Debian Just Confirmed Something For Me!

[Netopia]

What did it confirm? If Microsoft would come out with their own version of Linux with their normal user-friendly install, they would make a fortune!

MAN! Debian is a piece of work! This is the first time that I've ever looked at it. Downloaded and burned all 8 iso and the proceeded to the install. To be honest, it looks like it could be a much more costomizable OS (just opinion) but it sure isn't what I would call a user friendly install. In the end, I couldn't even get X to start.... kept saying that none of my screens were compatible... go figure! I blew it away and started the Mandrake install instead but then had to head home, so I haven't finished it yet.

I will do Debian again... I'm still pretty new to this *nix stuff, so I'm experimenting with as many flavors as I can just to get a feel for it and I learn something each time, but I've got a funny feeling that when I have the time to devote to it I'll be learning a lot from Debian.

I did mean what I said though, about MS and MS-Linux. Just look at the sales of Lindows... if MS poured money into a version of Linux like Apple has done with OS-X I bet they'd sell a zillion copies to people who want to be able to say they run Linux but don't want to devote the time necessary to really learn it.

Take Care,

Joe

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

I think they have way too much code written (and pride, and PR, and all that) to do that anytime soon, but in the future, who knows, it's possible..

On a more realistic scale, I am of the belief that redhat should use debian as a base - I mean, why not?

 

[Calibrator]

I have to agree with you Debian is way too hard to install. It is even harder to configure. You read all the available information about configuration of various items only to find out that "Woody" don't play that. I am pleased to find out that Debian is working towards a "desktop" type distribution. Something, hopefully, easier to install and configure.

If you want a Linux distribution to actually use....use something else. If you want to actually learn the nuts and bolts of how Linux works Debian is for you.

 

[Spyro]

Debian isn't really for the beginning or casual linux user. For us "regular people" almost any other linux distro does much better.

 

[Nothinman]

MS will never release a version of Linux, they can't deal with the GPL. If they ever break down they'll use FreeBSD because of the license.

Debian isn't too hard to configure, it's just geared towards people who already know Linux. I personally get frustrated at installers that set everything up for me because it's a pain to change it by hand when I need to later.

 

[lowtech1]

Working on Debian is like a carpenter building something; ?read twice click once?.

Once you have done it a few time it become second nature & take no time at all.

 

[drag]

Debian has a few strengths that set it apart from more mainstream desktop level distros like Redhat or Mandrake. These strengths made it vey common in universities, small businesses, stand alone servers, and traditionalists linux user. One is the fact that can run easily on low end hardware easily, redhat and such you have to do special configurations to get it to work properly on older pc's (ie with resonable speed). This it share with Slackware. Another is it's apt-get system makes it easy to configure servers and completely change services and work loads without warrenting a complete reinstall, once you figure out how it works and get use to the text-based interfaces it is a breeze to use. When I was using Slackware everything was a custom install for my machine, when I needed a second server set up on a old 486 I was amazed by ease I could manage the packages. Another strength is that it makes good effort at remaining completely free software, unlike Redhat and freinds you can get everything off of the internet and there is no propriatory software and remains true to the free software movement, also If you use it for business of schools there is no nasty lisencing gotchas that pop up. Also stability is very very good. Plus it has about every damn peice of linux software avalable anywere, much more than rpms or any other distro.

Of course there are a couple downsides... For the newb it is difficult because it will not handle the config files for you, when you install proftp you get the proftp's default config, when you instal Xfree86 you get Xfree86's defualt config. It's up to you to deal with that, It can be troublesome at times, but at least you will know what your serves are up to. Also you will not have state of the art programs we are use too by installing a Mandrake or Redhat, Debain always lags behind a year or so behind everybody else in it's stable distro. For instance you will not get kde 3 it's still in the 2 version cycle, but you will never have to worry about missing dependances or any instabilities.

 

[EmperorRob]

This drag guy talks a lot

Just a little plug for my favorite distro, which is Debian based; try Libranet. http://libranet.com

 

[drag]

ya i do

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
MS will never release a version of Linux, they can't deal with the GPL. If they ever break down they'll use FreeBSD because of the license.

Ahhh! The joys of freedom!

Debian isn't too hard to configure, it's just geared towards people who already know Linux. I personally get frustrated at installers that set everything up for me because it's a pain to change it by hand when I need to later.

As a relative Linux newbie I found Debian to be a joy to install and configure. Very easy, very straight forward, very few "gotchas." I dont understand why people think it is that tough. As far as Linux documentation goes, Debian's install docs are among the best!

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Nothinman
MS will never release a version of Linux, they can't deal with the GPL. If they ever break down they'll use FreeBSD because of the license.

Ahhh! The joys of freedom!

Debian isn't too hard to configure, it's just geared towards people who already know Linux. I personally get frustrated at installers that set everything up for me because it's a pain to change it by hand when I need to later.

As a relative Linux newbie I found Debian to be a joy to install and configure. Very easy, very straight forward, very few "gotchas." I dont understand why people think it is that tough. As far as Linux documentation goes, Debian's install docs are among the best!

I've been using Debian lately, not installing it, so I can't remember, but one thing that might make matters hard for newbies is the disk partitioning stuff. Redhat (and Mandrake?) make this easy by offering to do it automatically, but Debian just (IIRC) leaves you alone in whatever they call that text based fdisk-like program. Since Linux uses a more complex partition layout than most Windows users are used to, I can sort of understand how someone who is new to Linux might be baffled by (parts of) the installation process.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: jliechty

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Nothinman
MS will never release a version of Linux, they can't deal with the GPL. If they ever break down they'll use FreeBSD because of the license.

Ahhh! The joys of freedom!

Debian isn't too hard to configure, it's just geared towards people who already know Linux. I personally get frustrated at installers that set everything up for me because it's a pain to change it by hand when I need to later.

As a relative Linux newbie I found Debian to be a joy to install and configure. Very easy, very straight forward, very few "gotchas." I dont understand why people think it is that tough. As far as Linux documentation goes, Debian's install docs are among the best!

I've been using Debian lately, not installing it, so I can't remember, but one thing that might make matters hard for newbies is the disk partitioning stuff. Redhat (and Mandrake?) make this easy by offering to do it automatically, but Debian just (IIRC) leaves you alone in whatever they call that text based fdisk-like program. Since Linux uses a more complex partition layout than most Windows users are used to, I can sort of understand how someone who is new to Linux might be baffled by (parts of) the installation process.

/
swap

Not too complicated

 

[Nothinman]

/
swap

Not too complicated

It is when you have no idea how a unix filesystem is layed out, I know everyone new to unix has been confused by that more than a few times.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

/
swap

Not too complicated

It is when you have no idea how a unix filesystem is layed out, I know everyone new to unix has been confused by that more than a few times.

Maybe it has to do with the fact I read up on Unix and Linux for a while before trying it out, but I didnt find it too complicated.

 

[Flatline]

If you think Debian is rough to install, try one of the source-based distros (I'm playing with Lunar at the moment)

One of the things that I would like to know is why the binary-based distros are still optimizing for i386 (ok, ok - Yoper optimizes for i686); does anyone with a Pentium actually run RedHat 8 or 'drake 9?

It would also be nice (just a personal preference) if RedHat would take a cue from 'drake and SuSE and offer a non-ext file system like ReiserFS, XFS, or JFS

 

[Netopia]

Actually, I didn't find the Debian partitioning stuff too bad. It's a little annoying that the menu of items at the bottom isn't all displayed at one time and you have to cursor left->right through all entries to get to the bottom (next screen) choices... but it all works and is pretty straight forward. Having come from CP/M and then the original PC/XT where you had to go into debug mode just to initialize the drive, I found Debian's utility far from unusable.

An aside....

What is the appeal of the RFS? EXT3 is already journalled and is more mature, so what is the draw to RFS?

Joe

 

[Flatline]

Ext3 is slower (for most things); now don't get me wrong...for a production system, I'll use ext3 on RedHat because that is what RedHat supports. For my home system, however, I would like a few more options.

From what I understand, XFS has even better recovery tools than ext3 but I've (thankfully) never had to use them.

 

[TheOmegaCode]

Originally posted by: wizardLRU
Debian isn't really for the beginning or casual linux user. For us "regular people" almost any other linux distro does much better.

Other than a three day stint with Mandrake, my first experiences with Linux were with Debian. If you read the doc's, it's actually very easy to install. I installed RedHat a few weeks ago for kicks and giggles, and I actually find Debian easier. Maybe that's just me though...

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: TheOmegaCode

Originally posted by: wizardLRU
Debian isn't really for the beginning or casual linux user. For us "regular people" almost any other linux distro does much better.

Other than a three day stint with Mandrake, my first experiences with Linux were with Debian. If you read the doc's, it's actually very easy to install. I installed RedHat a few weeks ago for kicks and giggles, and I actually find Debian easier. Maybe that's just me though...

Most people don't read the docs.

Which is of course not a problem with the distro or the docs themselves, it's just a universal truth

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Flatline
Ext3 is slower (for most things); now don't get me wrong...for a production system, I'll use ext3 on RedHat because that is what RedHat supports. For my home system, however, I would like a few more options.

From what I understand, XFS has even better recovery tools than ext3 but I've (thankfully) never had to use them.

I used RFS back in my RH6.2 days, when I had to patch the kernel and compile it myself, and it seemed faster than Ext2 back then. Lately I've been using XFS with Debian, since that's what was supported (besides Ext2 and 3) on the netinstall ISO I used.

 

[n0cmonkey]

As a BSD bigot, the only Linux distros I will use at home are Debian and Slackware. The others just dont have the feel of these two.

 

[Flatline]

I find it interesting that Reiser is the default FS on SuSE

 

[Flatline]

You might like Vector; have you tried it? It's a slck-based distro. I think the default window manager is IceWM

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: Flatline
If you think Debian is rough to install, try one of the source-based distros (I'm playing with Lunar at the moment)

One of the things that I would like to know is why the binary-based distros are still optimizing for i386 (ok, ok - Yoper optimizes for i686); does anyone with a Pentium actually run RedHat 8 or 'drake 9?

It would also be nice (just a personal preference) if RedHat would take a cue from 'drake and SuSE and offer a non-ext file system like ReiserFS, XFS, or JFS

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think CRUX, Beehive, Arch, Ark & EvilEntity Linux are also optimises for i686.
Yoper is the only i686 distro that i have tried, but I'm intended to play with EvilEntity, Ark, and Arch distro once I have more time.

 

[Flatline]

Sadly, those aren't the "major" distros (RH, SuSE, Mandrake, etc.), but you are, of course, correct. Evil Entity is an interesting distro, relying heavily on a customized implementation of Enlightenment (a pretty cool UI, but very different from KDE, Gnome, etc.) and I think you'll have fun with it.