Debian And The Rise of Linux 438
There's an article in this month's LinMagAu that asks a question about how the rise of Linux will impact Debian and what that could mean. Good article, especially interesting if you have been a fan of Debian.
I like the wording of that.. (Score:2, Funny)
Not only "if", but also "been a fan", implying that most people aren't using Debian any more?
*ducks for cover*
Re:I like the wording of that.. (Score:3, Informative)
Usually, if at all linux....its RH.
sad...but true...
-Rob
Re:I like the wording of that.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I like the wording of that.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but when did the point of Linux become 'to destroy MS'? I always thought it was about making good software that people want to use, and sharing it with everyone so the people can benefit. Red Hat seems more interested in making a profit - and as a corporation, that is, in fact, the one thing they exist to do. I disapprove of this. It's like totalitarian communism - 'everyone helps everyone (to help me)'.
Redhat, as I've said before, is the MS of the Linux world. Which is not to say it's evil, but it certainly doesn't have the quality that Debian does, for one major reason: customers. Debian has users, Red Hat has customers. Red Hat has to provide new versions to its customers on a timetable. They can't afford to wait until things are finished, they have to get it out the door.
Debian, on the other hand, does not have that limitation. Debian releases happen when they're done, when they're ready to get burned onto a CD and downloaded by the ISO and dist-upgraded, and not a second before. Debian releases are done right, and the long release cycle is because they take the time to do it right the first time. THAT is what Linux and open-source should be about. Not doing it first, but doing it right.
Anyway you cut it RH helps all linux distro's across the board.
Not really, no. Red Hat has a horrible history of security holes, including (for example) keeping Wu-FTPd as the default FTP daemon, despite security hole after security hole, for over four years (or at least, four years of everyone criticizing them for being so stupid). They leave spades of ports open in the default installation, because someone might some day need them, instead of providing an option to turn them on later. They provide a packaging system that, at its best, is mediocre. They corporatize Linux, and make everyone feel as though they have to compete to be better. They made such a big deal about being the only Linux out there that corporations only support Red Hat - which severely hurts other Linux distros. Oracle, for example, is only supported on Red Hat. True, that's Oracle's fault, but Red Hat's boisterious success has marginalized distros that don't have overly commercial gains, and that hurts everyone across the board.
--Dan
Re:I like the wording of that.. (Score:3, Informative)
This news coming just after the NZ Govt signed some huge Microsoft deal...
Re:I like the wording of that.. (Score:2)
Re:I like the wording of that.. (Score:5, Informative)
If English-speaking non-technical executives decide to pick a Linux distro, I'd say they overwhelmingly seem to choose Red Hat, since that's the one they're most likely to know / Dell's most likely to pre-install.
If technical staff is allowed to make the decision, Debian makes a much better showing. In my experience, over half of these installations are Debian, Red Hat being second most popular.
Re:I like the wording of that.. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just tripe, and you know it. I have no idea why you got moderated up twice for spreading FUD. I use Mandrake and Debian at home, and Red Hat and Debian at work. Debian is pretty modern.
Re:I like the wording of that.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I like the wording of that.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I like the wording of that.. (Score:2)
In that case, it wasn't a case of not compiling, but table corruption that didn't occur with ANY other version except 2.96.
Re:I like the wording of that.. (Score:2)
Re:I like the wording of that.. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you consider the derivitives of Debian, such as Knoppix, you can't say that it is out of date. Knoppix has absolutely the easiest installation of any operating system out there (unless you want to go back to DOS ("format c:
*sigh* Already slashdotted, article text: (Score:5, Informative)
But will Debian be there?
We all know that Debian is technically one of the most advanced operating systems on the planet, but is it ready to ride the coming shockwave of the desktop Linux juggernaught?
And just as importantly, do we want it to?
Yes, I know the argument that says Debian is created for the benefit of the people who do the creating, and that we shouldn't care if anyone outside the core developer group uses it or not.
I think that argument is bunk.
I say we should want Debian to grow with Linux, because if it doesn't, it's doomed. Doomed to be marginalised in an increasingly Linux-aware market, and doomed to be eclipsed technically by development efforts focused on the high profile commercial distros.
This point was really driven home to me last week when on two consecutive days I was asked for instructions on setting up Apt-cacher under Red Hat. The requests came from people who manage networks of Red Hat boxes using Apt-rpm, and naturally they wanted to cache packages to save some bandwidth. Apt-rpm and Apt-cacher were exactly the solution they needed.
So a Debian initiative saved the day for some Red Hat users. Sweet.
But now the most frequently cited technical advantage of Debian is gone, assimilated by the highest profile commercial distro. Now when people are discussing switching to Linux, there is no longer the argument that Debian is worth the pain of the initial install and the lack of general vendor support in order to reap the benefit of the most advanced package management system in the world. Instead, users can just install Red Hat and still get the benefits of Apt.
Is there anything wrong with that? Absolutely not. It's the way things are meant to work in the Open Source world. Good ideas and good software get around, and a fundamental part of the Debian credo is that we don't restrict who can benefit from it, no matter what their application. That's a principle I firmly believe in.
And of course I'm glossing over the situation a bit here: I can imagine Debian developers all around the world jumping up and down and yelling that Debian is much more than a bunch of packages, or a technical specification for how to create them, or a tool to manage them. But I'm deliberately simplifying things because that's the way the average Joe User is going to see it: Oh, Red Hat has Apt now, cool. I'll use that instead of Debian.
Joe User doesn't know (or care) about the obsessive backporting of security patches to the stable release, or about the technical and social infrastructure and numerous supporting apps built up around Dpkg and Apt, or Debian's devotion to the purity of truly Open Source licences. As far as Joe User is concerned Redhat has Apt, and that's all there is to it. They don't know enough to make the finer distinctions.
Without distinguishing features like Apt, the argument for going with Debian is diminished. Sure, there are still arguments to be made, but they are less obvious. Here's an exercise for you: imagine you are standing at the water cooler chatting with workmates, and a non-technical colleague just said they are thinking of trying Linux at home and were going to install Red Hat but they heard Debian is really good, but has a tricky installer. They think they'll just try Red Hat because that's what they've heard of other people using, but are interested in your opinion because you're in computers. You've got exactly 15 seconds to succinctly explain why Debian may be better for them than Red Hat.
Re:*sigh* Already slashdotted, article text: (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, if there were a central repository for those installation blogs, developers could easily see where most of the problems arise.. Just some random thoughts..
Re:*sigh* Already slashdotted, article text: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, an installation blog is CRUCIAL. What's the point of installing debian if you can't blog it in excruciating detail right next to your much vaunted movie reviews, and internationally recognized kitten-jokes. Ok, sorry, I had to. -Laxitive
Re:*sigh* Already slashdotted, article text: (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, Jow User doesn't realise that it isn't Apt itself that makes Apt great. It's the effort that goes in to creating the packages correctly that Apt uses. Broken and poorly maintained packages will render Apt as useful as RPM.
Re:*sigh* Already slashdotted, article text: (Score:5, Insightful)
rpm deb
apt up2date Red Carpet
In other words, rpm (like deb) is a package format. Apt (like up2date, red carpet nad a number of others) is a system for downloading and installing packages, finding and solving dependencies between packages and so on.
Running apt on redhat still means using rpm - it's just that you use apt as the manager, instead of using the rpm tools directly to do stuff manually. As packages, rpm and deb are pretty much equal; rpm has gotten a bad rap in part because rpm based distros typically did not have a package manager earlier, and foremost, because there was no solid, single repository for them with people dedicated solely to find and fix inconsistencies and conflicts before pushing them out to users.
Re:*sigh* Already slashdotted, article text: (Score:3, Interesting)
RedCarpet updates leave you with a system which can't be upgraded with a later set of Red Hat CDs. This is no big deal if you keep
Re:*sigh* Already slashdotted, article text: (Score:3, Informative)
Not exactly. rpm is also a package installer program, like Debian's dpkg.
rpm : rpm : up2date
deb : dpkg : apt
A statement comparing "apt vs rpm" is valid, if both are interpreted as software applications.
In fact, that comparison was once very important for Debian evaneglism. Until recently (and maybe still?), rpm was the primary tool for RedHat users to install packages. Before the introduction of RedHat's up2date, comparing "The primary command-line tools to install packages on RedHat and Debian" meant comparing the user-friendliness of rpm and apt-get. Naturally, apt-get won completely, because its featureset is far out of rpm's league.
Re:*sigh* Already slashdotted, article text: (Score:4, Interesting)
Let RedHat, ALT Linux and other commercial firms
care about them. They would get their revenues
and give their contribution to OpenSource world,
including Debian.
Users switch to Debian not from Windows (or complete
computer illiteracy), but rather from other Linux
distro's.
Personally I switched to Debian from RH (four or five years
ago) when I found out, that when I need some piece
of software which is not included in my distro,
I routinely go to ftp.debian.org and grab orig.tar.gz from there.
There should be at least one distro in the world,
which cares about clever people, not stupid ones.
Debian perfectly fill that niche. It is created
by clever people and targetted to clever people.
With apt-get dist-upgrade who need installer
at all, once he learned how dump/restore work?
And for first time in the life you better
to call some more experiencd friend.
Re:*sigh* Already slashdotted, article text: (Score:4, Insightful)
Debian should not get into the "Joe User" mode, because it alienates the only people that use it. Let RedHat, Mandrake, and SuSe fight over Joe User. Just as long as it's linux.
Linux reference system (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Debian GNU/Linux should be this system for several reasons.
It's non-commercial, meaning SuSe can't complain that the reference system is partial to RedHat or anyone else.
It's conservative, which is very important for reference systems. If you write for Debian 3.0, you know it will be around for awhile. This doesn't mean that RedHat can't extend their distribution to add more recent libraries or programs. It just mean that something written for Debian 3.0 will work in the RedHat system that says it follows 3.0.
Re:Linux reference system (Score:5, Insightful)
The main problems with using Debian as a reference distro are:
a) Not as popular as some other distros (which is not btw just because the clueless masses are stupid, give people some credit).
b) They don't have any real problem breaking binary compat with other distros, see their decision over the libdb mess.
c) The LSB already does it, and is widely accepted, has test cases etc.
Re:Linux reference system (Score:4, Funny)
That'll probably be about the time Steve Ballmer gets praised for his dancing abilities and Bill Gates extolls the virtues of the GPL -- with a straight face.
Hint: "monkey boy" isn't considered praise.
Re:Linux reference system (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Linux reference system (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah watch out (Score:5, Insightful)
So Debian should be more of a VHS than a Betamax if it wants to stand a chance...
Yuioup
Watch out for what? (Score:2)
"Technically superior" is a BS rationalization for not getting a product right the first time. The PC might not have been technically superior to other machines of the era bot they had the adaptive edge of being an open infrastructure.
Would you really want to operate in a market where Apple, IBM and maybe Amiga call all the shots on what hardware you can use and what software you can design with?
Linux would never exist in such a market.
IBM PC open ! think again (Score:2)
Only once Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS to sell PC clones.
If the IBM PC was released today with DCMA & Software patents then the clones would never see the light of day.
Some of us can remember Apricot IBM Compatibles that weren't.
The success of the PC was down to "Runs Lotus 1-2-3" not the ISA bus.
Re:Yeah watch out (Score:3, Funny)
So Debian should be more of a VHS than a Betamax if it wants to stand a chance...
[off-topic]
Yeah, I worked for Philips with their technically also superior V2000 system. The story goes that that never made it, because the "family owned" company didn't "encourage" the release of V2000 P0RN movies
[on-topic]
I'm myself pretty happy with using RH in the office and Debian for hacking around at home. Good article, but Joe Doe will never know about apt, because they don't know already about rpm. Stuff like Walmart/Lindows is the answer there. But let's not forget: Commodore 64 is a thing of the past, but Apple is still around, so "the masses" don't always win.
[???-topic]
So maybe Debian P0RN is the answer to the improved "usability and visibility" in the article
Although I use and dearly love Debian (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a self-fullfilling prophecy, and to change this will take quite a major change from the existing Debian (fairly elitist) culture.
Where Debian will shine is not nessicarily as a mainstream distro itself, but as the basis of systems that are more widely used, such as Xandros and Knoppix. Is this a bad thing?
It does run the risk that Debian-as-distro/brand become marginalised, but all that needs to happen for the Debian project to stay healthy is that Debian-as-underlying-system is widespread.
This said, my Ideal World(tm) is every man and his dog running Deb... ;)
no walkthroughs? (Score:2)
Granted, it's not a GUI wizard, but that wouldn't be difficult to add. Somebody simply needs to write a GUI interpreter for those walkthroughs, which automatically turns multiple choice questions into radio bullet boxes and makes the whole thing look like a Windows Wizard(TM).
Re:no walkthroughs? (Score:2)
This is fine for me/other DDs who know what is going on, but is too technical for the average switcher, and is also limited to inital install.
Compare this to a proper GUI like Mandrake Control Centre. This has all of the options needed in one place, easy to access and change at a future date, and with normal english dicriptions and nice pretty graphics (this is important). For instance firewall setup is done through clicking on a labled flame icon, which then gives you firewall on/off radio buttons and a list of tick buttons for allowing various ports labled simply as RealPlayer etc access. This is because it was designed to be a high-level, easy-to-use option, unlike debconf, which is limited to inital install, and tends to assume that the end user is capable of just popping into /etc and changing settings later.
Again the problem is not with Debian technically (where it is excellent), but in the presentation of Deb to the end user. This is shown by the relative popularity of easier Debian-based distros such as Xandros with new users.
What Debian wants to end up with is something more like OSX. Nice eye-candy on the front-end, but with Deb's stability and ability to get dirty with text files for those that can.
Niche markets have their place too. (Score:3, Interesting)
My current favourite magazine has several debian articles including this one updating debian [apcmag.com]
Unfortunately I cannot find the web link for the July issue workshop article about setting up Debian. I expect they'll make it available in August. They're very enthusiastic, and have included the install files on CD in the July 2003 issue. If I had a spare PC I might try it. Especially as they say you can use it to resurrect a pentium 100 (So I guess my pentium 133 would be ok).
I think Debian will survive as long as the guys who are building it now continue to be interested and new programmers take up the quest for the perfect OS, where perfect is defined more in terms of reliabilty, stablility and security than easy good looks.
What will get the mass market but never the geek market, are cheap (reliable) computers that are more compatible with people. They're still years off true user friendliness in hardware, software and people interfaces. Imagine no pain switching versions, or upgrading. Imagine not needing "training" to learn how to use the latest word processor, or to get the best out of animation software or video editing or being able to play the newest adventure game without having to read 300 pages of the manual, and learn lots of weird keyboard or mouse tricks to control the interface. Imagine computer games that you could play and keep fit at the same time. Hmm, I remember a rowing machine that had a video game of a shark chasing your rowing boat, and you had to row to keep ahead of the shark. That was nearly 10 years ago, but the gym I went to most recently didn't have it. Just numbers. Boring. Imagine having to pedal to keep your aeroplane off the ground in flight simulator?
Hmm got a bit carried away there.
Re:Niche markets have their place too. (Score:2)
What will get the mass market but never the geek market, are cheap (reliable) computers that are more compatible with people.
Yes. This is an example of where Debian-the-system can do well (preinstalled and modded with a custom GUI). A good thing would be a simple Knoppix-based liveCD with a OEOne style frontend designed for Your Mama(tm). This would fill a market need.
But I would hope you would see that this project would meed to be designed with a considerably different philosophy then Debian-as-distro is at the moment.
Re:Although I use and dearly love Debian (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Although I use and dearly love Debian (Score:3, Informative)
Three weeks later, I finally had it working properly.
My first stumblings were because of the installer not liking my PCMCIA card. A purchase of a new card fixed that. But then I got to the package installer and wow... it was one of the most unusable things I had ever encountered. Just when I thought I was getting the hang of it, I would press Enter one too many times and the install would take off before I had even gotten through all the options.
Once I decided to just abandon that and do a base install / apt-get what I need setup, things went better, but then every time I did a startx, my system would lock hard. I worked on that one a long time before breaking down and just installing the 2.4.18 kernel package. Problem solved, but it took a long time for me to get to that point (and a test install of Red Hat had X11 coming up properly the first time).
Then I got blackbox and fluxbox installed to try out some lightweight but functional window managers. Worked great until I ran XDM, which would then vomit all over itself. Finally figured out where in the XSM configuration I needed to make changes. Got that running well.
Fortunately, I didn't need sound, serial, or parallel working on this laptop for the task for which I intended it, otherwise I might have been scratching my balding head even more.
All that said, it's running now. Apt-get is an absolute dream (a package manager that takes care of dependencies for me? Sweet joy!). But my difficulty in getting basic things done was enough that I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Had the laptop been a bit beefier, I would have given up after day three and gone straight to Red Hat.
So, at this point, I'm enjoying my Debian install, but I wouldn't ever do it again with a system that I considered critical or that had to be up and running quickly.
Elitist is putting it politely (Score:3, Interesting)
(Disclaimer: I run Debian stable at work, and Debian unstable at home.)
No kidding. Fire up your IRC client, connect to one of the Freenode servers, and join #debian. This is, in theory, a user support channel. In reality, the channel is run along the lines of, "if you have to ask a question, any question at all, you're a luser and deserve every flame we can give you." And they're proud of it; just ask mwilson.
I used to try and answer questions on there, but the flames drown out the conversations too quickly. Basically, "The biggest thing holding Debian back isn't Debian, it's #debian." (i.e., the attitude, not the channel itself)
What debian should do (Score:2, Interesting)
An example release could be "Debian 4.2, based on Debian_base_3.4"
My biggest compliant with debian (Score:2, Interesting)
And yes, I am aware of the other debian-based distros that are more up to date, but they're all (to my knowledge) pay distros, and I am looking for something cheap/free.
Re:My biggest compliant with debian (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a Debian user, not a developer, and I chose Debian for two main reasons: I like to understand what goes on, and many distros try to hide things from me to be "friendly". I don't have anything against RTFM, at least to a great extent. The other reason is that it is the most free distro around. Additionally, I had many good friends using Debian, always somebody I can call up.
However, I'm not capable of packaging anything myself, and I'm not a hacker. I'm a newbie. Things are hard, even after RTFMing...
Woody is allready terribly outdated, security packages like snort and nessus are pretty much useless. Then, KDE 3 is a whole lot more stable in my experience than KDE 2.2.2 which is in Woody. SpamAssasin must be kept up-to-date in the arms race with spammers. Exim is so old, people on the Exim-lists can't help you because they don't remember how Exim 3 was configured...
There are many who cries for an easier install, but I don't. It wasn't that hard, even for a newbie like me. Just had to call up my friends a few times. Debian folks are very helpful.
It seems like Sarge is following pretty much the same path as Woody did, released when really big things has been done. What I would like to see is Sarge being just an updated Woody. No new installer, no new groundbreaking stuff, just updated packages, Snort, Exim 4, Apache 2.0, KDE 3.1, GNOME 2.0, etc. Up-to-date, tested and out the door...
That's what I would like to see, but I realize there is very little I can do to help it happen.
Re:My biggest compliant with debian (Score:3, Informative)
If you know what you want, you can run stable plus a few packages from unstable. It's a total and unecessary pain to set up, and then works like a charm forever ("the Debian Way"). Edit your /etc/apt/preferences file to have
Now you can say apt-get -t unstable install foo and the foo package will be installed from unstable and will be maintained. Have fun!Debian has the problem the whole Linux world has.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Debian was always about doing "The Right thing", about not only making things work, but make them work like they should work.
But you cannot build a good distribution on software getting worse and worse. Think about more and more software unable to do basic things, because people did not thought about them as they are not feasable with one human before one computer. Because people grew up with windows and do not even know how it could work.
On good example is konqueror and its identification of file type through filename's suffix. Do you have time to tell 300 users of your computers to rename "download.htm" to "bild.gif" to be able to click on it. (Oh, sorry I forgot, you are using your computer alone...)
Even Debian, which was formerly known to be usable by admins, is now working on abolishing its old working menu system to one build up on KDE's
menus. (Instead that someone would finaly get a menu-method for KDE and the old one.)
It's a shame, the old system capable of creating a menu looking the same under all window-managers (except KDE, because the KDE people do not want to integrate) making life for an admin really easy, is dropped for a thing not nearly capable of it.
(No possibility to specify a menu-hirachy. And the proposed format for icons is png. absurd.)
Re:Debian has the problem the whole Linux world ha (Score:2)
This is an example of copying a design flaw from Windows. When doing things the "unix way", use
Re:Debian has the problem the whole Linux world ha (Score:2)
Dude, hold on a second.
Debian is not planning to switch to KDE's menu system nor they're planning to dump their menu policy and all the beautiful thoughts behind it. It's just about the format of the menu entries.
Namely they're planning [debian.org] to switch their own, though working and widely used (withing their distribution), menu format to use the same standard as described in freedesktop.org's Desktop Menu Specification [freedesktop.org]. Or at the moment it's still just a proposal, I haven't been following the discussion, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
But anyway, it's the same thing what GNOME and KDE of the future will be using to build their menus. Now is that a bad thing then? GNOME, KDE and Debian sharing the same menu entries but still everyone is able to present those menus as they natively please (as long as they implement the freedesktop.org standard)?
On the subject of Debian (Score:5, Interesting)
I started using Linux with SlackWare when it was the only distro available out there. I used to love them tarballs, but then at the time systems still had manageable sizes, so one really could compile everything in a reasonable time.
Then I had the (mis?)fortune of being hired by a certain Caldera spinoff and was forced to use OpenLinux 1.2. That was my first contact with RPM, and that was a painful contact. Part of my work also involved writing and maintaining specfiles for various cross-platform packages. That's when I learned that (1) RPM was better than tarballs because it had dependencies, (2) RPM dependencies are not powerful enough and (3) RPM isn't backward-compatible. In short, RPM is not good but it's better than nothing.
At that company, I also had the misfortune of meeting a Debian fanatic. Note that I say he's a fanatic of Debian, not that Debian made him a fanatic. Having tried Debian long ago myself, when it wasn't ready for prime-time, and having found it complicated and messy at the time, I was conforted in this idea by the truly detestable way this guy was patronizing everybody who didn't use Debian, and was turned off Debian for another 2 years.
Then, several months ago, it was a sunday afternoon, my local computer shop was closed, and I couldn't find my RH CD to reinstall my box. I though : what the hell, I'm no more stupid than the average Debian user and I have nothing to do, let's try the Debian network-install. Well, I went through a little pain (it's not quite totally polished yet), but I've never looked back. dpkg and apt-get are just a godsend, and I too am now a convert today.
Moral of the story : I avoided using Debian for several years entirely due to the advocacy of one (well, several actually) Debian bigot. You can always say that I should have been more intelligent and I should have made my own opinion, but I never had time and the experience you get from other users do count for me.
In conclusion : what's the biggest good that could happen to Debian ? that other distros' package management got better so Debian bigots wouldn't have such an powerful incentive to behave like asses and disgust other people of Debian before they even try it. Or better still, that the Debian bigots start realizing that they won't win anybody to Debian by being patronizing.
Re:On the subject of Debian (Score:2, Interesting)
Debian's choice to be all DFSG [debian.org] distro is actually the only practical choice for a non-comercial org producing an OS. The battles in the past over the Troll Tech license had more to do with avoiding future troubles that a vaguely worded or confusing license could produce.
When an org has limited rescources, no comercial structure, and consists entirely of volunteers with no binding contract, then it makes sense to adhere to a very strict only Free Software position.
I want my 5 minutes back! (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh Dear God No (Score:5, Interesting)
(1) Serious philosophical principles. The only people to say GNU/Linux with a straight face. People concerned with my liberty above all else.
(2) No Prepackaged Experience. I run Fluxbox, Gnome-Terminal, Mozilla, and Konqueror, and have a proper GTK/KDE library environment. It all works the way I want it.
(3) The system state is transactional. Glitz is antithetical to transactionality. Glitz hides transactions. I like transactions.
(4) No waiting forever to compile stuff pointlessly.
#1 is the crucial element. Liberty is paramount.
Re:Oh Dear God No (Score:2)
Just waiting forever for somebody else to compile it for you and a dozen other platforms you don't use
I love Debian. I find it so much easier to maintain server side than our Red Hat boxes. Everything just works. The wait for the development cycle is worth it - everything just works. Don't talk to me about doing a Woody 3.0 net install with / and
Why Joe User Doesnt Like Debian (Score:2)
Re:Oh Dear God No (Score:5, Informative)
-Only good for servers
Upgrade your MDA video card, you'll see it's pretty good at being a desktop box. Where the hell did you get that ?
-Stable: old
Possibly, but it's stable. That's the main reason to use it. Caldera OpenLinux, which was supposed to be robust as a primary goal, also had outdated but well-tested packages (before Caldera let it grow too old it was useless to everybody).
-Unstable:looking for trouble, and still old
No and no. I use unstable with no problem at all, and I don't find it very out of date. Some things are, but most of the packages are fairly current.
-Licensing issues, cool apps missing
That's partially true. But you can always add non-free sources in your
-No xfree 4.3, no mplayer
No mplayer ? hello ?
ppc@akula:~$ apt-cache search mplayer
mplayer-mozilla - Embedded video player for mozilla
mencoder-386 - MPlayer's Movie Encoder
acidrip - ripping and encoding DVD tool using mplayer and mencoder
mencoder-686 - MPlayer's Movie Encoder
mplayer-k6 - The Ultimate Movie Player For Linux
mplayer-doc - Documentation for mplayer
mplayer-fonts - Fonts for mplayer
kplayer - A KDE media player based on MPlayer
mencoder-k6 - MPlayer's Movie Encoder
lumiere - A GNOME frontend to mplayer
mplayer-386 - The Ultimate Movie Player For Linux
mplayer-686 - The Ultimate Movie Player For Linux
-Unfriendly community
Unfortunately, that's true, at least partially.
-Everyone now has apt or an improved version of it
-Installer sucks
-Dselect sucks
dselect and installer do suck, yes. But it's worth the pain IMHO.
Re:Oh Dear God No (Score:5, Informative)
Just to nitpick, I think you got those from Christian Marillat's apt source [marillat.free.fr]; they're not in Debian proper.
dselect sucks and is not worth the pain. aptitude, on the other hand, is Very Good. (Incidentally, I wonder if on Red Hat + APT, I can browse packages like I do with aptitude's UI...)
Article somewhat optimistic... (Score:2, Insightful)
Would you like to bet some money on that?
"But will Debian be there?
We all know that Debian is technically one of the most advanced operating systems on the planet, but is it ready to ride the coming shockwave of the desktop Linux juggernaught?"
The desktop linux juggernaught? Oh, you mean Gnome. Or do you mean KDE? I know, you mean X, everyone's *favorite* GUI.
The linux desktop is an absolute mess. The article's claim that windows will be dead by mid-2006 is ridiculous. MS has too much money, too much monopoly, and too much inovative stuff just around the bend (read: Longhorn will take advantage of the technology MS developped through the complicated research process of using Mac OSX a lot) to keel over that easily. What's the point of an article if its assumptions are super-optimistic trash?
what about platform independence? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:what about platform independence? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/
Re:what about platform independence? (Score:2)
Yep. That's why there is Debian/NetBSD [debian.org].
Re:what about platform independence? (Score:2)
Yeah, so?
Debian runs on NetBSD [debian.org]Re:what about platform independence? (Score:2)
Re:what about platform independence? (Score:2)
Segments (Score:4, Insightful)
However as mentioned in that article apt-get is a saviour. Security problem on RH. Download RPM, check deps, install. Fix broken config
Debian: apt-get update && apt-get install
Walk away
Just MHO
Rus
debian in a redhat shop (Score:3, Interesting)
After using redhat for many months here, then changing to debian, ill never go back to RH. It can be a pain to get installed, but once there, its solid. where as on redhat I had lots of dep issues because I was always installing cutting edge crap. I have done the same on debian, but with alot less issues. With in a few weeks ill have the chance to change over our DNS server to debian. And onward from there...
Good way to try Debian (Score:5, Informative)
No, seriously. I don't run debian primarily because I don't want to go through the install process. I don't know what chipset my nic has, and I really don't care to know, know what I mean? Ditto with everything else.
I've been using flavors of RedHat, culminating with Redhat9 that's currently my Linux of "choice", mainly because Redhat offered superior hardware detection/setup. But, I've always had to tweak a bit here and there to get it working nicely.
However, with the advent of Knoppix, I think that's about to change. I popped in Knoppix 3.2 today for the first time to see what it was all about. The hardware detection on this LIVE CD is absolutely.. superb. It recognized and setup my Orinoco Wireless card. It found and mounted my Sony Cybershot Camera. Jesus, it even found and setup my Wacom! The only thing it didn't do was give me dual-head support OOB, but I don't think I know any distro that does that. But that's okay, fortunately I know how to set that up myself. It comes with KDE, it looks great, it just WORKS. And because it "just works" I'm really tempted to wipe RedHat off and do the HD install of this.
Some notes that I've come across, though: As Knoppix uses a special blend of testing/unstable (or something like that), it's really hard to do dist-upgrade and what not without downgrading your desktop. I heartily recommend reading through the docs at the Knoppix website and finding out what issues may remain. As a desktop Debian based distro, though, I think Knoppix just plain rules.
Re:Good way to try Debian (Score:2)
Tell me about it - I just downloaded the latest testing official installer CD, and the thing is absolutely shocking - much worse user interface than even the Woody installer. It writes (default) at the end of the command which it's currently expecting to run, which takes ages to find amongst 20 lines with random lengths and various text in them if you're not familiar with it. It has broken components all over the place, and it doesn't have any design coherency. Half the options aren't cleanly back-out-ofable, and it's still inefficient with bandwidth for a console-only setup.
There really isn't much going for the current installer - I hope someone brings out a better one soon - I'm almost tempted to play with it myself (I might also be bitter because it doesn't have the rtl8139 driver, thought the 8139too driver is on there and works fine - but every single time you do anything it prompts with "couldn't find required driver". Grr)
I'm going to go get Knoppix now!
deja vu (Score:4, Informative)
Exhibit A [slashdot.org]
So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
If Linux gets a lot bigger, but Debian doesn't get bigger with it-- so what?
The Debian developers seem to be happy to work on Debian for their own use and for the use of the people who use it now. As long as that audience doesn't shrink too much-- and I doubt it will, for though many slashdot posters love to scoff at this, there are some people who use Debian for philosophical and other reasons-- then the same number of people will continue to use Debian.
Yeah, I agree that Debian needs to move forward and needs to make sure it stays as close to the "cutting edge" as possible. But I don't understand why other Linux distributions exploding into extreme popularity among people not currently using Linux at all must detract from Debian. That sort of "must be the market leader to survive" mentality may work for commerical entities (be they open or closed source companies), but Debian isn't one such beast.
Indeed, I suspect what will happen is that the "mainstream" distros will become more attached to proprietary offerings. Red Hat's made amazing contributions to the open source community, but if their users are demanding crossover office sorts of things bundled with Microsoft Office, and M$ agrees to licence that, I'd be surprised if Red Hat didn't go for it. There will be those who will stick with Debian for philosophical reasons-- and so long as there are enough of them to provide a core of Debian maintainers, why not? It doesn't hurt anybody else.
That's the great thing about free software. Anybody who wants to do their own thing can do their own thing, without being beholden to what somebody else is doing, and without requiring anybody else to be beholden to them.
-Rob
print url (Score:2)
up2date vs apt (Score:3, Informative)
Red Hat Linux comes with one free basic RHN/up2date licence. For enterprise customers (like us) 'RHN Enterprise' with central package management, server grouping etc. is a fantastic product and superior to using apt.
Obsessing with apt and the (internal) superiority of dpkg is typical of the Debian bigot. Those of us in the real world have more important fish to fry.
Re:up2date vs apt (Score:2, Interesting)
I am by no means a Debian 'bigot', I don't us it as my personal desktop for instance, but I strongly assert it has a place, not least in the enterprise, an area we're no slouches in ourselves 8^)
I'm glad you like using Red Hat. I find your experience of the superiority of up2date over apt interesting, but not really backed up by my own experience.
In my experience, 'enterprise customers' are more least as likely to go the Debian route, of course, ymmv but it is in no way as cut and dried as you seem to assert.
Quit drooling over apt-get (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling APT the main and only advantage of Debian is plain ignorance.
Debian's strength lies in maturity which results from well-defined development policies, experienced & dedicated developers and large quantities of common sense
Apart from raving over APT for the first 1/3 of it's length, the article is, of course, right. Average Joe cannot tackle Debian.
Still, I wouldn't worry so much. The server market is huge. Debian simply kicks ass there.
Debian safe whilst it sticks to its heritage! (Score:3, Insightful)
The inevitable rise of GNU/Linux is one thing, Debian's place in the world is another. The two are not connected!
We deploy GNU/Linux and Free Software, every day, in an Enterprise setting. The opinion-du-jour on 'Linux on the Desktop' has almost nothing to do with distribution selection for any particular business. To the extent that Debian sticks to its long tradition of quality, stability, security and attention to detail it will remain right at the top of the shortlist (certainly for us at the very least).
Any increase in GNU/Linux usage is good for the community. Home users will be swayed by what they have always been swayed by - ease of use, getting their stuff done, and eye-candy. Decisions on Distributions used in business will continue to be made using a differenct set of criteria.
APT is NOT the "big advantage" of Debian (Score:5, Informative)
Well, ther are other advantages, but these are the ones I remember now. By the way, I've been using APT for Conectiva, and I can tell you it's really not as good as the original (lacks stability, and is slower).
Re:APT is NOT the "big advantage" of Debian (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:kernels (Score:3, Insightful)
as too mainstream [...]
And exactly what is wrong with "mainstream" software? If you're picking your OS based on l33t obscurity, stay the hell out of the discussion. Technical merit and licensing are far more important than bragging rights on irc.
In the Tradition of Greenspun's Tenth (Score:3, Funny)
Knoppix (Score:2, Informative)
Knoppix has a wonderful hardware detection wizard, a simple script to install to the hard drive, and is also mentioned in the same edition of LinMagAu, surprisingly the writer didn't include a reference to it.
Personally I'm starting to hand friends a copy of Knoppix, if they like it I'll point them to the hdd install script.
Debian is a great base for Knoppix, and once a user becomes competent they can take advantage of the underlying Debian power - but they dont need a geek on hand to get started.
debian is not just apt and a philosophy (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is why I am likely to stick to debian in the foreseeable future:
Let me explain this in a bit more detail:
I started using debian roughly 4 years ago, after having tried various other distributions for different amounts of time (admittedly I was a complete clueless newbie then and had only limited abilites to stray too far from the default install).
Since then I have been running exactly the same debian installation.
I have started with stable, then went to testing, then went to unstable. In this time, I've upgraded my cpu and mobo twice, replaced various hardware, and have upgraded my desktop environment through various fairly incompatible KDE versions, and painlessly went through the c++ ABI changes.
And all I've done in all that time is simply 'apt-get upgrade' or 'apt-get dist-upgrade'. Nothing else.
The package quality of debian packages is usually extremely high, and most package maintainers go to great lengths to make complicated upgrade procedures virtually invisible. And it works.
In the mean time, I have seen many of my friends repeatedly re-install their linux system from scratch, because upgrading simply didn't work out quite as expected. And I felt reminded of those good old windows times, where you just re-installed your system every half a year or so.
I don't want that. I want to install my system and keep it up-to-date and want to never have to re-install it (unless the box was compromised of course).
That's why I love debian, because it makes the daily package-juggling and -upgrading easy, and thus improves my quality-of-life-in-front-of-the-box considerably.
I can't say I'm up-to-date with other distributions any more, and I've got nothing against other distributions at all. I am fairly sure the installation procedure of most other distros is far superior to the current debian installer, and probably many have more user-friendly configuration tools as well.
I just watch all my friends doing things I don't want to do. And that makes me a happy debian user.
And for the same reason I would immediately decide for debian when it comes to setting up a linux box at work (partly of course because I know he system better).
Anyway, thanks for reading :-)
Re:debian is not just apt and a philosophy (Score:3, Insightful)
You're trying to be clever, I know, but you're failing miserably. The grandparent's point was that his system has smoothly upgraded without needing to be reinstalled throughout those four years.
I have the same experience with my laptop.
Screw average Joe (Score:3, Insightful)
For the record, there exist such thing as market niches and they can be lucrative enough. Not everything should be mass-produced. Maybe millions of average Joes do not care about single vendor and forced upgrade risk. Let RH make money servicing them. There will be a limited number of sophisticated and influential users who will always need (and support) Debian.
11 minutes, and already slashdotted (Score:4, Interesting)
More to the point: Debian is already marginalized to a certain extent. In the semiconductor industry, if a simulation or regression tool runs on linux, it runs on RedHat linux. A specific version of RedHat linux.
It is one of the first questions that technical support will ask: what version of linux is the tool running on? And if you answer incorrectly, you get a free trip to the sorry but that is not a supported configuration hang up. I am responsible for about a hundred linux boxes and none of them are Debian, for precisely this reason.
The real question is: so what? If the Debian developers are really as keen as everyone says they are, then it really doesn't matter -- they will keep coming up with technical innovations which will get tried, proven, and then absorbed into "more popular" distributions. Let Debian users be on the cutting edge, while those of us with real work to do can use the distilled and canned solutions to get on with our lives.
Joe User and Debian (Score:5, Interesting)
Debian has always had a strong following with Systems Administrators who want a strong, stable, supportable platform for their GNU/Linux based services that can be centrally administered without waisting a lot of time. The same forces will make Debian significant as a corporate desktop. This is a huge market, and while Joe User might be on some of those computers, he's not the one making the decision.
Red Hat wins its share of this market through marketing, Debian wins its share through precisely the same policy superiority that the author discounts. Sure, Joe User doesn't understand the policy advantages, but Joe User doesn't play in this field. Sure, Red Hat and other corporate marketted distros will mean Debian will probably never even get a majority share of this field, as long as there are systems people who are allowed to make systems decisions, Debian will be a player here.
The other two markets are Small/Home Businesses, and Home Users. These are the fields Joe User plays. And no, he's not necessarily likely to gravitate towards Debian (actually, from my experience he is, but all my evidence is anecdotal, and it's irrelevant for my point). What the author misses is a key differentiation distros that borrow from Debian.
Some distros, like the example of Red Hat borrowing apt-rpm/apt-cacher, are alien distros borrowing a tool that was developed by Debian. While they probably will contribute to development of the tool, these don't do much for Debian as a whole.
Other distros are derivative of Debian. They put their own installation and look and feel, do their own marketing and often usability testing. They might not even mention their relation to Debian, but, at their core, they're Debian, and developers developing for these Distros are directly helping Debian development. Some significant distros in this category are: LindowsOS [lindows.com], Progeny [progeny.com] and Libranet [libranet.com]. They're not Red Hat, but they're growing, and growing strong [walmart.com].
I feel Debian's chances of being marginalized are slim.
Wisdom requested to go from RH to Debian (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyhow, this got me thinking... would this be a good time to go ahead and switch to a different distro? Of course Debian was first to enter my mind since I read it's praises here all the time. Here's my question, after the initial investment of time into the install how much time should expect to invest in a Debian install? Will apt make it easy for me to keep my server updated with the latest security patches? Are there Debian lists to let me know when there's a security patch I need?
I hope I've explained myself well enough to get some helpful responses. Also, if there's another distro you would recomend let me know.
Re:Wisdom requested to go from RH to Debian (Score:3, Informative)
If your RedHat installation doesn't give you what you need from a server operating system, it's a good time to think about switching. I would not rush it, since there is always the chance something is screwed and restoring an entire system back is not easily done even if you keep full backups. You should at least familiarize yourself with Debian before you start running servers with it.
The Debian install is not much different from the rest of the distros. If you know how Linux works, the text-based installation progress is quite simple. You can set it up to get packages from the net, so there's no need to burn all the CD's. The Debian web site has links to netinstall ISO images which are only 10-30 MB.
For me Debian install takes about half an hour. You might need considerably more on your first run. But heed this warning: Don't run task-sel nor dselect to pick the apps. I've yet to hear of a successful use of those two utilities. Especially for a server environment, you probably don't want to have all kinds of software lying around (both task-sel and dselect install tons of software you didn't want).
After you have your Debian system configured, it's a simple matter of apt-cache search'ing and apt-get install'ing the software you need. The dependency system will take care of the libraries and softwares to which the software you want depends on. After two hours you should be set up (depending on your network connection speed) with the software you need.
To keep up with security, choose only stable Debian packages. Then it's a simple matter of scripting to set up a cron job to do atp-get update and apt-get dist-upgrade periodically.
You might also want to take a look at Gentoo Linux, which offers similar packaging system to Debian. Gentoo philosophy is that you're provided with the package information and source codes which are compiled on your system for optimal setup; there's no binary distribution. I don't know of their security update model.
And if you're open-minded, there are always the BSDs.
Re:Wisdom requested to go from RH to Debian (Score:3, Informative)
One of the earlier articles covers running the basic installer, but you may have trouble getting to it right now since the linmagau server is slashdotted:
http://www.linmagau.org/modules.php?op=modload&na
As for time to invest in updating security patches etc, that depends which distro (Stable, Testing, Unstable) you go with. For a server, use Stable. Then as long as you have security.debian.org in your sources.list (the default if you use the Woody installer) and do a regular "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade" you'll be set as far as security patches are concerned.
For Testing and Unstable the situation is slightly more complex, but for a server they are irrelevant unless you start doing things like backporting recent packages - not something you are likely to do until you learn more about Debian.
I'm intending to do a future article on the process Debian use for security patches, advisories etc. It's in my TOC on www.debianuniverse.com [debianuniverse.com] anyway
Obviously, he means marketing (Score:2)
But clearly, he's worried about marketing aspects of the distro. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's misplaced, in my view. Why?
Debian's Social Contract states that they're trying to release an OS for everyone. Part and parcel of that is the idea that a) it costs nothing and b) is free to modify as needed, which in fact is the more important of the two.
It runs on nearly everything, exceeded only by perhaps NetBSD. To do so it balances nicely the needs of server admins with desktop users, by having two baseline reference implementations (yes, I know there are more, but bear with me): stable for servers, testing or unstable for desktops.
It has numerous subprojects that try to cover a bunch of areas the commercial distros don't (at least, not together, anyway): Debian Jr., the Desktop Project, the Multimedia Distribution, PPC, and so on.
It has an open security policy and huge bug database. More packages than I know I'll ever install. Easy-to-use upgrader: and one point the apt-rpm guys don't seem to be aware of is the Policy aspect to Debian -- sure, using apt is usually pretty good, but have you ever tried to install RPMs from another distro on rpmfind.net ? Usually it works, but when it doesn't...
And the political debates on licensing is not just a bunch of wank. I get tired of them just as much as the next person, but developers worrying about them usually means that I don't have to .
"I love Debian, but ..." (Score:5, Insightful)
I found very funny the messages that start like this. It seems no one dares to complain about Debian, because they've somewhat accepted that it's "superior" (note the quotes; I'm not saying it is, just quoting). Anyway, the "I love Debian, but I use <distro> because <reason>" is quite standard. Usually <reason> has been it's hard to install, and it seems that it's still the number one complaint. I agree to a point with that: it's hard if you know nothing about computers. I wouldn't ask my fashion designer fellow to install Debian only by himself (though, thanks to his friends, he's quite computer savvy now, and he's the "computer expert" in his own department :-)), but I won't ask him to install Mandrake or RH either. If you don't know what a partition is, you won't understand that you need to partition a HDD even if it's said in big, red and blinking letters, with a nice dancing HDD that sings aloud.
But anyway, on to the trolling:
<standard_debian_zealot_rant>As other have said, Debian is not just apt. One of the reasons given, and something that I think most people don't value enough, is the ability to upgrade fully the distribution with 0 downtime. Ever tried to upgrade a rpm-based distro? I did only a few times, so correct me if I'm wrong; but usually it means inserting the CD with the new distro and upgrading. I'm not sure if that means that you have to reboot, but I'd dare to say that you have. And that is what a corporate environment needs? My ass.
There's a trend that I've always seen in Linux, since I started: people start with "flashy" distros (RH, SuSE, Mandrake, etc.), because they're easier to install. As they know more about Linux, they gradually change to Debian. This may be not true anymore; there are always the wanna-try-coolest-distro types that will install anything that is perceived as new and cool; I think that they're mostly into Gentoo now. But it has been true in my experience.
I know people that sysadmin RH boxes, and they usually like Debian once they've worked a bit with it. Debian may be hard to install, but in the long run is the easiest to maintain; and that's not only because of apt, but because it's very well thought off, and not driven just because marketing.
</standard_debian_zealot_rant>C'mon, -1 Redundant or Troll. I've earned it :-)
Re:"I love Debian, but ..." (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, I'll say it. I don't use nor recommend Debian. Nor do I consider it superior. Sorry.
Why? Debian is a religion, not an Operating System. (Okay, GNU/Debian-Linux...whatever.)
The original article was talking a great deal about Linux for "Joe User" and on the desktop.
Joe User is NOT interested in debates over licenses, nor the relative merits of FOSS vs Closed-Source, not 90% of anything else that is discussed on Slashdot.
Joe User is interested in getting their work/play done. All their friends have MP3, their DVD/CD player plays MP3 disks and the little gizmos sold at WalMart play MP3. They DO NOT CARE about the license or that it isn't "free". They DO NOT CARE about ogg-vorbis. They want to play their music and have no problem PAYING FOR THE LICENSE for the MP3 format. The bought the CD/DVD player, the RIO and (sometimes) the CD.
Joe User wants to PLAY THEIR DVD without a crapload of hacks to get around licensing CSS. They DO NOT CARE about the politics or the license fee.
Joe User wants to be able to edit/create Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Project, Publisher and Visio files. NOT understand the merits of "closed" vs "open" formats. They need to pay the bills, and if they work in an office that usually means MS Office file formats.
Repeat after me: "The computer is a TOOL, not a way of life. The operating system is a TOOL, not a religion."
Back to the beginning -- why I neither use nor recommend Debian. Because I'm not interested in making excuses for lack of perceived functionality to people who just want to do their work or play a game.
If it is Linux, for a non-geek, it is Red Hat or SuSE. Most non-geeks DO NOT WANT TO BECOME geeks, which is what they will have to do to appreciate Debian.
Remember Corel Linux? (Score:2, Interesting)
Useability (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is driven by its marketing machine to produce more and more features in a relentless treadmill of unecessary upgrades. So providing a horrific mess of options and menus to the user.
Development of Open Source operating systems have been driven by the needs of its developers. While many of the packages are indeed excellent they do not provide an easy to use system for the end user. No one has yet produced a free distribution that the average user would find easy to use. Each desktop has its own quirks and way of doing things.
I belive that the next few years will see GNU/Linux or ****BSD becoming the dominant server operating system. This is something that Debian excels at. The desktop market is up for grabs as Microsoft seem to be faltering. Apple seem to understand the useability angle as their current systems are eminently user friendly. If Apple keep the costs of their hardware down they are well placed to own the desktop market for a while.
Only when a distribution such as Debian tries to produce a distribution with usability as the overiding priority will users switch to GNU/Linux.
In the long term though Open Source Software will inevitably be the only choice for the majority of software worldwide, not just the desktop.
Steve
Debian is not APT - it is the maintainers (Score:2)
APT is great because it is miantained by thousands of individuals responsible for only a few packages. This narrow band of interest can make sure that they get *their* package right. This is unlike the commercial distros where I imagine 5 or less people manage the dependancies of the whole distro.
Joe user will dump Linux anyway .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there any simple (as in Joe User simple, not simple as in run this script, patch this file, compile this kernal simple) way to get WinModem support under Linux?
I always said that the user interface needed to be slicker to get people using it. With Redhat 9 (and Gnome) I think it's there - but the absolute killer for me is that i've wasted far too much time so far farting around with trying to get a WinModem to work.
If Joe User can't dial up to check his hotmail - Linux will be off the PC before you know it.
Elegance and Simplicity (Score:3, Informative)
I do, however, use Debian on a couple of servers. I used to use RedHat because you could pretty much install it and use it, but when I needed to modify something - like add a new module to Apache - it would all turn to shit. Eventually I tried out Debian because I'd heard ravings about apt. There was no going back.
After I purchased an iBook I came to appreciate form and functionality more than the intricacies of how things work. Sure, it's not as powerful as my friends Toshiba, but it does the job whilst being smaller, quieter, lighter and longer-lasting on a battery charge than his. I'm sick to death of fucking with drivers in Windows, etc. I just want things to work, and to work simply so I can get on with being productive. Microsoft try to do it, but it just doesn't work. (Look at XP or MSN Messenger 6 - meant to look simple and nice, but horribly cluttered and confusing.) Apple know how to do it. Same with Debian.
I see Debain being to Linux distributions as Apple is to PC's and Ferrari is to cars - a small, niche player, producing quality products for those who appreciate the finer things in life.
Lindows is built on Debian... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's a very good article. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Apt-get (Score:2)
Re:Is the article really focusing on Debian (Score:2)
1. Several high-quality fonts were released into the open not too long ago by their corporate creators.
2. XRandR
3. Easy configuration? Have you used a modern version of RedHat or SuSE? It really couldn't be too much easier...
4. The LSB is the common base.
Anything else?
-Erwos
Re:Debian is a Dinosaur (Score:4, Insightful)
You are correct that Debian has proved itself on servers, that is why there will always be a place for it whilst it sticks to its heritage.
If you really like portage that much you should try FreeBSD btw, it kicks your portage into touch
Re:Debian is a Dinosaur (Score:2, Insightful)
Debian will remain my first choice for a server distro for its stability and for ease of maintenance (at least for me).
While I agree with your statement that Debian will never take over the desktop market, I disagree with the statement regarding Gentoo. Gentoo is a little too techie for Jane/Joe user. Gentoo's installation procedure is no piece of cake if you aren't an experienced Linux/Unix user. chroot, mke2fs, fdisk, etc. aren't tools that I could see any of my non-IT friends undertaking.
Please don't take this as a Gentoo flame. I think it is a fun distro with a lot of up to date packages. It's just that with today's hardware I really don't see the need to tailor my software for my architecture. The performance gains aren't worth waiting for the compiles to finish.
Re:Debian and other distros (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, Windows does insist on doing the non-neighbourly thing and do whatever it damn pleases, like it's the boss. It's done so all the time. One of the things which put me off as early as Win'95 was that it insisted to auto-detect something completely wrong, in spite of my best efforts to tell it not to.
Yes, I too would like some more control over what happens on _my_ computer. Bill Gates has his own computer(s), he doesn't need to completely take over mine, thank you very much.
_However_, I fail to see how that means that user-UNfriendly is the way to go. Yes, you can still edit your own config files, and noone will replace them with a Windows-style registry. But why is it bad if Random J User can configure the same things via a comfortable GUI?
Some people seem to have this elitist attitude that "Hey, we're the only ones who matter, because we can chain 10 obscure shell commands via pipes, to achieve some trivial result. All you point-and-drool GUI users suck and should go away."
And it's _precisely_ this kind of attitude which has kept Linux off the desktop so far.
When Mr Oldtimer Guru wants to demonstrate Linux to his pal Random J User, or help Random J User configure his freshly installed Linux distro... guess what happens? Let's say it's something as easy as helping Random J User configure his ISDN connection.
The knowledgeable Mr Oldtimer Guru starts grepping around and editing arcane config files in emacs or vi. All while his pal Random J User is getting this frightening impression that the _only_ way is to go through all that nightmare. Because for Random J User, with zero Unix knowledge, it _is_ a nightmare to just look at all that. He's already getting the creeps at the mere thought of trying to remember that the next time he needs to change something.
That is already assuming that Mr Oldtimer Guru isn't elitist too. We're assuming here that he's a nice guy, but as it happens, just a too firm believer in the command line and vi. He wouldn't even _consider_ using a nice GUI there, just because, you know, GUIs are just for those clueless Windows wimps.
Whereas if Mr Oldtimer Guru remembered that it's all for the benefit of a NON-technical person, and used one of the nice GUIs available for configuring an ISDN connection in Linux, _then_ Random J User might have felt less threatened. Maybe Random J User wouldn't then proceed to uninstall Linux and swear never to touch it again.
So basically yeah, user-unfriendly != survivability. And it's a good thing, too. The whole "unfriendly == good" or "unfriendly == the proper Unix way" philosophy is doing far more harm to Linux than Microsoft ever did.