of stuff for every little task, I'd say it's pretty much painted itself into that little corner. "Why put Konqueror there instead of Mozilla?" (Yeah, I know, not a great example.)

      I guess what I'm saying is deciding on the defaults is sort of like trying to order pizza for everybody in the room.

    • Re:Bob just chose all the default selections (Score:5, Insightful)

      by saberworks (267163) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:18PM (#8584727) Homepage
      Agreed. Most people setting up linux initially (especially those that need this installer), don't care about how their drive gets partitioned or what gets installed where. What they do care about is whether their sound works, whether they can print, whether they can change their screen resolution, etc.

      • Re:Bob just chose all the default selections (Score:5, Informative)

        by AKnightCowboy (608632) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:35PM (#8584845)
        Most people setting up linux initially (especially those that need this installer), don't care about how their drive gets partitioned or what gets installed where.

        Debian's current installer is absolutely horrible. The Solaris text based installer is even easier than Debian's! I've lost more than a few potential converts based just on the fact that they got lost trying to figure out how to do something simple like setup their network card. Off to Mandrake they went and they're happy. Oh well.

    • I think that's a BAD idea. All those choices are important. Some may be confusing (like the Grub stuff) but it's important. If you make a "choose the default for everything" option, I would be FAR too worried that there would be many people who would choose that and then find out that it overwrote their whole hard drive, when they only thought it would choose the default selection of packages and such. As long as there are sensible defaults, I don't see any reason not to prompt them for that stuff.

      That said, much of that DOESN'T have defaults. What's the default langauge/keymap? If you have an odd keyboard you could find yourself in serious trouble. What's the default timezone? And I don't think the machine name/root password/user name/etc have good defaults either.

      I think they did a great job, and if the user wants the defaults they can just hit "enter" a bunch of times like you have to in so much software. The "all defaults" setting doesn't really start to apply untill you get to package selections and configurations. Windows does it the same way, and it makes great sense.

  • Mandrake (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kundor (757951) <kundor@member.fsfUMLAUT.org minus punct> on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:02PM (#8584596) Homepage
    Really, I've never understood why distros don't take advantage of the GPL and use the easy-to-use installers with magic hardware detection from the likes of Mandrake.

    Everything mandrake does is gpl'd, so there's no reason that debian couldn't keep their crazy "hard" installer for traditionalists and setup the mandrake installer to install debian easy-like for newbies. why duplicate effort?

    • Re:Mandrake (Score:5, Insightful)

      by debrain (29228) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:13PM (#8584689) Journal
      Everything mandrake does is gpl'd, so there's no reason that debian couldn't keep their crazy "hard" installer for traditionalists and setup the mandrake installer to install debian easy-like for newbies. why duplicate effort?

      That would require porting the Mandrake installer to all the Debian ports [debian.org]. There are good x86 installers for Debian, from Progeny [progeny.com] at least, but it, like Mandrake's, just isn't portable enough to be officially Debian.

    • Re:Mandrake (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Smitedogg (527493) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:17PM (#8584718) Homepage
      At COMDEX I asked one of the progeny guys about this. He told me that it was because they try to be as multi-platform as possible: it should work on an old ultra-5 as well as on your amd-64. Making sure something works on a headless box is higher priority than making it pretty. Comes down to design philosophy I guess.

      Dogg

    • *11* platforms (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chris Pimlott (16212) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:33PM (#8584831)
      Debian has it harder than the other guys; most distributions focus on just one platform (intel), or just a few (alpha, sparc, powerpc). Debian supports 11 hardware platforms [debian.org]. They need a flexible system that supports the needs of all of them. I'm not personally knowledgable about the internals of either the Debian or Mandrake installers, but this is probably one of the reasons they can't just use an "off-the-shelf" installer from another distro.

    • here's why (Score:4, Informative)

      by qortra (591818) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:48PM (#8584938) Homepage
      Go to Mandrake forums and read about all the poeple that have difficulties with getting the installer to work properly. Don't get me wrong; I'm not flaming Mandrake. They have their purpose, but it is a different one than Debian's.

      If you have normal stuff (1 year old intel processor, intel chipset, nvidia video card, one 1024x768x24bpp screen, ata133 hard drive) than those automated installs work just fine. But deviate too much from the norm, and things start getting really hairy with Mandrake. The fact is that Debian supports a TON of architectures and a TON of hardware, those automated installs probably won't work properly at all on many of the architectures that Debian supports.

      That being said, Debian is probably going to eventually get a nice new graphical installer [progeny.com] courtesy of Red Hat.

      • Re:Mandrake (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Karamchand (607798) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:13PM (#8584682)
        Right, you like it because you're used to it, because you used it many times.
        But here we're speaking about mainstream. Mainstream's hobby isn't installing an operating system. It's not even playing around with a computer. The computer is a tool, the operating system is installed not more than once.

        And with one installation you're certainly not used to an installer like Debian's.
        Accept it - human being remember and recognize pictures more easily than plain text.

        • Re:Mandrake (Score:4, Interesting)

          by jrockway (229604) * <jon-nospam@jrock.us> on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:22PM (#8584758) Homepage Journal
          Windows is for the Mainstream crowd. I mean, most people don't care about Freedom or choice in software. Sometimes you have to deal with a "hard" installer to get a "better" OS.

          I was raised on MacOS. I have no problems with anything under Linux.

          I am good at reading, though. If you like reading, and don't mind having to think, Linux is for you. Otherwise, it's probably not worth it.

  • Knoppix (Score:4, Insightful)

    by timefactor (265504) <timefactor.public@gmail.com> on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:05PM (#8584614)
    Hasn't Knoppix made the Debian installer a moot point for Bob 'Average' User, at least for the desktop?

  • Different from Windows xx how? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sphealey (2855) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:05PM (#8584623)
    I don't want to be too critical of something written in a humorous style, but there were several comments of the form:
    He decided to use the standard and got again a whole bunch of lines of funny things he didn't understand. "Quite a log of stuff I don't understand today" he thought.
    There was nothing I saw on any of the installation screens that would have stopped (or for the most part even confused) anyone who has installed, from scratch, any version of MS Windows from 3.0 through 2000 (I haven't done XP from scratch yet personally). Sure, there are things he wouldn't understand, but then again I don't think there is even anyone at Microsoft who understands what "registering components...updating registry" means!

    If he had never installed any OS from scratch before, sure, he would be confused - but he would be just as confused if he had pulled out the raw W2K install disks on a rainy Saturday.

    sPh

  • Debian Going Mainstream? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MadWicKdWire (734140) * on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:06PM (#8584626) Homepage
    With RH losing a lot of stock in the tech world, I foresee Debian becoming more mainstream. The only problem about this is, Debian is usually an elitist group of users. Many users of Debian before I switched (06/2003), would just say... "You use Redhat? What are you a girl or something?" I just told them, "Bah... you stink! RPM is the coolest thing ever!" Well, I wish I could have gone back to the days when I was stupid. :) The new Debian install almost makes it as easy to install as Windows. I don't think a GUI is needed for installing an OS onto a machine, plus it causes overhead in the installer and on the disk.

    IMHO... someone should create a "smart" installer that says... "I see you have Windows installed. I can remove it for you. Please press return."

    I don't think it would be any problem. A good scripter/programmer could easily figure it out. I wish I could...

    "Debian... Next to Jesus, it's the only way to Heaven"

  • Those screenshots look familiar... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:06PM (#8584628)
    So this is where RedHat 5.x installer went to... I was wondering what happened to it.

  • Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Phezult (729465) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:06PM (#8584629)
    A lot about the process can be learned this way. Most of us are used to this process, and think it all makes sense, but, as the author points out, there are a lot of things that WON'T make sense to "Bob User."

    Debian should have a look a this to see what they can improve.

    IBM is doing something smart, a call went out to employees looking for volunteers to install Linux on their company laptops. This is a great way to start, because those employees will probably feel a lot like "Bob" but have access to internal tech support.

    Wouldn't you like to convert your friends without having to be THEIR tech support?

  • A walkthrough shouldn't be needed... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by abh (22332) <ahockley@gmail.com> on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:14PM (#8584690) Homepage
    If it were truly easy to use, there would be no need for a walkthrough guide... each screen would present choices, and offer help if needed. Software installers should NEVER require external documentation.

  • I've had enough! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Captain Rotundo (165816) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:15PM (#8584698) Homepage
    Can we all please make this the last GNU/Linux "usability" study that begins with some ridiculous description of a "joe shmoe" mythical target user. I am sick and tired of it. It is possible to make something usable for "normal" users, while at the same time comfortable for both "mewbies" and "power users". Please let us retire "Bob" and "Aunt Tillie" and "Grandma" and every other stupid target user.

    If you don't agree with my statement in the first paragraph go look at http://www.google.com - great for newbies AND power users. I've never heard anyone say "Google works fine for Aunt Tillie and Uncle Bob but I really could use MORE features to the interface." Its interface is clean, simple and completely intuitive. And if you want to do some arcane power search you CAN!.

    And if google isn't a good enough example for you (because its a website and not an OS, etc.) look at GNOME. GNOME has proven that you can make a good clean interface that is user friendly, newbie friendly, and has all the access a "power user" could want. Yes, I firmly believe that the whining about lack of config options in every panel is entirely from masochistic freaks that simply like to know they can easly change whether the delay to close a window when the close button is clicked is 2ms or 3ms WITHOUT having to open a configuration editor. And BTW gconf-editor IS super simple and user friendly ANYWAY!)

    Besides, I am probably what most people would consider experienced with Debian GNU/Linux (been using it exclusively for about 3 years) and I like a good clean, intuitive interface over something that is so-called "geek friendly" any day.

    BTW - No I haven't read the whole article yet, I saw the bob bit and HAD to get this off my chest before I read the rest (now I will).

    • Re:I've had enough! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:39PM (#8584871)

      Can we all please make this the last GNU/Linux "usability" study that begins with some ridiculous description of a "joe shmoe" mythical target user. I am sick and tired of it. It is possible to make something usable for "normal" users

      First you criticise use of "mythical joe shmoe"s, and then you turn around and talk about "normal users". Don't you understand that "joe shmoe" is simply a synonym for "normal user"?

      It is possible to make something usable for "normal" users, while at the same time comfortable for both "mewbies" and "power users".

      One simple example: where should the close button go on windows? If you put it at the top right like on Windows, you will get loads of absolute beginners missing the maximise button that is only a pixel away. Having a destructive* button so close to an often-used but unrelated button is quite simply bad usability.

      But wait - what about the power users that are used to the Microsoft Windows interface? It'll be annoying for them to have to retrain their habits. It boils down to a choice between doing what is best for newbies and doing what is best for experts. Do not make the mistake of thinking this is somehow a special case, there are thousands like it.

      * Of course, most properly-coded applications will ask if you want to save your work if you haven't already, but for an absolute newbie, a window going away when you didn't want it to, and having to figure out how to start it up again is a big deal, even if you haven't lost any work.

      GNOME has proven that you can make a good clean interface that is user friendly, newbie friendly, and has all the access a "power user" could want. Yes, I firmly believe that the whining about lack of config options in every panel is entirely from masochistic freaks that simply like to know they can easly change whether the delay to close a window when the close button is clicked is 2ms or 3ms WITHOUT having to open a configuration editor.

      That's nice - you define anybody who doesn't fit into your argument as "freaks" rather than realising your argument doesn't work. Furthermore, you take the most extreme example possible (1ms difference in some animation? Come on, that's not even close to the complaints) to try and discredit the "freaks".

      Basically, you claim that GNOME gets it right, and then stick your fingers in your ears when people complain about it. You are either fucking stupid or a troll.

  • Muhammad "average" User (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pjpII (191291) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:15PM (#8584700) Homepage
    I certainly hope that Debian's Arabic support isn't as bad as that in the installer- the letters don't connect! They're typed from left to right! This would be like having the English installer say something like the following:
    (ASU)hsilgnE ni deecorp ot siht esoohC

    Except that its even worse - imagine all the i's seperated from their dots, which are written separately next to them in linear order. And even that would be less ridiculous.

    As someone who does use Arabic frequently when computing, it's something less than a stunning endorsement of Debian

  • Easy Install? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SoupIsGood Food (1179) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:17PM (#8584714)
    I've been playing around with various operating systems on an old dual-processor Sun Ultra2 Creator3D, including Debian.

    By far the easiest and quickest install was NetBSD and OpenBSD... if it weren't for lack of SMP support (OpenBSD) or Creator3D ffb framebuffer support (NetBSD), I'd stick with one of them and be happy.

    Gentoo required a copy of the install guide at hand, but it went smoothly until the time came to unpack the stage from the LiveCD... all three were corrupted, choked and died in mid un-tar. I'm going to see if there are newer LiveCD ISO's available, but it's not a rolicking start, and requires too much command line fiddling to start the show. Still, apart from the abject failure to install the tarballs, the process itself is very straight forward.

    Unlike Debian, which has a miserable interface that's at once too convoluted and too spartan to be of any use, and is rotten at picking reasonable defaults. I spent the better part of two days trying to get a booting, networked operating system out of the damn thing.

    Maybe Splack, Aurora and SuSe are better... haven't tried them yet, but compared to NetBSD's clean ASCI console installer, the two popular Linux distros come up way short. (Solaris isn't much of an improvement.)

    Here's the trick: simplify and automate wherever you can, and pick reasonable defaults while offering options to users who know what they're doing. No need for bright, shiny MS-DOS psuedo-GUI's, just a reasonable curses-based interactive program that prompts the user when needed, but otherwise goes and installs a working operating system on its own with minimal intervention required, but available if wanted.

    SoupisGood Food

  • I used Network Install a few days ago and... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by antdude (79039) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:18PM (#8584721) Homepage Journal
    My rants...

    Last week, my friends convinced me to try Debian [debian.org] OS to replace my old Red Hat [redhat.com] Linux 7.x boxes. I either could go to Gentoo [gentoo.org] or Debian since I didn't want Red Hat any more due to the recent news. A few hardcore Linux users told me to try Debian first. So, I grabbed the Network Install [debian.org] to a bootable CD-RW.

    Since I only wanted to explore the OS, I used VMware [vmware.com] v4.0.5 (256 MB of RAM) on a Pentium 4 3 Ghz host machine. Everything was going well until Debian installer asked a few tricky questions. They were tricky enough even for me, as a computer geek and Linux user (not an expert).

    I struggled with partitioning. The text based UI is nuts. I couldn't use up and down arrow keys. Also, there was no mouse pointer at this stage. At least add a mouse pointer or make this part GUI like Red Hat [redhat.com]'s installer (only used 7.x versions). I also had difficulities setting up partitions which is I am never good with even with Microsoft [microsoft.com] OS'.

    With the help of a Debian friend, I got through this part. Then, the questions got really tricky like which mouse port (/dev/what?). I don't remember. There should be some type of autodetection. IIRC, Red Hat did autodetect for me and that was about three years ago.

    More questions came up. There was one part where I had to enter a hostname. Little did I know, I was NOT supposed to use any capital letters. For example with JohnDoeFooBar, I kept getting an error later during setup from Debian about hostname problems. I changed it to something like johndoe, and no more problems! The setup never told me this. On my old Red Hat Linux boxes, it let me use capitalized letters like: JOHNdoe-P2.

    The other part I struggled was, why didn't Debian's setup give me an option to boot into text mode. I didn't want gdm or any GUI login screens. I prefer text modes like in the old days. Red Hat 7.x did give me this option. I had to get help from my friend to fix this.

    I am still learning Debian slowly. I just learned apt-get command which is nice. It isn't easy for a Debian newbie like me. The installer does need to be improved.

    • Re:I used Network Install a few days ago and... (Score:5, Informative)

      by calc (1463) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:32PM (#8584822)
      You most likely used the Network Install from Debian 3.0 (boot-floppies) which is 2 years old. The current installer is available from http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ for testing and fixes most of the problems you mentioned with respect to autodetection, etc. It has worked well for me for the past year.

  • Eh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by be-fan (61476) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:26PM (#8584777)
    Though the earlier screen had told him that his selection would affect his location he was still at the same place, in front of his old PC. ...and...
    But it didn't matter as he just had deleted his Windows 98 with fdisk.

    The "average user" is happy to see that the computer didn't teleport him somewhere else, but can still figure out Windows 98 fdisk???

    Online reviews would be much better if we could moderate by throwing rotten fruit at the author...

  • can somebody please tell me ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Combuchan (123208) <sean@noSPAM.emvis.net> on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:59PM (#8585017) Homepage
    why Joe User or Bob, rather, is installing debian anyway? The last Debian install I did was on a AMD 5x86/100 tablet (three nights ago). Before that, it was on my Dell Inspiron 1100 that had a crockload of not-well-supported hardware that required me to get 2.5.69 (the latest release at the time).

    Debian installs usually take me several hours to get most things going from the mini/net install (a linux distro occupying 80 MB on your HD?--yeah, debian does that) to a what-I-consider usable system. However, I've configured everything myself exactly to my liking and probably recompiled once or twice.

    Before I go further on my disorganised rant, a graphical easy to use installer that detected everything and booted me into KDM/X with KDE (I use enlightenment and gtk apps) would do nobody in Debian's core audience any good whatsoever and probably only alienate them further.

    Tho I have to say, a few years ago, Storm Linux had a really kickass installer. Progeny's doesn't/didn't require you to reboot afterwards.

    So I probably should be saying that if Bob wants a Linux distro that's easy to install in the beginning yet insanely powerful in the end (thanks to apt), he should be dealing with Progeny or whatever other debian-based distros there are.

    The article did Debian a tremendous disservice in juxtaposing a mythical user with a distro that he'd never try.

    P.S. My favorite install of all time is OpenBSD's. A twenty minute script was all it took--and I hadn't installed OpenBSD before. How kickass it that?

  • My impression of OS installers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by moosesocks (264553) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @11:39PM (#8586045) Homepage
    Windows 2000/XP: Partially text-mode, and yet, could be easily installed by ANYBODY.

    Knoppix - Winner for obvious reasons

    RedHat - A bit overcomplicated the last time I used it, but easy nonetheless. The graphical installer is nice, but doesn't always work. If you're lucky, you're sent to the curses-based textmode installer which is lightyears better than debian's. (of course, there are screwups, and videocard detection can crash on exotic hardware)

    Gentoo - No installer is a good installer. HONESTLY! If you carefully follow their directions exactly using the examples they give you, a proficent Windows user could get it working. The installation process is incredibly well-documented. As a plus, a quick post to their forum will usually yield a solution in under an hour. I have yet to see another free distro which offers that kind of support. Despite all this, they still need a REAL installer.

    Mac OS X : Next, I agree, Next, Yes, Reboot. Done. Enough said.

    BeOS: I once accidentally installed this without realizing it (the version that came packaged for windows).

    Debian: From the people that brought you EMACS! Debian was my first distro, mostly because it was availible on floppies (my PC at the time wouldn't boot from a CD), and it had a nifty install-on-demand feature which required you to only download the 20mb base (yes, onto floppies), which would then allow you to set up a LAN or PPP connection to download the proper packages (I was on 56k, so the PPP option was a godsend). Needless to say, it wasn't all that difficult or painful, though it had quite a few rough spots. (Such as a nasty bug where the installer's FDISK mixed up the device names, causing me to nuke the wrong partition.

    This was 3 years ago. The screenshots in the article show an installer that's almost identical to the one I remember. Honestly, couldn't they have made SOME advances? The installer is simply a disgrace, and needs to be 10x easier!

    As for me, I'll stick with my mac. I like an OS that doesn't have to be reinstalled regularly.

      • Re:Reminds me of Redhat (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jrockway (229604) * <jon-nospam@jrock.us> on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:17PM (#8584715) Homepage Journal
        Hmm, I have XFree86 4.3.0 and linux 2.6.3. Both installed from packages (actually I compiled 2.4.3 for this machine, but my server uses the stock debian 2.6.3 kernel).

        Anyway, yeah Debian Stable is old. That's a feature.

        Debian unstable, however, is bleeding edge, but not broken. It's great. Much newer than any other distro.

        Debian gives the user the choice of old packages/high reliability or new packages/average reliability. That's better than semi-recent pcakages/semi-decent reliability that Mandrake, Fedora, Slackware, and SuSE offer.

        Thanks, apt*.

        * Other distros have apt, but Debian's is better because the debian developers use it properly. I've NEVER had a dependency problem (problems yes, but they weren't too bad). Apt is the best feature of any operating system I've ever used.

    • Re:The *New* Installer? (Score:5, Informative)

      by calc (1463) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:38PM (#8584863)
      The look ncurses-style tui wasn't intended to be changed. All the actual code, questions, autodetection, etc are new though. Also, the installer is now modular which should help keep Debian from having to take years to fix the installer between releases like was the case with the previous installer.

    • Re:whats the deal with command line installers? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by calc (1463) on Tuesday March 16 2004, @08:45PM (#8584919)
      Not sure which command line installer you are talking about, the only one I know of at all is gentoo. Debian's installer isn't a command line installer, its a tui and yes there is a very big difference between a command line interface and a text user interface.

    • Re:I have tried (Score:5, Informative)

      by graveyhead (210996) <(fletch) (at) (nationofcriminals.com)> on Tuesday March 16 2004, @09:17PM (#8585149) Homepage
      I've installed debian on 2 boxes. You need some other unixy box to start with where you:

      1) Make sure tftpd is installed. Put the 'tftpboot.img' in the tftp root (check /etc/xinetd tftp entry to find out where the root is) Also install the tftp client so you can `tftp localhost` then 'get tftpboot.img' to make sure you have access to the file.

      2) Install dhcpd. Give the SGI box an entry like this:

      host babybox {
      hardware ethernet nn:nn:nn:nn:nn:nn;
      fixed-address 192.168.0.51;
      }

      You can get your hardware ethernet address in the boot command monitor on the SGI.

      3) You may need bootparamd, but I can't figure out exactly what it's doing. I just put `192.168.0.51 = :/` in my bootparams file.

      4) There are 2 odd instructions on debian site that are necessary if you're installing using the 2.4 linux kernel as host:

      echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_no_pmtu_disc
      and
      echo "2048 32767" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range.

      Hope this helps!

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.