Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Debian Software Linux

Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 (r0a) Quick Tour 213

Posted by timothy from the look-around-before-downloading dept.
linuxbeta writes "At OSDir there's a tour of the fixed Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 (r0a) release. After 3 years we finally get to have a look at the new Debian, including their new installer. Release notes. Only occasionally does this new release differ from Ubuntu."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 (r0a) Quick Tour More

Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 (r0a) Quick Tour

Comments Filter:

  • I'm confused (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I thought Linux was still at v2.6.xx?

    • Re:I'm confused (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well, by the time Debian releases 3.2, kernel 3.2.xx will be out.

  • After 3 years... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hobotron ( 891379 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @07:45PM (#12791844)
    After 3 years we finally get to have a look...
    Mod me troll, but how many GUI's have I seen that look exactly like that?
    • The background image is totally different. RTFA.
    • The GUI after installation is a pretty standard GNOME setup.

      There's a bit more GUI during actual setup, but to me it seems pretty similar to the installer woody used, although a lot more streamlined. Most of it is still curses based, which, IMHO, suits debian best anyway. The whole idea that raster GUI install programs are easier to use is bunk - an well designed curses interface is just as effective.

      This was actually very informative to people like me who support debian systems and haven't gotten aroun
      • OK, but whats the difference before the GUI?

        This "new installer" doesn't look any different to me. Is it only new under the hood?
        • It looks the same, but it does things like automatic partitioning and the network setup changed (I think). I didn't see the big menu full of actions that used to be the crux of the old installer, but they might just not have taken that screenshot. It also looks like it doesn't ask you if you want to select package groups to add before presenting them to you, and the manual package selection option is a suboption of that menu.

          The initial gui boot screen is different, but that's just eye candy.
          • The new installer does, however, fix some of the things that were an absolute PITA for the first-time Debian users of yore: no dselect, an actually useful keyboard configurator that doesn't rely on you knowing by heart occasionally problematic two-digit country codes (no list was provided), VESA DDC and a much more sane X configurator. It makes Debian a much more accessible distribution.

    • Re:After 3 years... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by WWWWolf ( 2428 )

      Yup. Most of the changes in Debian were in system tools and applications side. As in "hey, look at all this neat Apache 2.0 stuff".

      On desktop side, Debian has the same stuff everyone else has. The only possible distinguishing thing is that Debian has its own color scheme and even a desktop background image, which (to my understanding) haven't even changed in a while, and it doesn't even default to those...

      As for the installer: I've seen the installer once in each Debian machine I've needed to set up. T

    • Well, if that website's anything to go by, it's probably not a very good GUI. It makes you download the image TWICE. Not only does it make you download a slightly-scaled version of the first screenshot rather than a thumbnail (like every sensible web designer would do), when you click on the thumbnail it downloads a slightly-scaled-down version of the picture, and you have to click on that to get the real picture.

      And then there's a lovely horizontal frame. My favourite...

      I wonder if they've fixed the inst

  • ubuntu... (Score:5, Informative)

    by guyfromindia ( 812078 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @07:46PM (#12791847) Homepage
    Only occasionally does this new release differ from Ubuntu.
    As a casual linux user, I see that Ubuntu is much more 'non-geek' friendly than Debian. That is probably the biggest difference.
    Also, take a look at the Unofficial starter guide.. http://ubuntuguide.org/ [ubuntuguide.org]. This is exactly why users like me are flocking to Ubuntu.
    If there is a comparable guide to Debian, I am not aware of it... or havent found it yet.

    • Re:ubuntu... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Sniper ( 113827 )
      Have you read anything here?

      http://www.debian.org/doc/ [debian.org]

      Covers most things, I find

      But... honestly... do real geeks need a seperate section on installing each and every app they might need? Apt-get "just works" for me...
      • You are partly right. I visit different Ubuntu fora and many questions are like 'What program do I need to do X?' or 'How can I open the Y file format?'. For those questions, UbuntuGuide is great. DebianDoc however is more thorough. And yes, Ubuntu is more n00b friendly. So?

      • Re:ubuntu... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Toby_Tyke ( 797359 )
        Your right of course, Debian is very well documented. But your missing the point.

        I could do a base Ubuntu install, then sit my dad in front of it with a copy of the Ubuntu guide. Within half an hour, he would be able to play DVDs, MP3s, WMV files, watch quicktime trailers and use P2P software.

        Now true, he would'nt have learnt anything. But he probably doesn't want to. He probably just wants to listen to Radio 5 live online.

        Ubuntu and the Ubuntu guide are Debian for people who don't care how it works.

    • Re:ubuntu... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by zootm ( 850416 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @08:05PM (#12791934)

      Ubuntu is just... I suppose "non-geek friendly" is about as succint as you can put it. It's Linux that's genuinely trying to make the whole system easier to use, and it's genuinely trying not to talk down to its users at the same time.

      For a prospect of a widely-accepted "desktop Linux" distribution, it's not perfect (or complete) yet, but it's got a hell of a lot more potential than anything else I've seen.

      • Re:ubuntu... (Score:2, Informative)

        by Deeze ( 854182 )
        Ubuntu *is* Debian, with a few packages changed to the extent that they break Debian compatability (not to mention stability.. take xorg.. please), and scripts to do just a *teeny tiny* bit more configuring at install. This is it. No more, no less. It is NO easier to *use* than Debian. It is *slighty* easier to install to a preconfigured desktop at first, but by default you end up in sudo jail. That is all. I eagerly tried both Warty and Hoary, only to find that there was much more hype than substance. Ther

        • Re:ubuntu... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by zootm ( 850416 )

          It's funny, since I gave a friend Debian (Sarge, with installer), and they couldn't work it, and gave them Hoary and they could. I wouldn't call the differences trivial -- to an experienced user perhaps, but to a novice many of the changes are invaluable. That's not to say they're not small changes, but they are valuable nontheless.

        • Does anyone know if there a way to convert an existing ubuntu installation to debian? I installed ubuntu and wish i'd just used debian but dont want to have to reconfigure everything again.

      • Re:ubuntu... mhh. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Cochonou ( 576531 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @03:14AM (#12793580) Homepage
        Let me disagree slightly with Ubuntu being "non-geek friendly". Granted, its installer was easier, and there are little tweaks to make the system more usable (some aren't particularly effective as that, like the butchering of spatial nautilus in hoary hedgedhog). And of course, was more up to date. So I used to recommand it to people without broadband, that couldn't pull debian testing from the net.
        However, in "non-geek friendlyness", there is still a lot of progress that needs to be made. Most of the configuration helpers are the default gnome ones, and they aren't too great. In particular category, Mandrake is bells and whistles above Ubuntu. Even if it cannot claim the polish that debian-based distros are characterized with.
        • However, in "non-geek friendlyness", there is still a lot of progress that needs to be made. Most of the configuration helpers are the default gnome ones, and they aren't too great. In particular category, Mandrake is bells and whistles above Ubuntu. Even if it cannot claim the polish that debian-based distros are characterized with.

          That's true, there's definately work still to be done.

    • Warty was the god of distributions at the time. I (and most I think) was awed by how robust and simple it was. So when warty finally went gold I was anxious to try it out. I am now back to using warty at least a few more months. I hope the next release will be better, but given all these changes being made I don't have a lot of faith in that happening.

      I wish there had been a "warty point five" release where they kept the old (and reasonably well performing) X system and the old fam (which, ironically, had

      • I wish there had been a "warty point five" release where they kept the old (and reasonably well performing) X system and the old fam (which, ironically, had finally been fixed to pretty robust operation just weeks before warty came out using the newfangled and terribly misbehaving gam) and updated nautilus and firefox and gaim and gimp.

        You have backports [ubuntuforums.org], maybe that could do the trick for you.


        Why is my screen stuck at 640x480?
        Why is there no sound?
        Why is the sound out of sync in all my videos?
        Why can'
  • Ah, these installer screenshots bring back memories... of RedHat's installer... from 8 years ago.

    • Re:Not exactly new (Score:5, Informative)

      by Professor_UNIX ( 867045 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @08:05PM (#12791933)
      Ah, these installer screenshots bring back memories... of RedHat's installer... from 8 years ago.

      Spoken like someone who hasn't installed Red Hat in 8 years. Red Hat's Anaconda installer looks a lot like that even today in text mode. Unlike Debian, Red Hat doesn't care if their distribution runs on anything other than x86 so they can target making an X11 install that looks pretty. Debian on the other hand has to get the most bang-for-the-buck on all their supported platforms so they felt a text installer would work best. After installing 5 systems with sarge on them from scratch I haven't had any issues. All my hardware was auto-detected and it grabbed an address via DHCP automatically. I installed Debian doing nothing but hitting the enter key on each screen to accept the defaults to show someone how easy it was. The only one I think I had to move the arrow key over was the partitioning part of it. All in all, the Debian text installer is as easy, if not easier, than installing Windows 2000/XP/2003 or Red Hat.

      My only qualm with it is I would've liked to have the option of assigning the install a static address rather than having it grab one automatically from my DHCP server, but that was easily remedied after the install was finished. It's probably even a configurable option but Debian Sarge was so easy to install I didn't see much point in even looking at the release notes unless I had a problem.

      • Re:Not exactly new (Score:5, Informative)

        by EvanED ( 569694 ) <evaned@NOSPAM.gmail.com> on Saturday June 11, 2005 @08:37PM (#12792103)
        My only qualm with it is I would've liked to have the option of assigning the install a static address rather than having it grab one automatically from my DHCP server, but that was easily remedied after the install was finished. It's probably even a configurable option but Debian Sarge was so easy to install I didn't see much point in even looking at the release notes unless I had a problem.

        If you do any other installations, or for other people, there's a boot parameter you can pass in so that it will turn this off. Section 5.2.1 in the installation manual:

        netcfg/disable_dhcp

        By default, the debian-installer automatically probes for network
        configuration via DHCP. If the probe succeeds, you won't have a chance to
        review and change the obtained settings. You can get to the manual network
        setup only in case the DHCP probe fails.

        If you have a DHCP server on your local network, but want to avoid it
        because e.g. it gives wrong answers, you can use the parameter netcfg/
        disable_dhcp=true to prevent configuring the network with DHCP and to enter
        the information manually.

        • Alternatively (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Renegrade ( 698801 )

          If I recall correctly, in expert mode the installer will ask if you wish to configure manually instead of DHCP-ing prior to actually doing any configuration. Might be a little easier than the disable_dhcp parameter.

          (Personally I have a dhcp3 server running on the network, handing out IPs based on MAC addresses, so my machines get configured fully in that DHCP step, including correct hostname, unless I've changed the network card and failed to update the records)

      • Unlike Debian, Red Hat doesn't care if their distribution runs on anything other than x86 so they can target making an X11 install that looks pretty.

        You know, your comment started out ok, then it went downhill pretty unquick. The above statement is easily disproved just by looking at RedHat's website:

        http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/configuration / [redhat.com]

        Let's see, support for the following architectures:
        x86, Itanium 2, AMD64/EM64T, IBM POWER, zSeries, and S/390 Systems.

        What was it you were saying about

      • Red Hat doesn't care if their distribution runs on anything other than x86 so they can target making an X11 install that looks pretty

        Quick! Someone tell that David Woodhouse guy that's been spending so much time getting Fedora Core 4 to work on PPCs that "Professor UNIX" doesn't know about his efforts because he's never installed Red Hat and doesn't know what he's talking about. Someone better mention it to Red Hat too because they're under the misunderstanding that they support x86, Itanium2, AMD64/E

      • You had to hit an enter key? Hmm. With kickstart I don't have to do that. Anaconda will autodetect the hardware and load all the right drivers automatically and run the install script.

        As far as non-x86 goes, I just installed AlphaCore for the hey of it on my DEC Alpha and the installer was exactly the same.

  • Why 3.1 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by datadriven ( 699893 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @08:03PM (#12791929) Homepage
    After 3 years they really should have bumped the number more than that.

    • Re:Why 3.1 (Score:2, Interesting)

      by phoenix.bam! ( 642635 )
      The version was supposed to be 4. No one changed the version and finally it because too late to make a big change (And books were printed using the 3.1 testing version number I think it was) So that is now the number of the offical release.

      • Re:Why 3.1 (Score:5, Informative)

        by dondelelcaro ( 81997 ) <don@donarmstrong.com> on Saturday June 11, 2005 @09:25PM (#12792399) Homepage Journal
        The version was supposed to be 4
        No, the version number was planned for quite a long time to be 3.1. The only time using 4 was even brought up was a few months before release by people who aren't on the release team, and therefore don't make the decision on what arbitrary dotted set of integers that is strictly greater than the previous arbitrary set is used.

        Who cares what the release is numbered anyway? Call it pi if it makes you happy.

  • Take a step back (Score:5, Funny)

    by suso ( 153703 ) * on Saturday June 11, 2005 @08:07PM (#12791947) Journal
    Heh heh. You know, sometimes I wish we all could take a step back and see the humor in saying things like:

    After 3 years we finally get to have a look at the new Debian.

    And then link to a picture of an empty desktop that looks like everyone else's Gnome. No wonder lay people don't care about what we care about.
  • Does anyone have any experience using Debian on PA-RISC machines? I currently have an HP P9000 running an older version of HP-UX. Would it be possible to replace it with Debian? Would I be able to use the newer X.org X11 implementation?

  • Good and not so... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 11, 2005 @08:38PM (#12792114)
    good. Having used Sarge for about a year on both desktop and server, and having a few years prior experience on the desktop with other distros (mostly Suse, some earlier Mandrake, a bit of bonzai, Mepis, Knoppix) I still consider myself a newbie. Not a programmer, not a guru.

    Been waiting & waiting & waiting for Sarge to go stable, my poor excuse for not implementing Sarge more widespread. I think the biggest suprise after updating/upgrading nearly every day is that as soon as stable was announced and my installs turned into stable from Sarge all on their own, the biggest surprise is there is nothing to upgrade. What a relief! It's been a bit of a task to keep after each install to make sure they stay updated to ensure the latest security patches are installed. And taking a look at the portscans and hits on port 22 I'm seeing on the servers, it's been a little worrying to stay after everything. Now that stable is here, maybe I can relax just a bit and start thinking about trying to get a mail server up and running.

    The problems? Had to have someone walk me through creating my own "devices" when they weren't created on their own, don't know why. Lost my mouse on several different machines at just about the same time. Now making coasters on CD-R's while CD-RW's appear to burn ok, both burning knoppix isos. Are the CD & CDRW SCSI with 2.6.x or are they ATAPI? If ATAPI, why am I getting error messages when attempting to enable dma? If SCSI, why does the docs and warning messages in k3b talk about ATAPI instead, with SCSI being broken in 2.6.x? Googled and looked around all I could, still can't figure out how to get my CD burner working correctly. Can't get smartmontools or whatever it is called to work, so don't know temp/fan speed. Can't get raidtools working with my raid card. So don't know if/when a drive dies on me, or when hot spare dies on me, until it is too late or until the next time I boot in a few months from now.

    Other problems? Sarge installed a generic 386 kernel I think, instead of one for my AMD cpu. Now I have to figure out how to upgrade a kernel even though I planned to stick with the stable one Sarge gave me, 2.6.8-2-386.

    Wishes? Yast on Debian. So I can more easily configure OpenLDAP. Tried without Yast, didn't work. I had someone point out that there is an effort to port Yast to Debian. Hope it happens soon. Would also help with controlling which services startup after a reboot. Right now trying to figure out how to get snmptrapd to start after a reboot instead of snpmd. Pgadmin3 backported to Sarge. Other backports made available asap. Postgres 8.x.x maybe? NX maybe?

    Good things? Lots. Too many to mention. Not too many to thank, so thanks Debian developers and package maintainers. Thanks to your work to make the latest and greatest even better. A lot of credit should go to the work behind the installer. I tried my installations some 3 months and more past. It is far better than earlier versions. The only real issue is having to create devices. Which is really a non-trivial thing until you know how to do it. Definitely not for a newbie.

    Keep up the good work Debian developers. And let's all hope the crew can stick to the 1 year deadline for Etch.
  • I mean, it wont be long before the new release of Ubuntu, Breezy, is out officially. I'm already using it with little trouble. It is going to have TONS of new improvements, most notably the new Gnome. I can't see how Debian is going to keep up the rapid pace of Ubuntu releases at this rate.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • An administrator's dream! Tons of new features, with each one more likely to break something than the last!

      Some of us simply don't require the constant barrage of new features a distribution like Ubuntu or Debian Unstable offers. Although any Linux distribution can be adapted to fit almost any market, not all of us require the latest wireless adapters or version of openoffice to fulfill our needs.

    • I can't see how Debian is going to keep up the rapid pace of Ubuntu releases at this rate. Now, now, let's not get cocky. I like Ubuntu also, in fact I've been using it exclusivly for the last 7-8 months and I really appreciate all the little desktop tweaks that Ubuntu provides, but without the hard work of hundreds of Debian developers, Ubuntu wouldn't be the joy it is to work with day to day.
  • Come on now.. I've been usign Sarge for at least the last year without any problems. Not to mention I use the so-caleld unstable branch of packages and such. No problems..
    • I have been running sarge on my servers for well over a year. I'm very happy with it. And the fact of the matter is that "unstable" is more stable than the majority of other distributions.

  • Father and son (Score:5, Insightful)

    by antrik ( 538518 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @08:43PM (#12792140)
    "Only occasionally does this new release differ from Ubuntu."

    Duh. Wouldn't it rather be appropriate to put it the other way round?...

  • 3 years was worth the wait (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gek ( 634926 ) <gkorteNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday June 11, 2005 @08:49PM (#12792181)
    I am a Debian junkie. Recently I had to switch over to Redhat due to the fact that Debian was not certified to run Oracle (which doesnt run on any system whether its certified or not). How do you Redhat people update your systems??? Up2date, rpm (lots of man pages later), tar balls If anyone knows a good Debian to Redhat doc then I would be a happier sysadm, until then give me apt-get dpkg and a 100% up2date working system.

    To everyone his/her own distro!!! But Debian is still the best one around. Cheers to the Debian crew, all +1000 of them.

    • How do you Redhat people update your systems???

      up2date on RHEL and yum on Fedora.

    • " I am a Debian junkie. Recently I had to switch over to Redhat due to the fact that Debian was not certified to run Oracle (which doesnt run on any system whether its certified or not). "

      Boy isn't that just the truth! Oracle is my officially least-favorite program. If people had that much trouble installing any free software program, they would quite rightly characterize it as a stinking piece of shit.

      Matlab is not far behind for my second least favorite. Mathematica is third.
    • up2date, or yum.
      Works just fine.

  • Debian has plenty of life left (Score:5, Insightful)

    by John Nowak ( 872479 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @09:48PM (#12792508)
    I wouldn't be surprised if all of this talk about Ubuntu replacing Debian as the "end user" distribution becomes true. However, if it does, it would only be due to a self-fulfilling prophesy. Debian itself is a very good distro for a new user or an experienced one. It was a first distro I ever installed (piece of cake), and it is still the one I prefer today. I personally feel that Debian has a future as much more than just a base for other distros.

  • um, no. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stinky wizzleteats ( 552063 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @11:39PM (#12793002) Homepage Journal
    Only occasionally does this new release differ from Ubuntu. I am a Ubuntu fan, but let's keep things in perspective here. There are about a zillion more packages available for Debian than there are for Ubuntu. You have a hell of a lot more options about how you want your system to run with Debian than you do with Ubuntu.
    • There are about a zillion more packages available for Debian than there are for Ubuntu.

      No, there aren't. The list of packages that are not in the Ubuntu "universe" repo (essentially a snapshot of stuff in Debian Unstable) and that are in Debian is extremely short. I don't have real first hand knowledge but I would expect it to be less than 100 packages. Anyone know the exact figure? Or is it zero?

      • Re:Universe repo (Score:3, Interesting)

        by gnalle ( 125916 )
        The packages in ubuntu universe are not being maintained. Many packages have missing files. (Take the erlang library needed by wings3d as an example).

        The Ubuntu guys are doing great work, but I am considering to switch back to Sarge. My only grudge is that the when Sarge becomes outdated, then Etch will not have security updates.

  • After 3 years we finally get to have a look at the new Debian

    Yeah, 'cause the Debian development is generally so hidden from view. No way they'd let you try the new installer before the release.
  • That the new installer forces you to format your drive? I can understand it wanting you to format one partition for the root filesystem, but you have to wipe your entire partition table or you can't get past the partition dialog.

Slashdot Top Deals

Unix soit qui mal y pense [Unix to him who evil thinks?]

Close