Linked by Dedoimedo on Thu 17th Mar 2011 23:17 UTC
Debian and its clones Writing about Debian is not a simple thing. You know it's the giant that has spawned pretty much every other distro out there. It's almost like a Roman Empire, almost a taboo. Furthermore, it's not a desktop distro per se. It's more sort of a template you use to build your platform. It's also a SOHO server distro, therefore it more fits into the business category, comparable to CentOS and similar.
Permalink for comment 467170
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: . - image stamp versus full installer
by jabbotts on Mon 21st Mar 2011 21:17 UTC in reply to "."
jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

Ubuntu's installer benefits mostly from being a simple image stamp. It just takes the liveCD's image and writes to the hard drive after asking you minimal questions like prefered language and if it should use the whole disk or part of it. All the packages and kernel modules (drivers) are already in the liveCD's image. It does not offer software from the full potential library until after the initial install; your first stage is going to be what's been chosen for you.

To use Word as an example; it's like saving a pre-written letter to your documents directory.

Debian is primarily a full install distribution so it's installer is more like classic Windows. You boot the machine off the install disk, answer questions about location, hardware, hard drive partitioning, software selection and you get your own install from several different potential end results. The installer has to setup the hard drive, detect hardware and pull your choice of software packages from the full potential library.

To use Word again, this is like first transcribing the letter by selecting a page worth of short quotes from the several pages of a book then saving the resulting letter to your hard drive.

One really can't compare and criticize a full install process for not being a liveCD stamped image install process.

Reply Parent Score: 2