Introduction article to the Debian GNU/Linux at Sitepoint.com.
Getting to Know Debian
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Introduction article to the Debian GNU/Linux at Sitepoint.com.
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
The only reason why Debian is not THE brightest star on the Linux heaven is just the missing marketing. There is simply no budget for marketing because Debian is simply noncommercial!
In my opinion Debian is the most advanced binary distribution available. Once installed a Debian dist you will never ever have to upgrade your system by CD-ROM (if you have an internet connection). That means you can maintain an iSever and you will be up-to-date for years. The only thing you will want to update by hand from time to time will be the kernel and even that is highly simplified.
I am the remote-admistrator of several internet servers and just one of it is a Suse (7.2) Linux. Guess what is the only machine is where packages are not updated any more by dist-maintainer….
Moreover Debian is highly flexible. If a customer wants a browser-based eMail-system just intall IMAP and Squirrelmail with a single command and edit the apache conf with a second one. Thats it! A package not availaible on debian is a package you will never need (there are more than 11.000 available in the testing branch).
And yes, it’s also a desktop Linux. Not as easy to install as eg. Mandrake, but remember, you will only have to install a system once, without upgrading the whole system to a whole new version with lots of configuration loss and rpm-dependecy-hassle….
If you have a network connection (broadband is highly recommended) you can usually install debian with just 2 floppies
1. rescue.bin floppy (your boot floppy)
2. root.bin (sets up a root user for the network install)
You may need some of the driver**.bin floppies if you have strange hardware.
http://www.debian.org/distrib/floppyinst
Here’s some good floppy images for your typical Intel compatible machine.
http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/main/disks-i386/curren…
From Windows use rawrite2.exe copy the files (regular copy won’t work)
Here’s rawrite2.exe
http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/main/disks-i386/curren…
MAKE SURE YOU HAVE PERFECT, ERROR FREE FLOPPIES!!
You can alternately use dd with linux to makes the floppies.
Just a bit offtopic here. I just love how with that website you can hide the site Nav on the left, by doing Hide Nav and Show Nav, isn’t that cool.
Firstly thanks for the article, since I was going to install Debian soon.
Also I got 2 Debian magazine from a computer magazine.
What version is the following Debian 3.0r1, is that stable or a different version?
Debian 3.0r1 is the current stable version.
The only reason why Debian is not THE brightest star on the Linux heaven is just the missing marketing. There is simply no budget for marketing because Debian is simply noncommercial!
er…. remember Progeny?… and Stormix?
IMHO Debian Progeny was a _great_ product, I was so happy having 2 servers running that distro.. unfortunately died quite soon i had to replaced them by rh and bla bla bla
Of course that apt RULES , but on the other hand i think that technology is kind of _old_, take a look at gentoo or rocklinux… you get the idea of what is evolution?
@javito:
That’s why I said Debian is the most advanced binary distro, remember? Gentoo and Rocklinux are source based!
Debian was one of the first distributions I tried when getting into Linux for the first time. Back then I was rather inexperienced and couldn’t get X to work.
Since then I’ve been through them all. The big ones- Red Hat, SuSE and Mandrake never really fitted me well. Too bulky and uncontrollable. Slackware was quite nice, but Gentoo has been the best so far.
I’m thinking about getting a Mini-ITX box solely to run Linux and Boa Webserver, amongst other things. Now I’m rather accustomed to manually configuring and emerge/portage (i.e. apt-get style package management), I will give Debian another shot. I’m sure it’s come a long way since ‘Potato’. Sure beats waiting all weekend for KDE to compile!
Thanks Iconoclast.
Also how up to date is Testing branch.
Also if I use RH with apt4rpm are the download sizes for the same program (eg. mplayer) larger than the .deb ones?
I am running Debian unstable on my laptop, and stable on a server or two. I try other distos, only to hear Debian calling me back.
Some great tools are the package search on debian.org, and apt-get.org.
Debian was great, but for christ sake why does it take a millenium to update their stable branch? When the whole world is using KDE3.2, debian sticks to KDE 2.*.*.
Bah, I finally settled for Gentoo after having a rather annoying argument with some Debian developers. Besides, apt-get is tempting, but emerge is just impressive. And yes, Gentoo is stable. :rollseyes:
I thought that Debian users would have switched to Gentoo by now. Isn’t it odd, we hail the fact that Linux gives us source code, so why start using binary packages and discard the advantage of compiling software on your machine? This is an absolute mystery. Debian is nice, but any serious Linux user can never be satisfied with binary distros anymore. Take a look at http://www.gentoo.org. You’ll like what you see. Anyone will agree that source-based distros through ports are the future.
i think i can well live without an imaginary “speed increase” and “source enhancement” a’la gentoo. why add this overhead of recompiling everything on a low/mid end machine? debians binaries are so good, that even the stock kernel in unstable is more responsive that when i patch it and compile con-kolivas pseudo kernel patches to enhance i dont know what responsiveness.
if you think that source based distros through ports are the future, show me benchmarks, and tell me why i should recompile xfree every night, just to listen to the sweet hum of my pc-fan and get 5% less cpu time (if actually).
when i allways listen to the gentoo arguments its like listening to speed freaks tuning their cars. i am not that type of freak, other people other distros. and when you take a look at debian – it does work quite well.
gentoo btw. is not useable on machines under 500mhz, its no option – even IF i compile lame from source i get seamingly the same performance.
Hi Q. In answer to your question: in my case, i did not switch to Gentoo for several reasons. Please correct me if o’m wrong but i think the two main advantage of a source distribution (for the end-user, i’m not talking of distro-mirror size) are:
* safety of using source-code and not eventually tainted binaries
* improved performance as compiling on the end-machine with local optimisations
1) Maybe that’s a flaw but i *trust* debian.org binaries. And even if i didn’t, what added security would it be to me to install a package from source if i did not take the time to read/understand it fully ? Unless Gentoo is distributing unmodified source codes, signed by the author, and that i *trust* this author, i don’t really see why dowloading a gentoo provided source and compiling it would be safer than downloading a debian provided binary. Thus, the matter of safety/security of source distributions is not a point for me, as i will *not* read/understand Gnome/KDE source code, for example.
2) About speed now. Maybe by recompiling each application i could gain a bit of speed, but i really don’t want to wait for a compiling when i download an application. Especially a fairly large one that i download mainly for trying it out and possibly remove it after. When i download a package, it’s usually that i want to use it, and the sooner, the better. That’s a bit kiddish, but it’s so. Of course, maybe i’m just overestimating gentoo compiling times, but this *really* turns me off.
3) With Debian, i found a distro able to install and UNINSTALL everything properly. That is *definitely* a key point for me as i love to be able to remove an application without leaving mess everywhere on the filesystem, and apr/deb are really doing a nice job on this point. From what i read, portage is nicely uninstalling some software, but still has troubles on others. Though, this point is probably only a matter of time, as i guess portage developers *do* have it in mind.
In conclusion, by using a source-based distribution, i would not appreciate the main benefits i know of (‘safety’ of using sources, increased performance), and would lose one main advantage of binary distribution (quickness of software installation). For information, i’m running the unstable flavor (sid).
Regards,
Its been said in a few articles that Debian is mainly for the advanced. I dont know what the criteria for being advanced is but i love it.
The fact that the system udpates its self from the web and that if you ever need any software thats where you can get it from using one standard application. Also to have your system identify and satisfy dependancies is an assume task that i much rather have the computer do.
I think i’ve found a linux system that suits me. I tried red hat for a while but always had trouble getting it the way i wanted it.
Oncei installed debian, i had troubles! Debian is actualy an OS. Just not a kernel and some apps, its more of an OS than most linux distros i’d think.
I’ve also tried OpenBSD, and whilst i love that, it hasnt got near the amount of apps or support.
Also, that brings me to an interesting question. Has anyone tried Debian/NetBSD? i wonder how that would go?
Dear smoke and cafard,
I do agree with many of your arguments. The compile time for some packages can indeed put you off, KDE in particular. One way of solving this is to exlude some bloat apps from the ebuild scripts, such as entertainment and games. Nevertheless, compiling KDE will typically take me from 23:00 in the evening to 7:00 in the morning, even on my P4(512 MB) I might add. Any other app takes 2 hours max, xfree included! I certainly don’t think that Debian is inferior, actually, Debian is probably much more organised and developed, since it has been around so much longer. Debian and Gentoo are brothers. They both got it right: System updates through the Web with rock solid dependency management. Use what you like, it is only a matter of taste.
don’t mind me jumping in this rather off-topic discussion, but i just had to throw in my 2 cts.
I don’t really think debian and gentoo are so comparable that debian users should switch to gentoo or vice versa
Debian and gentoo are alike in the fact that they are pretty stock packages (ie not tampered by RH or suse mod’s), and offer a plethora of available packages. In debian there is virtually nothing you cannot apt-get install and in gentoo you can emerge pretty much anything. But that’s about as far as i would draw the comparison (well maybe both run on old boxes, but there are others that do that too)
– compiling from source gives speed improvements, they are not huge as one would sometimes hear, but they are there (other speed improvements come from a non-bloated system, which debian can provide too)
– while debians pkgs are out of date, in gentoo you can emerge the latest version (or others, whichever you choose)
– debian is a whole lot more tested and stable than gentoo, portage and namely their configuration file handling might make updating your system unattended a little tricky.
– debian is 100% free, gentoo isn’t
– gentoo’s community is friendlier.
my guess:
gentoo is great for tinkering, debian is rock solid for production machines
I wonder why they argument that Debian pckgs are old still exists. On a server you will need staility, not versionhunting.
On your Desktop you can still stick to the unstable branch and you can in addition add unofficial repositories to get the latest apps. I for exmple have XFree86 4.3 installed on my Debian unstable/sid and I did it with apt-get…
There are more differences between Debian and Gentoo.
The most obvious: Debian is mostly black/white, while Gentoo uses all colors of the rainbow in the bootscripts, Emerge, and even the prompt.
In Gentoo you must compile many applications yourself which not only takes time but also costs huge amounts of harddisk space (if you do not clean the builds all the time). If you don’t beware, a Gentoo system takes 4x the space as a Debian system.
Gentoo does not provide a real stable system. FreeBSD has 4.8, NetBSD has 1.5.3, Debian has “stable”, Gentoo has?
Finally, I think Debian needs to rename their branches. Experimental is OK, then comes Stable, then comes RC, then comes Release
Or something like that.
What does it mean “real stable”? Who decides what is stable? According to the Debian way, KDE 3.2 will be stable in a year from now, although the whole world is using it. I’d rather compile the source code with my Gentoo box than to download some binary package and see what you get. Is seems that waiting is the Debian way to ensure stability. Are they changing the source code of all the apps they have? Don’t thinks so, therefore, Debian has nothing special to offer as far as stability is concerned. Any other distro is as “stable” as Debian.
Actually, the latest version release version of NetBSD is 1.6.1, not 1.5.3
That is not true. The Debian policy is to only include a package if it contains LESS critical bugs than the previous version. So might KDE 3.1.2 (3.2 is not out yet) contain more critical bugs than the current 2.2, then it will never be included. However, look at testing, which is always some sort of release candidate, and you can see that it does include KDE 3.1.
And they DO modify the source code. When a security hole is fixed, the Debian security team backports the fix to the application version which is in “stable”.
So with Stable you get versions of packages which have proven to be stable, and security fixes for them as long as the particular Debian release is the newest one (which is quite long, indeed)
And I meant that, just like the latest version of FreeBSD is 5.1 while 4.8 is considered “stable”, BSDMall considers NetBSD 1.5.3 “stable” while 1.6.1 is the latest release.
And I rather like the ports/packages system, as you can build from source if you want, but you don’t need to. I would consider Gentoo only if they also had a binary repository in addition to the sources.
Or didn’t Debian have “apt-get build package”?
I want to like Debian, but Debian never seems to like me back.
First of all, one of my machines (a laptop) is wayyy too new for it. The kernels don’t like my hardware.
Second, I installed it on an older machine, but Debian still didn’t show me much love. No matter what I tried, I could not get my standard, vanilla, no-frills, 2-button, plain-jane, works on every other OS i’ve tried, including Solaris and DOS, mouse. I am not a Newbie, I’ve installed *bleep*ing Solaris and Free/Open/NetBSD for gods sakes. I’ve manually configured X several times before, with no mouse issues. I still have no idea how you’re supposed to add mouse support to Debian. I can run startx and the graphics are perfect, but the mouse cursor won’t move, and X is absolutely worthless without a mouse.
Third, I tried Knoppix, which is a great distro, however, apt-get dist-upgrade hosed my harddrive install. Not sure, must have something to do with it being based on Unstable/Testing.
I dunno, to me Debian seems like way too much hassle when it seems to me that FreeBSD does everything Debian does only cleaner and better.
BTW on the laptop that was too new for Debian, I’m happily running Mandrake 9.1 (yes I am a power-user, but even a power-user can appreciate hardware autodetection) and urpmi is just as good as apt-get from my experience. Is there any functionality that urpmi lacks that can be found in apt-get?
I’m afraid Debian is sitting on its laurels pleased with their past status as “most-advanced binary Linux distro” and unmotivated to fix the severely broken parts of the distro, namely the installer come on, even Slackware has a better installer, (with some hardware detection) than Debian, and also the severe outdatedness of the stable branch. If I want to run software that old, I’ll just use an older version of a mainstream distro. Sorry, outdatedness is not an asset and does not necessarily mean better stability.
Anyway, looks great from a distance, but when you start playing with it, it gets ugly and tired really quick. Just my $0.02
It’s 2003 and I still can’t believe that an OS that was last released 5 years ago is still *far* more usable to install than any Linux distro. If you’re wondering what that OS is its BeOS.
Yeah yeah, I know you’re all rolling your eyes saying, “not another BeOS fanatic” but lets forget about the OS being installed for a second and look at the installation process. The BeOS installer did the following:
– booted from CD
– provided a usable graphic interface for partitioning the drive
– provided easy initialization and formating of the partions
– allowed easy checkboxes to select packages
– allowed a single button to install
– provided a simple graphical interface for a boot manager
The entire installation took only 15 minutes and BOOM! and fully working OS! Networking is set up in the preferences of the OS, not the installer, like it should be. The OS automatically detects the hardware of the machine, loads the appropritate drivers, and never bothers the user about this junk.
Let’s look at Linux:
– every installation of Linux is different
– partioning uses fdisk which is an old terminal based UI
– you need 3 partions for Linux (swap, boot, root)
– every linux distro has over a dozen pages of instructions for installing the OS
– there are too many options
– there are too many apps installed
– networking is too low level
– you need to go through a bunch of config files to set parameters
– it takes at minumun an hour (4X longer than BeOS) or up to a day (for compiling source)
What’s more each of the main distros are now making it HARDER, not easier, to get their .iso images because they are not making any money selling the boxes. So each distro now requires you to either download and burn 3 CDs, install via some cryptic ancient command line tool, or hunt through ftp servers to find the right disk.
If Linux is trying to make it on the desktop I can tell you right now this has to change. This is pathetic! How does anyone expect normal computer users to use this crap!
I’m all in favor of using open source and Linux on the desktop, but holy cow, this needs to be fixed! I bet the first distro that comes up with a simple, clean, usable, and painless installer for linux that does not come with a manual is going to be a millionair…
BeOS had is right back in 1999, there is no reason why we can’t we get it right with linux in 2003….
It’s 2003 and I still can’t believe that an OS that was last released 5 years ago is still *far* more usable to install than any Linux distro. If you’re wondering what that OS is its BeOS.
Yeah yeah, I know you’re all rolling your eyes saying, “not another BeOS fanatic” but lets forget about the OS being installed for a second and look at the installation process. The BeOS installer did the following:
– booted from CD
– provided a usable graphic interface for partitioning the drive
– provided easy initialization and formating of the partions
– allowed easy checkboxes to select packages
– allowed a single button to install
– provided a simple graphical interface for a boot manager
The entire installation took only 15 minutes and BOOM! and fully working OS! Networking is set up in the preferences of the OS, not the installer, like it should be. The OS automatically detects the hardware of the machine, loads the appropritate drivers, and never bothers the user about this junk.
Let’s look at Linux:
– every installation of Linux is different
– partioning uses fdisk which is an old terminal based UI
– you need 3 partions for Linux (swap, boot, root)
– every linux distro has over a dozen pages of instructions for installing the OS
– there are too many options
– there are too many apps installed
– networking is too low level
– you need to go through a bunch of config files to set parameters
– it takes at minumun an hour (4X longer than BeOS) or up to a day (for compiling source)
What’s more each of the main distros are now making it HARDER, not easier, to get their .iso images because they are not making any money selling the boxes. So each distro now requires you to either download and burn 3 CDs, install via some cryptic ancient command line tool, or hunt through ftp servers to find the right disk.
If Linux is trying to make it on the desktop I can tell you right now this has to change. This is pathetic! How does anyone expect normal computer users to use this crap!
I’m all in favor of using open source and Linux on the desktop, but holy cow, this needs to be fixed! I bet the first distro that comes up with a simple, clean, usable, and painless installer for linux that does not come with a manual is going to be a millionair…
BeOS had is right back in 1999, there is no reason why we can’t we get it right with linux in 2003….
Can’t tell you why the port appeared twice…
All linux distros you’ve tried you mean.
I haven’t installed Lindows or Lycoris, but my understanding is that they “dumb-down” the install process quite a bit, and don’t provide an overwhelming number of choices for package selection.
Also, setting up networking during the install is a common thing, even Windows does it. When I reboot my machine after an install I expect to be able to get on the internet and go grab my latest security updates. Something which BeOS doesn’t even have anymore.
do you really think you are providing accurate info?
check your sources again, or test linux yourself, please.
but, hey.. it will take a lot of time for you to test ALL distros like you said.
>>Can’t tell you why the port appeared twice…
Because you use BeOS? LOL, just kidding 🙂 Or maybe your BeOS not responsive?
Let’s see some of my favourite linux distros can offer for installations:
– Boot from DVD (other means are available: any bootable media are possible) whealth of choices, no need swapping CDs.
– Provide all similar GUI installation (CLI or simpler GUI also available).
– Provide automatic partitioning and formatting (or manual using GUI or CLI e.g. for resizing current partitions, etc.).
– need 0 or 2 or 3 or any number of partitions you like (yes, 0 is possible).
– Easy preselected applications (with GUI according what are you going to do with your PC/notebook/workstation/server) with choice to add/remove apps or groups of apps. (check/uncheck)
– Allow 1 press button to default installation (or without pressing a single button is also possible).
– Provide online update during installation and fetching true type fonts, drivers, enabling 3-D (make it up to date, nicer and ready to use).
– Provide all GUI for booting, login, maintenance (CLI too).
– Productive right away: office applications, multimedia, graphics, communications, development, games (some also in 3-D), all my devices working (better driver support and hardware compatibility).
– Pluging/unpluging are easy e.g. digital camera or other USB/firewire/PCMCIA devices are initialized and mostly ready to go with a few clicks.
What else do you need?
I haven’t installed Lindows or Lycoris, but my understanding is that they “dumb-down” the install process quite a bit, and
don’t provide an overwhelming number of choices for package selection.
Go to these companies on the web and try to find a download link to get their iso… I don’t think you’ll find it. And if you do it’s going to be such a frustrating experience that you’re more likely to give up than keep searching.
I think the problem is that the Linux community is so “geek” oriented that Linux users can’t see how terrible their OS is for normal users. When I make comments about Linux being unusable there is always a “geek” that says “just type: bla -xhgfv ‘/[a-z]/*’. To normal people that’s incomprehensible. They don’t know what that means, let alone use it.
Also, the fact that there are 10,000 apps on a distro is NOT a bonus, it’s a hindrance to good design and usability. If a good free installer for Linux was created that allowed the “masses” to download it and easily install it I think there would be a ground swell of support comming from employees of companies that use Windows. One of the big adoption arguments that Window-based IT depts use is that people don’t use Linux, it’s harder to use, and it would cost millions to re-train everyone. That’s true, but less so if every home user had a copy of Linux at home, and was coming to work asking for it on their desktop. However, this will never happen if the “geeks” keep making the wall to entry for normal users so high for Linux.
Make installers easy, and you’ll see more adoption from a grass-roots level IMO.
Go to these companies on the web and try to find a download link to get their iso… I don’t think you’ll find it. And if you do it’s going to be such a frustrating experience that you’re more likely to give up than keep searching.
Both these companies offer downloadable ISOs…you just have to pay for them.
I think Debian should add X and a set of compilers to their default install. Then add a nice graphical installer, integrage tasksel with it, let dpkg-reconfigure make use of it.
Provide on-screen documentation a la SuSE. Make it multi-language.
Integrate parted with ntfs-resize in the installation. If it detects there is only one large WIndows partition, offer a nice slider for space for Windows vs Space for Debian.
Finally, merge kudzu, sndconfig in this program, along with a decent X hardware autodetection et voila. Debian is on the top again.
Conclusion: people think apt-get is the only thing that made Debian great, and that a GUI installer is what makes all other distributions great.
But heck, how often will you install Linux? Once, is the idea. How often do you upgrade: a few times in the lifetime of your PC.
You know a yoke about MS? “Windows is the most installed OS in the world. I know. I have done it 5 times myself.”
Most Linux distributions are not a hair better, except…