First Look at Debian's Next Generation Installer 454
An anonymous reader writes "Over at LinMagAu There is an interesting look at the new beta version of the Next Gerneration Debian Installer. Putting aside the fuss around Ian Murdock, Progeny and Anaconda, this is how Debian is constructing the future of what is known to be it's Achilles heel. It's a well done beginning." While still not a graphical installer (and the article does a good job of explaining why that's not a priority) the installer now autodetects hardware, streamlining module selection, which was previously one of the more confusing parts of the install for newbies.
It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sure they are... (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't seen any distro that does CD burning very easily though, so the pro
Want a Debian installer w/hardware detection? (Score:4, Informative)
Graphical? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who ever said we needed a graphical installer? There is absolutly nothing wrong with a good text installer. And for installing small footprint it's always best.
And besides, this is the logical progression. First you do the text installer, then you move on to a graphical installer if you so desire. Not the other way around.
Re:Graphical? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Graphical? (Score:4, Insightful)
In general, I feel graphical installers for operating systems are a bad idea, since you really should not be installing an OS unless you know what you're doing. The FreeBSD text installer has the advantage of being easy to use while still looking intimidating to the kind of person who shouldn't really be installing an OS, and encouraging them to either get help or read the documentation.
Re:Graphical? (Score:3, Insightful)
So close, yet so, so far away.
No one should be allowed to drive a car unless they can demonstrate their ability to properly handle it when a tire blows out. They shouldn't be allowed to drive in the snow or rain unless they've demonstrated how to handle it during a skid. They don't need to know how to build an engine, but they do need to know how to check the oil, radiator, battery, etc.
Re:Graphical? (Score:3, Funny)
And there are plenty of 'curses' in the later parts of the install too
Re:Graphical? (Score:2)
Boo, boo, boo!
Re:Graphical? (Score:5, Insightful)
The user interface isn't terribly consistant or easy to navigate, although it may be curses fault as much as FreeBSD's. It's also a major fuckaround if it fails someplace -- there's no recovering, despite the fact that the installer sticks around.
Personally I think it needs major rework to improve the UI. I'd like to see fewer seperate screens and more expandable hierarchical menus. They do seem to be kind of stuck on the two-floppy size limitation, which I'm not sure makes much sense anymore outside of die-hards that insist on doing floppy-started network installations.
I'd also like to see it capable of doing installations for network booted systems. This might seems contradictory, but think of an installer you run on the master system that lets you fill in the blanks and generate an image for bootable floppy or
While it's been a usable install screen, it could use some UI and functionality help, all of which would require ditching the 2.88MB barrier.
Re:Graphical? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Graphical? (Score:2)
Re:Graphical? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't fuck with perfection.
Logical progression? (Score:4, Interesting)
Most, if not all, of these better installers are open source GPLed programs. It seems to me that "logical progression" would be Debian taking one or many of these better installers and adapting them to Debian. Instead they choose to reinvent the wheel and have produced a crude installer whose interface was passe years ago. Where is the logic?
Re:Logical progression? (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with other comments. I can do without the graphics, but it's nice to whip through hardware detection without opening another console and digging through
Re:Logical progression? (Score:5, Informative)
It was probably easier to write something from scratch than adapt say RedHat's installer to meet those requirements. It also doesn't sound as crude as your making it out to be. This installer has hardware detection and automatic module configuration. A pretty front-end can be wrapped around it and the article says that experimental gtk installers based on it already exist. A multi-arch installer is Not Easy.
Even easier. (Score:2)
Implement the equivalent of latebinding for the installer. The bootable CD/DISK need only know how to get a base FS structure setup with a kernel+network driver and basic userland + rest of the installer. Stage 2 (located on a harddrive with network access
Re:Logical progression? (Score:2)
That said, I sure hope they include X Window configuration as a part of the installer this time. So what if not all architectures use the f
Re:Logical progression? (Score:2)
Hang on a minute. I've just sat and read through dozens of posts from Debian and BSD zealots telling me that graphical installers are a crime against humanity, an abomination to all right thinking people, and that the last thing that a politically correct distro like Debian needs is one of these evil contraptions.
Now you're telling me that they'd actually like one really, they just haven't gotten around to doing it yet?
Re:Logical progression? (Score:4, Insightful)
OpenBSD has a great installer for the tecnically inclined, while dselect is just plain annoying. You have so many keys to remember just to select stuff, and the screen's view keeps changing.
Redhat's text mode interface is quite nice, 'cept it doesn't provide all the right questions or choices all the time. If i select something and its dependencies aren't met, it should ask me right away, "Do I want to add this or forget about my selection." I shouldn't have to think, I selected some packages before, and these are the missing dependencies over all of them, now I can go back and guess which ones i fooked up on.
The autodetect and what not is important too, getting rid of stupid questions like, "do you have a 3 button mouse." If there was a way it could figure it out, do it damnit. And this project at LEAST strives for the autodetection. Hopefully, it'd streamline the package selection process and what not.
Re:Graphical? (Score:2)
The installer, especially if made even more automagical should remain textbased.
Re:Graphical? (Score:5, Insightful)
Average consumers. There's nothing *wrong* with a command prompt either, but they don't like that either. Neither the cryptic C:\> prompt in DOS nor [root@mypc root]# in Linux/Unix. That is, if you want Linux to be interesting to average consumers, but I'd say having a market share that'd at least make companies take Linux users into consideration would benefit all.
And besides, this is the logical progression. First you do the text installer, then you move on to a graphical installer if you so desire. Not the other way around.
Mostly true. But considering that just about everyone except those installing a headless server would prefer to use the GUI if there was one available, it's not exactly a small "add-on" for a small special interest group. Particularly if you ever hope to convert Microsoft "point-n-click for almost everything" powerusers...
Kjella
Re:Graphical? (Score:2, Insightful)
Win2k/XP move rather quickly to a GUI (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, on the Linux side I can only compare it to the RedHat installer, which I think was quite nice. Since the article is slashdotted, I don't know more about Debian'
Re:Graphical? (Score:3, Insightful)
Kjella: Average consumers
"Average consumers" don't install operating systems. They get an OS pre-installed and never change (or probably even update) it.
Re:Graphical? (Score:2)
Have you never used Windows then? I always understood that a complete reinstall every couple of months was the only way to make the thing useable?
Perhaps that makes me an 'expert' though?
Re:Graphical? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Average consumers" could care less if the install is "graphical" (I'll assume you mean "X11-based"), what "average consumers" want is an install that does everything itself without asking them very many questions, and I've yet to find one (including on Windows) that doesn't ask at least one question that your "average consumer" is unable to answer correctly the first time.
What would be nice addition to the Debian installer is an ai that can look at your disk resources, ask if you want
Re:Graphical? (Score:4, Informative)
Whether or not it's text-based won't really make a difference with this installer. I imagine you will have a choice of front-ends that all do the same thing when this moves out of beta. From the article:
"...but due to its modular design the developers can stick almost any front-end on it they like. There are already test builds using a GTK (ie: Gnome-style) GUI with mouse-driven menus etc, and if you really wanted to you could build a front-end using anything from a Braille device to Macromedia Flash."
Re:Graphical? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry to get in on this one late. You are absolutely correct, and just a hair short of the mark. A good command line interface (CLI) installer is better than a good gui installer. You can run a CLI installer on a VGA card, but have you ever tried to run a gui installer without a grahics card? If (and this may be a big if) the CLI and the GUI have all the same features (sensible help, wizards, etc), the only upside of GUI is the prettiness.
A
Silent switch to Dvorak? (Score:5, Informative)
"If you select "English (USA)" you'll be safe, but be warned that if you choose "English (Australia)" or "English (United Kingdom)" your keyboard will switch to the Dvorak layout! Not quite what most people expect."
Re:Silent switch to Dvorak? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Silent switch to Dvorak? (Score:4, Funny)
cga;m jyll;
I'm don't think that means what you thought it meant.
Re:Silent switch to Dvorak? (Score:2)
Re:Silent switch to Dvorak? (Score:2)
On a more serious note, the shows the like of thinking that has gone into the new installer. To an outsider items such as this look like it was just thrown together with out thinking.
It would not have been a major job to add another question to the installer.
A good graphical installer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, it should be more like Knoppix.
Now, I wouldn't want to lock the user, who may not be a vanilla desktop user and may not even have a mouse or video card on the machine, into this setup, but it sure would be nice to have the option, wouldn't it?
Knoppix is wonderful and all, but it leaves behind some artifacts of the live CD setup that can make package upgrades (which users ought to be able to do graphically, and with little pain) very painful. If we could get stuff like this in the base Debian distribution, we'd be a lot closer to Debian being sufficiently user-friendly that we could hand a disc to grandma without fear.
*prepares for the "get redhat" flames*
Re:A good graphical installer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Try "RTFA". They state that the installer needs to work for every type of screen output from a GeForceFX to a serial cable. Being that the serial cable is the lowest common denominator that they had to support, they designed the installer as a simple text mode interface.
Re:A good graphical installer... (Score:2)
Three words: Duplication of Resources
Debian doesn't have the same commercal backing as RedHat (read: $$$). As a result, they lack the manpower to develop multiple installer solutions. I'm sure everyone on the Debian team would *like* to have multiple installers, but it just isn't reasonable.
If you want a graphical installer, stop being an armchair quarterback and go develop it.
Re:A good graphical installer... (Score:2)
Or alternatively, go use a distro that already has one.
Not that anyone needs telling that, as that's what they currently do anyway.
A good graphical installer exists, folks... (Score:2)
Good, we're thinking Knoppix here. Anyway, for those who want a brain-dead easy Debian install, this is exactly what we want to do.
Let's break this down like the old Mac commercials. Step one, boot your CD-ROM bootable computer to Knoppix. Step two, open the Root Shell and type knx-hdinstall.
There's no step three! There's no step three!
This is the reason why what Debian is doing to make their text-mode installer more friendly and more modern is just fine, and why Knoppix is a viable gr
Re:A good graphical installer... (Score:2)
> installer with more useful features than you can shake a
> stick at.
And somehow RedHat has more money than Debian and fewer platforms (by far!) to support.
I don't understand why on one hand everyone proclaims that one of the greatest features of Linux is its diversity, and then on the other hand try to crucify a system for not being like all the others. Am I missing something?
Re:A good graphical installer... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just a matter of trying to use the available resources the best they can.
Re:A good graphical installer... (Score:2)
if you want to install debian from knoppix like installer..
sure it's not that well shouted all over the place but it's there.
Re:A good graphical installer... (Score:2)
As much as I love Debian, it used to be my flavour of choice until I got tired of the poor hardware support (now over to Gentoo), if I want to hand a disc to Grandma (and I actually had to, or almost, since I wanted to introduce my comp-savvy but MS-loving Grandpa to Linux), I'll choose Mandrake.
The other day I found an old pic of me tearing the wrapping off Mandrake 7.2, which was a refreshing change from Redhat (popped my cherry on Redhat 5.*)... Even though I always pr
Re:A good graphical installer... (Score:5, Funny)
You take pictures of yourself unwraping the latest Linux distro? My GOD man, you are a ture Geek!
Re:A good graphical installer... (Score:2)
I quite liked it as well, until the bug-ridden mess that was Mandrake 9.
far before Redhat turned into a bloatfest
You don't *have* to install it all, you know. The installer lets you choose what you install and what you leave off.
Personally, I'll miss the quality and reliability of the basic RedHat distro, and I've no idea what I'll use in its place. Fedora certainly doesn't appear to be there yet.
It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
As everyone knows, Debian is maintained by an organization of volunteers. When people working on the distribution support users, it takes away from the time that they could be spending to improve the distribution. Therefore, it makes sense for them to not make Debian open for anybody to install. If someone can't make it through an installer that requires some attention and knowledge on the part of the user, then they should probably be using a commercial distribution that offers support for money or whatever. That's one of the things I like best about Gentoo's root shell installer. It immediately gets rid of people that are intimidated by that sort of thing, and prevents them from sucking up tons of attention on mailing lists or forums. The difficulty of the installer should be like those little signs in front of rides at amusement parks: "You must be this tall to ride."
The target audience of Debian doesn't need a graphical installer, so there's really no reason to put one in. If you want the easy graphical installer, perhaps you should ask yourself why you chose Debian in the first place. Besides, with distributions like Debian and Gentoo, using the installer is more likely than not a one time thing, because you can upgrade the version of your operating system without bothering with the installer. I'm all for installer improvements that save time for the core users of a distribution, but revising the installer to open the distribution to a new class of users should not be entered into lightly
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:2)
99% of the time the only thing you'll have to setup after install is 3d acceleration for your video card if it's an ati or nvidia card.
Don't listen to all these mandrake pushers, when you get done with the install the system will be broken and the configuration applets won't work right. Go out and get ya rh9 and save yourself the headaches
Re:It's about time (Score:2)
Re:It's about time (Score:2)
Re:It's about time (Score:2)
Now I'll admit that it's not a pretty graphics screen. It's largely text mode. But if you read the words things are quite clear. OTOH, if you just hit the enter key, things don't always work the
Re:It's about time (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's about time (Score:2)
Bullshit.
More users ==> more bug reports ==> more things fixed ==> improved distribution.
Debian's installer isn't actively kept down; anyone can become a contributor and make it better. I'd say that a lot of the "problem" is that Debian tends to be reinstalled much less often
Re:It's about time (Score:2)
My usual Gentoo rant:
puleeze! This is the thing that annoyed me no end in Gentoo. Thing is, the debian docs don't need to tell you to install a kernel logger or a cron daemon because, guess what, those are installed automatically. Simply b/c a general linux system won't work very good without them. Granted, those will be the crond or the ke
Re:It's about time (Score:2)
Gentoo's lack of decent documentation for post install configuration is also annoying. I quote:
"Configuring a USB Mouse
A USB mouse is your friend on a high resolution screen. The kernel takes care of the scaling so
Installer with My Hardware? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Installer with My Hardware? (Score:4, Interesting)
Lazy, hell. You don't really believe this, do you?
I don't go to every machine I manage, I use shell scripts. When the machine boots, init configures the system. Hardware configuration is part of the entire scheme. If it fails, the user (not an admin) should then get someone else to fix it as it's not thier job to know how. If the hardware configuration software is worth it, there should be few situations where it does indeed fail. Kudzu (Red Hat's) is damn good. If the Debian folks want to reinvent the wheel, they can.
Getting the proper modules loaded automatically is exactly the kind of task that software does well. Looking up hardware details and slogging through kernel notes is an entirely automatable process...and automation is why we have computers in the first place.
I used to fiddle around with modules every time I upgraded the kernel -- either from source or from a new distribution. Kudzu (also used in Knoppix BTW) does an amazing job of auto configuration...so why not use it or something like it?
It doesn't make you any less special that the system figures out something that you also can figure out. Yes, experts should know how the system works. Tinker with modules.conf if you like. I personally would like to fiddle with other things beyond the base hardware configuration since I already know how it works.
That said, if you're a professional let me put in a plug for InstallBase [sourceforge.net]. This is a TK-based, cross-platform installation program; Solaris, Windows, and Linux. It provides a good balence between simple and detailed configuration, as well as a silent mode. Currently, I'm using it to bring sanity and automation to a mismanaged network.
Here's something you likely agree with. The network management document I'm writing says -- up front -- installation is not running an install program. I'm a strong believer that If you don't know what the answer should be, using a computer to tell you is an act of trust in something that has proven itself untrustworthy; it is foolish.
InstallBase (the tool) is used becuase it meets the goal of automation, though to use it or any other tool properly you have to know exactly what it is you want it to do. That takes concerned effort. The result eliminates needless work and inconsistant human mistakes that happen when each machine is managed a little differently. (If done wrong, you get consistant mistakes...so, there you go!)
Lazy not to know the internal kernel mechanics? (Score:2)
I'll take the most ridiculous part of that statement first... there's nothing natural about knowing how to update a driver in the kernel. Maybe it's a as natural as to clean the spark plugs for an auto mechanic, but in both cases you it
Re:Installer with My Hardware? (Score:2, Interesting)
Keep in mind, this is for the initial installation. Most people like the system to be up and running after an install, not partially functioning with a pile of kernel modules that need to be downloaded and compiled (like I was last time I tried Debian.)
The USER wants to use their system. They shouldn't have to manually configure every little bit of the OS just to get it useable. No other OS forces this (no
Re:Installer with My Hardware? (Score:2)
i think i used that(judging from the screenshots) (Score:2)
Re:i think i used that(judging from the screenshot (Score:2)
anyways.. i just remembered that the installer i used was from the xfs bootdisks(may or may not be the same as this new installer, i haven't really been following up).
why xfs? just for kicks..
hardware autodetection... (Score:2)
I mean, once you install a "server" operating system using a generic kernel, then go and recompile the kernel to include support for whatever hardware you have in your server.
What exactly is the purpose of hardware detection in this case? You won't be using X11, USB, or any of that stuff that needs to be "detected" on a server, and by installing Linux in the first place you accept the responsibility that you know what you are doing.
Or is this no longer the case?
Re:hardware autodetection... (Score:2)
It's nice if the installer can see your hard drive, so that it has somewhere to install to.
Re:hardware autodetection... (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly is the purpose of hardware detection in this case? You won't be using X11, USB, or any of that stuff that needs to be "detected" on a server, and by installing Linux in the first place you accept the responsibility that you know what you are doing.
Not everyone uses linux for just servers. And even on servers, installin
Are you trolling? (Score:2)
Reinventing the wheel.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reinventing the wheel.. (Score:2)
Re:Reinventing the wheel.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Reinventing the wheel.. (Score:2)
Re:Reinventing the wheel.. (Score:2)
I tried it... (Score:3, Informative)
Mirrored... poor poor dead server... (Score:5, Informative)
The Debian installer has been considered its Achilles heel for a long time, but in the last couple of months things have really been heating up in Debian-installer-land. Ian Murdock recently announced to the Debian project that Progeny, the Debian-based distro that created the Progeny Graphical Installer, was dropping PGI in favour of porting Red Hat's Anaconda installer to Debian. But things haven't been sitting still within Debian itself either, with frantic work over the last couple of months to get the next-generation Debian Installer to the point where Sarge (Debian 3.1) can be released.
A Debian-Installer Debcamp in Germany in September saw many of the core developers get together for several days of intensive coding, with the result that Beta 1 of the new installer is now ready for the world to come and gawk, and poke, and kick the tyres, and even take it for a spin around the block. It's still changing on a daily basis but the developers want as many people as possible to give it a whirl and report back any problems they have.
So, for your edutainment and complete with pretty pictures, I present to you this first look at the next-generation Debian Installer.
Installer Rationale
To understand some of the design decisions that have been made with respect to the installer and why it's taken so long to get to this point, it's important to know a little about the Debian project itself. For many people this section will be rehashing old ground so if you just want to get to the guts of it skip ahead now to the next section, "Getting The Installer".
The long and the short of it is that Debian is committed to supporting multiple processor architectures. It's famous for being the most broadly deployable Linux distro (and possibly operating system) in existence, running on at least 11 distinct architectures. Nobody has more expertise in porting software to different platforms than the Debian project.
While that causes some problems when distributing normal user-space software, they're difficulties that can be worked around: for example, a package written in C needs to compile on all 11 architectures, but not all architectures use the same C libraries. No problem, Debian's server farm just autobuilds the package with different libraries for each platform.
When it comes to an installer, though, things are different. An installer needs to be bootable on all platforms, but different platforms boot in totally different ways. x86 systems start up and look for local disks in a certain way, Power Macintosh systems do it another way, and S/390 is different again. Then consider that the job of an installer is to figure out what local hardware you have available and setting up the system in a way that will work on that hardware. How does it detect the hardware? Will a detection system that works on one architecture fail horribly on another?
Probably.
But it gets worse: think about what happens when you first launch an installer. It boots up and displays some stuff on screen, right? But some machines use an AGP or PCI graphics subsystem, while others may not have a graphics subsystem at all, only a serial interface with a character-based console. What should the installer do if it starts up and finds the host system doesn't even have a graphics card installed?
The more you think about questions like that, the more it'll bake your noodle when you consider the task faced by the Debian Installer team.
In essence, they are trying to make a universal installer that will run on any architecture with any hardware detection method and any display system.
So people may bitch and moan about how it's taken so long for Debian to produce a "pretty" installer while other distros have had one for years, or they may say that Debian should just adopt a third-party installer like PGI or Anaconda, but that doesn't really take the big picture into account. Debian's mantra is to be the Universal Operating System, a
What Debian needs (Score:5, Interesting)
-Dselect needs to be sent to
-Loose the restrictions a little bit: why mplayer is missing and xine not? Mplayer has been 100% gpl since 0.9 and it was rejected from getting a package because of ffmpeg, which xine also has.
-More customization: the USE variable of Gentoo is really powerful, and it would be great when apt getting source packages. I want package X, and it wants me to install package Y that is optional and i dont want.
-Updated versions! Slackware is current, and it's stable.
-Re-do the stable, testing and unstable package list: they should only contain base, critical packages. So i want to run the latest kde with my stable setup? Is kde 2.2 more stable than 3.1? The security bugs fixed between them say no (yeah, i know they backport, but those packages never get the same QA) User-level desktop apps which aren't critical shouldn't be restricted in the same stable, testing and unstable trees, or at least they could mix and match.
And lot of other things i can't remember...
Re:What Debian needs (Score:2)
I agree. All the users of exotic archs could very well stick with the version they already have. Or use NetBSD or whatever.
Also, I think that a source-based distribution would be better for non-mainstream architectures. Architectures that matter in this day and age are i386, AMD64, IA64 and PPC.
Re:What Debian needs (Score:5, Informative)
Well, first of all, XFree 4.3 is available. I've been using it on Debian for ages - you just neet to add a Debian Experimental line to your sources.list Secondly, getting software to work on many architectures usually involves fixing bugs and poor assumptions. The many architectures of Debian helps QA, rather than hinder it, even if it does take longer. As far as dselect goes, I've been running Debian for 3 years now, and I used dselect exactly once - my first install. You're not forced to use it in any way.
Stable doesn't just mean it doesn't crash. It means it doesn't *change*. That's the point of the stable install. You know that installing the security packages won't introduce some behaviour that you weren't expecting, which a lot of people think is damned important.
New versions of software are by definition unstable. Things change, configs become out of date, new libraries are needed. If you don't mind those things, use Debian Unstable. Its packages are not only up-to-date, but they're also damned good quality.
Re:What Debian needs (Score:2)
Re:What Debian needs (Score:2)
Multiple architecture are a good way to make sure that everything is kept clean and generalized. Architecture specific hacks are not acceptable and that's good for everyone. So even thought I only a couple of time used Debian on something other than i386, I think multiple architectures are good for Debian.
> -Dselect needs to be sent to
That is you opinion, but I happen to like dselect very much. If you do not like it, you are free to use aptitude or tasksel.
> -
Re:What Debian needs (Score:2)
OTOH, autodetection DOES mean that I had better turn OFF my internet connection during the install. For some silly reason, probing for ethernet parameters resets the DSL modem parameters. And to fix it I need to connect the Mac directly to the DSL modem and reset them to the
Debian install: my problem (Score:2)
Debian install includes setting up the refresh rate of your monitor, for example. This can't always be autodetected reliably, and the Debian install has always made a bad choice for me (usually too low a refresh rate, because the install picks the maximum possible resolution). You can fix this, but you have to be willing to dig and (horrors!) think.
The right thing to do is what
Linux has it, Debian is just a little behind... (Score:3, Informative)
XFree 4.3 has an extension called randr that allows changing resolution and vertical refresh on the fly, and the latest versions of both Gnome and KDE now include control panel applets for setting resolution and refresh rate. How long it will take for that to trickle down into Debian stable is anyone's guess, but the Linux community at large is already there.
Not just for newbies... (Score:4, Insightful)
While seleting modules by hand may not be confusing for non-newbies, it's still annoying. Sure, I know exactly which modules I need, and I could select them all by hand, but I shouldn't have to. One of the great things about RedHat's installer (I know, I know, RedHat is dead) is the kickstart option. I can put in a disk, kickstart a net install, take the disk out, and move on. And barring any unusual hardware, I'll come back to a fully installed system. This is great for bulk-installing machines.
I'm glad to see Debian has moved closer to this goal by doing module auto-detection.
Nice article, cool installer, but... (Score:2)
The authors need a little perspective. From the story:
They also state that it may be the most broadly deployable OS in existance because it runs on 11 architectures. No mean feat, I'm sure. But others run on more platforms [netbsd.org]. At least 17 CPU architectures and who knows how many "platforms" :-) Still, I'm excited about this new installer and can't wait to see if/how PGI integrates with it. Apart from this small (an
anything is better than (Score:2)
All the others have GUI's which, believe it or not alot of people really really like. Easy that a monkey could do it. This doesn't look that easy.
This is a new installer! ALERT! (Score:2)
Installer thoughts (Score:2)
However, an average desktop user needs a graphical install. Maybe not through debian though... I mean maybe debian becomes the server/power user version and knoppix becomes the desktop install for the average computer user.
That being said, knoppix's hardware detection locks u
Re:Installer thoughts (Score:2)
Is the average desktop user even going to be able to tell the difference between graphics mode and text moed with curses(-like) menus?
Hard Disk Partitioning / LILO Install (Score:3, Insightful)
On another front, is there any reason why the installer cannot let you choose in between GRUB and LILO like Anaconda does?
Re:Hard Disk Partitioning / LILO Install (Score:2)
Knoppix (Score:5, Interesting)
You boot from a Knoppix CD, and all you have to do is install a base system and apt to your hard disk, and you've got a Debian system that's already configured.
They should acknowledge this fact and officially support Knoppix as an install method for desktop users. Then they can still focus their installer on people who want to install Debian on an Alpha over their serial line.
Debian already has a great graphical installer... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:someday (Score:3, Insightful)
Somebody at Debian has probably thought about whether a GUI would really add value to an installer. He/she presumably came to the conclusion that it adds little or none. He/she is probably right.
Re:someday (Score:2)
'Right' under a limited set of conditions: for Debian developers and the Debian familiar. Not at all right for users new to Linux or Debian.
Re:I'm speechless. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:not yet graphical? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a number of good reasons not to do the install in Graphics mode. It's not necessary. It would introduce unecessary complexity in a crucial operation (installation) that doesn't require such complexity - that alone is good reason to veto the idea. Setting up the video properly is one of the most difficult things to do, and when you have a graphics mode installer a failure in setting that up properly on auto becomes a fatal error rather than a minor inconvenience. Plus a lot of Linux installations don't use graphics mode anyway - why go to the windows way of requiring a graphics card on machines that should be running headless and accessed via telnet and/or console cables only? Plenty of people use linux on machines that don't have a graphics system of any kind, and that's fine, in many cases it's a good thing. Why make an installer that won't work on a sizable portion of the machines that will run the software you're installing? How much sense does that make?
If it ain't broke don't fix it is an axiom for a reason - and making a graphic mode installer would be a great example of fixing something that isn't broke. The Debian installer could certainly be improved though, and from the article it seems they've made excellent choices in deciding what needs to be improved - and what isn't broken and shouldn't be fixed.
Re:Cool (Score:2)
Keep in mind though that any new devices aren't always going to be
Re:Why the Fuss? (Score:2)
Remember, Debian isn't just a desktop distribution.
Re:User friendly (Score:2)
Err, try Red Hat 5.0 if that. I still can't believe that the main installer actually makes people have to choose which kernel modules they need. That's like selling a car to someone and then making them figure out how to wire the spark plugs before they can go anywhere. Although Debian has always been less popular than Red Hat, Mandrake, Suse, etc I'm still amazed that they have been able to keep any users over the
Re:NetBSD rules them all! (Score:3, Funny)
Which begs the question... what is a floppy disk?
--Richard