On one hand, the June 6 release of Debian 3.1 matters far less than a new version of another distribution, because many Debian users have already upgraded individual packages from the Debian test, unstable, or even experimental distributions. For them, the official release (a.k.a. Debian stable) matters only for security updates. On the other hand, stable is the Debian version of choice for networks and servers, or those for whom dependability matters more than the latest software.
Installation
The steps in the new text-based Debian installer should be familiar to anyone who has installed Linux before: language and keyboard selections, partitioning, installation of the core system and boot manager, the selection of other packages, the creation of users, and the fine-tuning of the system environment. However, the new Debian installer also has features that those used to Red Hat's Anaconda or other installation programs may find unusual.
To start with, while Debian can be installed from CDs, the preferred method is a net install, in which a base system is installed from CD and the rest of the system is installed using the apt-get package manager over the Internet. Early in the installation, the installer establishes a DHCP network connection. Once the base system is installed, users can set up HTTP, FTP, hard drive, network, or even CD sources for the rest of the installation.
Another unusual feature is the extensive use of installation schemes, which are sets of options that users can select rather making manual selections. Installation schemes, of course, are common in other installation programs, especially for packages. What is unusual in Debian 3.1, though, is the extension of installation schemes into other areas.
For example, the installer's instructions recommend a single partition for new users, as well as several schemes based on how the computer will be used. The desktop scheme, for example, consists of a root and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home partitions, while the workstation scheme consists of a root,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/var,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/tmp and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home partition. The size of each partition in a scheme also varies from scheme to scheme. While the install program doesn't explain why each scheme is appropriate to a particular type of use, in many cases, anyone who is not a complete newcomer should be able to make some intelligent guesses. At the very least, they can see some alternatives to help them develop their own schemes.
Similarly, once the core system is installed and you reboot the computer, you can select packages individually using aptitude, or choose a scheme for a particular type of server or a desktop environment. The server choices are especially numerous, no doubt reflecting the market for official Debian releases.
The installer does have a few rough edges. Some users might want a middle ground between individual package selection and all 1.7GB of the KDE and GNOME desktops. Nor is aptitude a particularly easy program to use if you're unfamiliar with it.
More seriously, while video cards are supposed to be auto-detected, detection seems either unreliable or limited. The installer detected neither of the two commonplace cards on the test systems, falling back instead on the default vesa xserver. While this default gives a graphical desktop on most systems, it is unlikely to give an optimized one. As a result, a new user would either need to install a new package and edit the configuration file or -- more likely -- restart the installation from scratch. Some provision for testing the xserver during installation would alleviate such difficulties.
Still, overall the new installer gets far more right than it does wrong. Version 3.1 is the first Debian release to include support for the ReiserFS, JFS, and XFS file systems during installation. Obviously, too, the developers of the new installer have taken considerable care to make the instructions clear without dumbing down the choices to be made. The discussion of the consequences of installing the GRUB boot loader, for example, is one of the clearest I've seen. Most important of all, the new installer manages to balance presenting novices choices they can live with while giving advanced users the chance to tweak as much as they like. In fact, the installer is so detailed that it even allows users who are partitioning manually to choose the mount options listed for each partition in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/fstab -- something I've seen on no other installer. While a few improvements would be welcome, overall the new installer should manage the difficult trick of pleasing almost everyone.
Desktop and software selection
Debian 3.1 boots from GRUB using either the installed kernel or the installed kernel in single-user mode for maintenance. If you chose the desktop environment package scheme, KDE 3.3 and GNOME 2.8 are both installed. Both are largely unaltered, except for branding wallpaper and login images and the addition of the Debian menu structure to the main menus.
Official Debian releases have a reputation for having older software versions. Given that the last official release was four years ago, and point releases are often eight to 10 months apart, this reputation is often deserved. However, at this point in version 3.1's life cycle, the available software is relatively current. It includes Mozilla 1.7.8, OpenOffice.org 1.1.3, Samba 3.0.14, Python 2.3.5 and 2.4.1 (two versions are presumably included to accommodate programs with different dependencies), and Perl 5.8.4. All these selections are comparable to those available in other major distributions. Some versions are slightly behind, others slightly ahead. Mostly, the differences between these version numbers are minor.
Two notable exceptions exist. First, Debian 3.1 is still using the last free version of XFree86 while most distributions have switched to x.org. However, since the switch was caused by a change in licensing, rather than by any improvements, the different is trivial.
Second, Debian 3.1 uses the 2.4.27 kernel, rather than a more recent 2.6 version. While no doubt disappointing to many, this conservative kernel choice is in keeping with the stable distribution's emphasis on reliability. The 2.4.27 kernel is at the end of a line of development and is therefore likely to be more thoroughly debugged than the rapidly evolving 2.6 line. Although the choice may sacrifice some speed, users not caught up in the arms race of version numbers will probably never notice the difference. For those who do, Debian's kernel compilation method offers a quick solution.
Administrative tools and package installation
Like earlier versions of Debian, 3.1 lacks an administration center like SUSE's YAST. Historically, this lack may reflect the geekiness of the user base -- in the past, perhaps, most Debian users would rather edit a configuration file directly than use a GUI tool. However, at this stage in the development of GNU/Linux, the lack is less important than it used to be. The KDE Control Center has many of the tools needed for everyday administration, and any that are missing can probably be found on either the KDE or GNOME menus.
Package installation is based on apt-get, Debian's venerable but highly serviceable program that automatically determines and installs dependencies. Besides apt-get itself, version 3.1 also installs aptitude, KPackage, and Synaptic. All these graphical interfaces for apt-get have their supporters, but apt-get itself is quick enough to learn that they are hardly needed. Apt-get is also more convenient if you want to do a quick installation by opening a root command line while in an ordinary user's account.
Whatever your choice of package manager, don't be surprised if only packages from the main Debian repositories are available. Many Debian developers dislike the contrib (free but dependent on non-free programs) and non-free repositories. Over the last few years, the project has had several discussions about removing them altogether. Perhaps as a result, the archives added during installation do not include the contrib and non-free repositories. This decision means that an install of Debian 3.1 contains only free software. If you want packages like Acrobat Reader or RealPlayer, you'll have to add the other repositories to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/apt/sources.list.
Security
Debian 3.1 is noticeably more security-conscious than other major distributions. You need the root password to mount removable drives or shut down the system. Similarly, as a minor obstacle to script kiddies, the root user cannot log in to a desktop. Nor are any unnecessary daemons configured, with the possible exception of atd.
Groups are also carefully organized. Debian 3.1 defines separate groups for basic system functions such as exim, crontab, and message bus, and membership in all groups is tightly controlled. The user account created during installation is added only to the video and plugdev groups. Users added after installation are not even added to those groups by default. Nor is any user included in the user or games groups, as they are in many distributions. The result is a system in which the security principle of least privilege is tightly observed. In other words, no user has more access to the system than is absolutely required unless it is deliberately added.
Strangely, Debian 3.1 omits enabling a firewall during installation. However, this lapse can be quickly remedied by running Bastille immediately after installation -- a step that anyone interested in security should consider anyway.
Users of Windows or commercial GNU/Linux distributions may find the security-consciousness of Debian 3.1 irksome. However, the inconveniences are small compared to the potential benefits. And, frankly, it's refreshing to see security chosen over convenience for once -- if only as a counter-example.
Conclusion
To say that Debian is no longer just for geeks would be an exaggeration. All the same, if version 3.1 is any indication, that's the way the distribution is heading.
True, it's still not a distribution to give a newcomer. Defects such as the lack of video card testing during installation or of an utomatically installed firewall still assume a knowledgeable, hands-on user who can readily overcome them.
But neither is it a distribution that should baffle any except the most inexperienced. If you've been down the install path a couple of times and always wanted to try Debian, there's never been a better time. Combining ease of use, security-consciousness, and a strict adherence to principle with a mostly current selection of well-tested software, in many ways Debian 3.1 is free software at its best.
Bruce Byfield is a course designer and instructor, and a computer journalist who writes regularly for Newsforge and the Linux Journal Web site.
Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Available boot methods:
linux
Start the installation -- this is the default CD-ROM install.
expert
Start the installation in expert mode, for maximum control.
linux26
Start the installation using a 2.6 series linux kernel
expert26
Start the installation in expert mode with a 2.6 kernel
Your post helped me - I need the 2.6.8 kernel because 2.4.x does not support power management on my laptop. After installing, then finding I had the useless 2.4.27 kernel, I saw your message, and re-installed.
But for something as important as this, there really should be a better way. The tendency of most people is not to ask for help until they are confronted with a question which they do not know how to answer.
The whole point of the Debian "Stable" release is that nearly everything in it has been tested for about 3 years. That's the only way to know it's stable. The word "stable" really means something in the Debian world. Expect never to have to re-boot a machine running Debian Stable, unless you have to replace a piece of hardware inside the case.
If you want more up-to-date stuff then you should be using the Debian "testing" distro, called Etch. This distro corresponds roughly to the level of stability that you'd get from a Redhat distro; in other words, it's actually very stable.
Or if you really want the latest features you can get the "sid" distro, which also is more stable than you might expect, corresponding roughly in stability to the typical Microsoft Windows release. Expect to have to re-boot this every week or so.
BTW I agree with you that the installer's hardware autodetect needs work.
I think you'll find that, although Knoppix is better than Debian at hardware detection, there are still cards which it doesn't auto-detect. For those cards, the Debian way is arguably better.
The real problem with video cards is non-technical - some manufacturers have been conditioned by Microsoft to not give out complete programming information for their cards.
Technically I suppose you are correct, but to many people, "auto-detection that gets it wrong" is no better than no auto-detection.
Crap. A user who wants 800x600 will buy 800x600, which is a lot cheaper than 1024x960 especially if it's LCD. A configuration which runs my 1024x960 LCD at 800x600 is just broken.
True, but irrelevant because what people are primarily complaining about is its poor functionality and human engineering. The fact that it's text-based instead of GUI is secondary.
Having to deal with other architectures is not an excuse for skimping on functionality which applies only to x86. Please remember that the installer always knows what cpu architecture it is running on.
I'm sorry, but that's complete bollocks. Debian Stable is used by lots of people who value stability very highly, who don't want to waste any of their time rebooting or recovering lost data. Debian Stable is a very fine operating environment - in some ways, the best there is. It's just the installer that is a steaming pile of manure.
It depends what you mean by "work". It will let you use your computer, after a fashion. But most people's definition of "working" is that if your equipment supports, say, 1280x1024 resolution at a refresh rate of 85Hz, the software will operate it with those parameters.
Personally, I'm not so hung up about graphics speed because I don't play shoot-em-up games. But looking at a big CRT monitor at a refresh rate of 72Hz gives me a headache pretty quickly. YMMV of course. Older eyes are more sensitive to flicker, I hear.
Please understand, I'm not complaining about Debian or about Linux. To make it work with your graphics card, you need to know exactly what your graphics card is, (you should really have selected it with Linux in mind), and you may have to edit your XF86Config-4 file. The culprits are certain video-card manufacturers who will not publish programming information for their cards.
What I'm complaining about is fanboys like this reviewer who pretend the situation is much better than it really is. Tell people the truth, please. Lying to them will turn them against Linux when they find out they've been deceived.
I discussed xservers in the context of problems with the installer. I said that while vesa would work, using it meant either more work after the install or starting again if the user didn't know any better.
How could you possibly get the impression that I thought the default was acceptable?
If you want to complain about something, you will probably find your efforts much more effective if you respond to what's actually said, instead of what you imagine was said.
Nice one, Bruce. You change the text of your review, then flame me for responding to something you didn't say.
The original version of your review did say "the default of vesa should work on most systems." If you want to claim that it's what I imagine you said instead of what you actually said, then perhaps you can explain how it is that mine is not the only response which quoted that phrase.
Your modified review is better than the original, just don't try to change history, OK?
I like Ubuntu's installer- it is not pretty or graphical but it works and is solid...
I think you have summed up Debian better than the reviewer. It is a good system, handicapped by a truly crap installer.
I don't mind the fact that the installer is text-based so much; the real problem is that it doesn't do its job, which is to auto-detect as much of the hardware as possible. The graphics card detection is especially lame. I would say that this installer is not ready to be released.
I'm installing Debian 3.1 on a laptop. At one point it asks me:
Please enter the video card's bus identifier
Anybody who thinks this is a sensible question to ask an end-user needs a brain transplant.
I'll think about trying Debian again in maybe 2015.
Yes.
No, it does not. It says nothing except the message I quoted in th eoriginal post.
The message you mention (which, incidentally, also indicates severe brain-damage because the installer can tell it's running on an x86 machine, not a PowerPC) appears on a previous screen. In a sane piece of software, this should mean it has nothing to do with the current screen.
This isn't even User Interface Design 101 - it's too obvious and elementary to appear in ANY course.
Whilst this is no doubt true, don't forget that the Debian-based distros also participate in the community. The team at Ubuntu, for example, actively participate in Debian, and Ubuntu patches have made it into Sarge.
I imagine the same would be true for other distros.
Exactly. Everyone should be using it, even if they don't like it. That'll stop the censors.
Besides, I don't think vi fans will be happy with elvis-tiny anyway, and will need to install a Real Editor just like emacs fans will need to. It's all just one command away anyhow.
No, you didn't and no, you don't.
The priorities of the complainers are strange:
His #1 beef: it's "dated looking". Who cares? The installer gets used once. You're not working with it for months.
Meaning<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...?
OK, finally, we come to substantive problems with the Debian installer. Down at #3 amd #4 on this guy's list. I sure hope the Debian people don't copy his priorities.
I've come across a strange bug affecting Debian 3.1 with the 2.6 kernel. I have 4 Linux machines on a LAN; one has a link to the outside world, and acts as a NAT firewall. The firewall is running Debian Woody with a 2.4 kernel. The other 3 all run Sarge. One has a 2.4 kernel. I use it for internet browsing (with Firefox)and it is fine.
The other 2 machines run Sarge with the 2.6 kernel. Both of them are unusable for surfing the web, because the browsers (either Firefox or Mozilla) are so slow. What seems to be slow actually is looking up the hostname. But the resolv.conf files are identical to the machine that is fast. The only difference I can think of is the kernel version.
Has anybody else seen something like this?
Of course you can;
I'm sorry, but I have no clue what you're talking about. You can open a separate window for each manual you want to browse.
Hmmm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... how can the poor fellow learn from something that kills him?
True, as far as it goes. But this guy's real problem is with the command line. Why not just point him straight to the (Gnome or KDE) desktop, then he can open as many windows as his screen has room for. (yes, yes, I know, the physical screen is not a limit, but don't confuse him at this point.)
30% of the time when executed during installation.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Share
Print
Comments
2.6 Kernel
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 11, 2005 03:40 AMkernel-image-2.6-686/stable uptodate 101
kernel-image-2.6.8-2-686/stable uptodate 2.6.8-16
#