Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 10th Mar 2007 23:16 UTC, submitted by da_Chicken
Debian and its clones "Debian GNU/Linux used to have a reputation as the toughest GNU/Linux distribution to install, yet the easiest to maintain. In fact, Debian's package management system has played a huge role in the proliferation of projects based on Debian. Suffice it to say that anyone who can install their own operating system can generally install Debian Etch with little or no trouble. If you've never installed Debian before, it's fairly easy to walk through the default installation without realizing you have options. Let's explore the Debian Installer, to find out just what options we do have."
Thread beginning with comment 220674
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: To be honest...
by farfromhome on Mon 12th Mar 2007 23:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: To be honest..."
farfromhome
Member since:
2007-02-19

I hate to feed the trolls, but...

Debian is the base of many more distributions than Fedora, so it must be doing something right. The top home user distro right now is Ubuntu, and Debian itself is very well respected as a server (though I like it as a desktop too). Speaking of Ubuntu, its text-based installer for those who can't, for whatever reason (unsupported video card or RAID or whatnot) use ubiquity uses...the Debian Installer.

I'm not saying that Anaconda doesn't have its strengths, but to propose that it's superior simply because you like it better doesn't mean anything. Let's say that you're right that Anaconda is more flexible for corporate deployment (I don't do corporate deployments so I can't say either way)...does that help if your corporation has lots of old DEC Alpha machines that they are repurposing? Debian is much more cross-platform. In other words, your precious Anaconda isn't better in all situations, or even most.

I never claimed that d-i was superior for everyone, just that I find it much better for myself. You might want to learn some humility yourself.

Cut down on your margarine with all its partially hydrogynated oils and then talk to me about the health of butter. ;-)

And your parents' basement is more likely to be running Gentoo than either Debian or Red Hat/Fedora. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: To be honest...
by sbergman27 on Mon 12th Mar 2007 23:33 in reply to "RE[5]: To be honest..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
I'm not saying that Anaconda doesn't have its strengths, but to propose that it's superior simply because you like it better doesn't mean anything.
"""

I'm the one giving giving concrete reasons for finding Anaconda superior. I'm not the one referencing abstractions like "elegance".

For automated deployment in the business world, Debian's installer is a nonstarter.

And as you admit, it's not pretty or friendly, so it's not the best for home installations, either.

Perhaps there is a niche market out there that needs "elegant simplicity" without actual capability.

"""
Let's say that you're right that Anaconda is more flexible for corporate deployment (I don't do corporate deployments so I can't say either way)
"""

That's obvious enough...

I hate to be the one to break it to you... but the DEC Alpha architecture died several years ago.

Are you saying that dead architectures, obscure even in their heyday, are the future of Linux?

"""
Cut down on your margarine with all its partially hydrogynated oils and then talk to me about the health of butter. ;-)
"""

Well, I switched to soft tub margarine about 20 years ago. Hard stick margarine may have enough trans fats to be nearly as damaging as butter. But soft, tub style, margarine has always had little. And today has none. (Actually, I use extra virgin olive oil for most everything these days.)

But I would further recommend that you avoid the Koolaid, as well. You seem... susceptible.

Edited 2007-03-12 23:35

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: To be honest...
by farfromhome on Mon 12th Mar 2007 23:59 in reply to "RE[6]: To be honest..."
farfromhome Member since:
2007-02-19

I'm the one giving giving concrete reasons for finding Anaconda superior. I'm not the one referencing abstractions like "elegance".

No, but I was never claiming it to be the best for everyone and everything, so subjective reasons are just fine. And you haven't given any concrete reasons yourself, just anectodes, which are impossible to prove or deny. (I did give one concrete example of one area of superiority though: portability.) Speaking of which...

Are you saying that dead architectures, obscure even in their heyday, are the future of Linux?

No, just that no one installer is best for everything. Business deployments are not the end-all, be-all either. In fact, often people using something at home will lead them to ask about it at work. Just ask our friendly monopolist, Microsoft. Ubuntu is the distro to keep an eye on at this moment, whatever my personal feelings about it.

And as you admit, it's not pretty or friendly, so it's not the best for home installations, either.

I never said it wasn't friendly. The actual steps (partitioning, root password, normal user, selecting whether it's a desktop or a server, etc...), are pretty standard. Put a home user in front of either (with the GTK+ version of the Debian installer), and it will look pretty much the same.

As for beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder (I don't think either is particularly pretty). All I was saying is that, thanks to its modularity, the front-end is easily changed. If you think it's ugly, make it more pretty yourself. (And a non-pretty, text-based installer never stopped people, even some "dumb" home users with the help of their power-user friends, from reinstalling Win2K/WinXP when necessary.)

For non-standard installations, that's where the differences will show. And I still submit that Anaconda is better in some situations, d-i in others.

As for the Kool-aid quip, just stop with the personal insults. They add nothing to the conversation and do nothing to further your position.

Reply Parent Score: 1