Two Reviews of Debian 3.0 601
FrankNFurter writes "Debian Planet features a review of Debian 3.0 from a user's perspective. Time for a reality check, debianistas." And twstdr00t writes "Linuxwatch.org has posted their review of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 Woody. 'The package managment system is nice and easy to use. But the lack of good configuration and installation takes that all away from Debian.'"
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... (Score:2, Interesting)
I would have to agree, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
That is not to say a bit of spit and polish on UI/configuration side wouldn't hurt, but then again I know that GeForce is an Nvidia product and no amount of rebranding by Creative Labs is going to change that (with regards to my X config). The same is true for a lot of hardware.
When you think about it the only difference between linux (and particularly Debian) and windows is that windows presumes (and Redhat is trying to emulate) that the user is an idiot (especially with regards to hardware) and Debian does not.
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... (Score:4, Interesting)
What is up with these unprofessional "reviews"? (Score:4, Interesting)
I do not understand why so many of these so-called "reviewers" cannot take the time to use a simple spelling and grammar checker. The review from LinuxPlanet was written by the webmaster of LinuxPlanet, yet it contained several grammatical gaffes, including use of "it's" instead of "its" and some misspellings (one of which, "managment", made its way to the front page of Slashdot.)
This seems to be a growing trend in certain review sites. It really bothers me that some of the foremost open-source sites seem to have such a problem with grammar and spelling. This reflects badly not only on those sites, but on open-source and free software itself.
Proper spelling and grammar may be unimportant to you personally, but it makes a lot of people view your site as unprofessional. If you want respect, you need to focus on good grammar and spelling -- or, at the very least, running your articles through a grammar and spelling checker before they are posted. (With that respect comes several bonuses, as well: great goodies such as advertising dollars, free software and hardware to review, and more.)
The fact that most of these sites don't bother to check spelling and grammar before posting "reviews" is one more reason for me to not feel any sympathy when they need those advertising/subscription dollars to stay alive. If you make the effort to use proper grammar and spelling, I'll reward you with visits and subscription money. If you don't, I won't, and neither will most corporations looking for a place to advertise.
So? (Score:2, Interesting)
As for unusability, I definitely agree that there are more user-friendly OSes out there than Debian. I don't believe Linux is desktop-ready for the masses right now, and I don't believe Debian will ever be. However, I really like it for running servers. And I believe servers should eschew fancy user interfaces and put the power towards the services instead -- why on earth do we need a fancy graphical UI to run a web server?
Debian's free. Debian does what I want it to do. Debian ain't perfect, but it's pretty damn good at some things. And I never have to worry about it going away.
woody is worth it (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with those reviews... (Score:5, Interesting)
But, I use debian on ALL of my servers. Debian on the server just rocks. Especially being able to upgrade it without ever going to the console.. Why do you have to reboot a RedHat system to upgrade it?? I never understood that.. Upgrading debian is a breeze...
Long live the alpha archtecture! (Score:2, Interesting)
Debian Reasoning... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... (Score:3, Interesting)
MiniLaz [lazbox.org], my linux box...
RE: The Debian Planet review (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, I have pre-written and tweaked XFree86 configuration files for each of my different machines available on one box via scp. There's no need to even ask me X questions in a system installer.
You may not have the option to install PHP from the setup menu, but I don't really care. I already know the name of the package to apt-get (not like the name isn't obvious) and I'd rather just type apt-get install php than go digging through potentially thousands of packages in a GUI list to find it. Hell, even if I didn't know it, I could fairly easily just apt-cache search php and find out.
On a different note, Java probably isn't readily available due to legal issues with Sun. FreeBSD is the same way, you have to manually fetch the necessary distribution file from java.sun.com. It's not like this is hard to do.
I'm not trying to troll or be a jerk. I like Debian because, as an experienced user, it gets out of my way most of the time and what it *does* do for me is truly useful. Its package system makes it extremely quick and easy for me to keep my systems up to date without burying me in a mountain of GUI widgets.
I respect the reviewers opinion, and don't necessarily have a problem with the review. I would, however, ask that he understand that there are tons of distributions out there right now. Some are geared towards people who don't want to get some dirt under their fingernails, and a precious few are geared towards those who either do or who have and are fully comfortable with it. Some of the former even have Debian underpinnings with a face he would be more happy with. Maybe there's not a problem with Debian, maybe it's just not for him.
Time spent configuring is time well spent. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think there exists space for all variations of linux dists and together they provide an excellent path for some people like me to walk on. Start off with a nice easy dist and as you grow you go towards Debian/Slack/Gentoo etc. One of the many reasons that i left windows was that i felt stuck, squeezed between MS and its developers. The same apply for very userfriendly dists too. I like the control and system-knowledge it gives me when i build my own system from scratch.
I really dont think we should push all dists towards user friendly. There are disadvantages with that too as it tends to empower n00bs at the expence of experienced users. More flawors is better as long as they all follow the Linux Standard Base.
Review of Reviews (Score:5, Interesting)
I've stuck with solely because of drakconf and it's associated tools, which make configuring a Linux system a breeze. However lately I've been aspiring to ascend to guru status, or at the very least PFY, so I gave Debian a whirl.
Here's a three step plan to help you become a guru. First, go to the mountian and climb it. Simply climbing it will help, but from the view on the mountian will make you wise. Second, spend time on the mountian. This will give you time to reflect on it and feel its moods, even modify it to suit your own tastes. Third, master the mountian. Once you have learned all it's quirks, you are encouraged to modify the mountian for the benifit of others. In time, you will learn that the simple text based install saves you much grief and hearache, though I would not compare it to the Red Hat install because I don't work on Red Hat much. Everything can be better.
Review #2, allas the same thing:
There are no automatic detection routines for your hardware, no automatic disk partitioning. It took us several attempts to get everything installed and working correctly.
There is X autodetect which has worked for me in the past. As for auto partition, no thanks. I like to set myself up myself, thank you, and the guidlines are where I learned that.
Strangely, this review was more unbiased than the first which proported to be so. It correctly noted that Debian's distribution system rocks. Dselect is a great tool that works for more than simple installs. Reading the insturctions that you MUST click out, you learn that simple vi style searches work! Awsome, type a partial name and your package is found. A graphical front end to this might be nice, but nothing is cooler than being able to secure shell into a box and configure it completely with a few keystrokes, without the overhead of pictures of boxes.
The short of it for me is that Debian easier to keep going once you have it up.
Problem with reviews of distros (Score:5, Interesting)
But a Debian box only ever needs to be installed once. After that, apt-get update; apt-get upgrade will be all you need to do. Forever. Sure, there will be the occasional hiccup. But they are very very rare. With RedHat or Mandrake or SuSE you get to install de novo yearly. What fun !
So that is the largest point missed - the joy of MAINTAINING a Debian box once installed. The other thing distribution reviews always miss are the startup scripts, including hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly cron jobs. Here, again, Debian shines like a thoroughbred compared to the competition. It almost seems like it is created to make administering boxes easy for someone qualified to be an administrator.
I think that last sentence is probably most descriptive of Debian. It almost seems like it is created to make administering boxes easy for someone qualified to be an administrator. But a review written by someone not so qualified will miss out on many of the finer points that are the distros best attributes.
I like it this way (Score:5, Interesting)
Debian is not for the faint of heart. As a long-time UNIX admin, I'm a big fan of having the fluff removed from the installation. I love FreeBSD for similar rasons.
I'm glad there's still a linux distribution that doesn't make all the decisions for me.
Isn't that why linux people hate microsoft?? Have we come full circle here and we need our hand held?
I understand a newbie wanting a GUI to get Linux up and going. But Debian has NEVER touted itself as the OS for such. It's for people who are serious about using Linux in production environments.
Re:Catch 22-and-a-lobe (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, perhaps you learn the way we all do, by acculturation and experimentation. You just hang around Debian long enough and get cool with it. Like superparent said, you fall into a Debian Zen and it all makes sense. I reject the premise that you can't get a box up and running with the current Debian installer. The only special knowledge you need is what chips your hardware is running -- easily determined with a quick Google. All other install options tell you explicitly what to choose if you don't know what to do.
After you get running, however, you will have to tinker. No doubt about it. If you don't want to tinker, don't use Debian. I strongly recommend Mandrake or Red Hat. (They are both easier than Windows for installation.) It's like, I build my own machines because I want to tinker with the hardware. Others don't, and they buy a Dell or a Sony off the shelf. It's the same way with the distribution you choose.
The installer is important (Score:5, Interesting)
Lots of views are expressed here, but as I just installed woody, I think many of you have missed some simply points:
I love the concept behind Debian. I want to have control over my system and over the TYPE of software I install. Debian will let me, but it punishes me for trying. I expect I'll be installing another distro shortly. I need to use my computer, not spend type getting it ready to be used.
Obligatory claim of competence: I started with slackware on floppies back in the 1.2 kernel days. I installed via floppies to bootstrap. I am not totally clueless.
Re:Debian is for people that *know* (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, though, know how long it took me to get a relatively secure web-server running under Redhat 7.3? I admit I probably have a bit of a headstart, since I do it for a living, but guess how long? About an hour. That's it. Yes, it's a "dedicated" server. I select the packages manually (you do realize there's an option to do that, don't you?), installed it, booted it up, it ran. Detached the monitor, stopped X from loading, and away it went. Didn't take up too much space either..can't remember the exact figures, but it didn't even make a dent on an 8GB hard drive. So it's not "plain hard to get" unless you're purposely dancing around all the options that make it easy..you know, those ones that aren't present in Debian yet?
I also find it amusing that you rag on RedHat and Mandrake, then end your reply with a note that Debian is planning on IMPROVING THEIR INSTALLER! I guess someone really does know what they want, now don't they?
Re:Interesting review (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that this is a herculean task and although debian does a decent job it's a futile task.
IMHO debian should do the following.
Trim down the list of "official" packages drastically. Take only the best 100 or so packages and concentrate on them exclusively. The rest of the packaged can be treated as "add on" and should be put on separate servers. The users can choose to add them to their apt.sources or not and if they do there are no guarantees.
This will allow the debian package mainters to concentrate on a drastically smaller list and make sure the bugs are cleared up rapidly.
Re:Dselect rocks. (Score:3, Interesting)
Search for what, exactly? What if you don't know what the "whatever" is? What if you don't know what to search for? What if you just want to find a cool package to play with, and no particular care for what kind of package it is? What about all the cool packages that you'd never even think to search for? What if you know something is missing from your sysetm, but you don't know what it is? That was my point.
Re:I would have to agree, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Debian was not made for you. Debian was made for people like me, who don't want arbitrary installation choices made for them to making installation "easier." Installation is not a frequent process with Debian, because upgrades are practically automatic. So you generally only have to install once, and it's a very small part of the overall experience. Thus, installation is not worth spending excessive development time on, because those of us that use and develop for Debian don't have a commercial agenda driving adoption rates. If Debian works well for you, use it, if it doesn't, use another distribution. That's why there's more than one.
I recently upgraded my web/cvs/mail/etc. server from RedHat to Debian (finally!), and it was effortless. It didn't take much more than 20 minutes of my time, and at the end I had exactly the packages I wanted, no more, no less. Netinst in particular makes Debian a dream to install. Just insert the CD with the minimum necessary software needed to talk to the network, then select your packages (as simple as copying a file and issuing a single command if you've got a similar system running). Hit apt-get update and it downloads all the software from the network (the most recent version - no installing then upgrading right away), then configures and installs it. The configuration system even lets you select the level of detail you want to have control over. If you want all the default choices, you don't have to do much configuration at all.
That's just uninformed, one-sided bullshit. Debian's installer is simple, easy-to-use (for those that know what they're doing), and gets the job done. My last few installs have been painless and quick. Furhermore, any pain that might have been experienced the first time installing has been rewarded many times over by the effortlessness of upgrading and maintaining a stable system.
RedHat doesn't have any advantages for me that I've seen. None. So much for fact.
Debian is right now an overwhelming success. It meets my and many other developers' needs to a tee. It is by leaps and bounds the best operating system I have ever used (including Mac OS X, BTW). If you want a system that holds your hands through a "polished" installation (an activity that probably occupies much less that 1% of your time using the system), and guesses how you want your system configured to spare you the trouble, either write a new installer yourself, or use a different distribution. You'll be missing out on a lot of functionality, but that may be appropriate, because you may not have the desire or be willing to spend the time to learn how to use it.
Don't forget that Debian is not a company. It doesn't have profit motives. It is written by the developers for the developers. And for the developers, it's a pretty damn fine system.
P.S. Okay, one more thing...I do evangelize a lot about Debian, not because I think that Debian is right for everyone, but because it still happens that every once in a while, Debian makes me break out in an ear-to-ear smile at how easy the system is to use, and how powerful it is (I think this happened when I was installing on my server). I know that other people can experience the same joy if they're willing to put in some effort. But I readily acknowledge that Debian isn't for everyone. If you're not interested enough to put in some effort, then you probably won't appreciate Debian's greatness anyway.
Re:Clearly he has never install OpenBSD...wha...? (Score:2, Interesting)
If it wasn't for OpenBSD's easy install I might still be using Windows.
I tinkered with Mandrake and Redhat for a while as Windows alternatives but didn't have great experiences. Then I stumbled on OpenBSD, did an easy slick ftp install and presto! Bye-bye Bill. The installer's fast and takes less brain cells than Linux.
(Don't get me wrong, though. I don't mean to put down Linux. I'm writing this on Redhat.)
Re:I would have to agree, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
This is the kind of geek-speak that makes ME break out in an ear-to-ear smile. I haven't used Debian before, after reading this poster's comments, I want to!
I can't help but love reading a website that has users with this kind of love for an OS. Thank goodness for slashdot. A place after my own heart.
Re:Debian is rock solid but the install ... (Score:3, Interesting)
It is indeed a pain sometimes. If it's only a few ports, you can create a binary installation thing (sort of like an rpm or a deb) like this:
pkg_create -b zsh-4.0.4 /tmp/zsh.pkg
Idea is, you download and install your ports on a big fast machine and then you can just install the binaries on the slower machines by copying over the package and doing something like this:
pkg_add zsh.pkg.tgz
You can, of course, script this if it's a larger number of packages (another trick: export /usr/obj via NFS). Theoretically, you could just distribute the pkg.tgz files to FreeBSD and do away with cvsup and ports, as these pkg files know about dependencies and whatnot. The reason nobody does that is because it's useful to always have the source code and it's useful to build all your software from source (so you can control compilation flags).
I still prefer ports and build world to all the linux "package management" stuff because I actually use the source: if there's a really nasty bug that I need to trace down into libc, just cd /usr/src/sys/lib/libc. If I want to add a switch to "find" cd /usr/src/usr.bin/find. If I don't like the compilation flags for mutt, cd /usr/ports/mail/mutt/work. This happens often enough that I don't want to have to deal with searching the web for srpms and whatnot (I always want the source right there with the binary).
Install once, update for life. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Don't forget, Debian is REALLY FREE (Score:3, Interesting)
So is Redhat, always was, always will be.
"Red Hat is OK, but I was burned one too many times with RPM dependency conflicts"
Apt-rpm. Although I certainly can relate to problems that used to occur years ago.
I am happy Debian is around, but I wish people would stop trying to use Redhat as some sort of scapegoat everytime they need a negative reference to compare their distro to. It's patently unfair considering A)how much they have given back to the community and B) how they continue to put out a Free highquality distro year after year. Someone's got to be number one, no need to begrudge them anything.
Debian versus Redhat (Score:2, Interesting)
All this shit about installing tonnes of crap in the default install is rubbish - nowadays at least.
Why doesn't Debian support Compaq Smart array controllers on it's boot floppies? There's not really any reason. (And don't give me that space issue).
Debian is good for stuff you want to run, and jsut type apt-get update && apt-get upgrade once in a while, but to most people, RedHat is Linux. How many times have you heard someone say "Have you got Linux 7.3?"
Get people using Linux for Gods sake. Then they will learn. Then you can give them unfriendly but powerful tools. But don't dump them off at the deep end first.
Mod me down, I don't care.
Why is everyone dissin' debian's install process? (Score:3, Interesting)