[sclug] Debian

[Chris Aitken]

I upgraded my Woody to testing (Sarge) pretty soon after installing.

Would be interested to see your installation notes - as I found it hard, but
didn't write anything down!

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: sclug-admin at sclug.org.uk [mailto:sclug-admin at sclug.org.uk] On Behalf
Of Will Dickson
Sent: 05 May 2003 19:54
To: sclug at sclug.org.uk
Subject: [sclug] Debian


Hi all,

Following a recent filesystem failure on my DMZ server, and a subsequent 
nightmare with the SuSE8 install / config tool (which, as recently 
re-written and "improved", is a complete dog IMHO) I decided to try 
Debian instead.

Firstly, to Phil Hands and any other Debian-ites listening: superb job, 
guys, and much appreciated. Finally, a distro which, in no particular order:

- Doesn't assume you're a newbie installing a bog-standard desktop 
system, and make it hugely inconvienient to do anything else;

- Doesn't break when asked for non-standard configurations, because that 
bit never got tested properly;

- Has an install system which doesn't suck when run in text mode;

- Degrades gracefully when faced with exceptions or user cockups, rather 
than dying horribly;

- Doesn't munge and / or hide all the config data to make it impossible 
to administer the machine manually;

- Understands the concept of "Do What You're Damn' well Told", rather 
than appearing to accept your command and then doing the opposite;

- Doesn't have 5-mile long init scripts which require an MSc in shell 
programming to modify successfully;

- doesn't try to imitate Windows, and in so doing become the worst of 
both worlds;

- etc. etc.

If anybody else out there is looking for a distro that is good for 
non-standard configurations as well as ordinary desktop use, try this one.

...

All the above notwithstanding, there are a couple of beefs I came 
across, such as Woody's version of XFree4 being very naff (large swathes 
of inoffensive hardware are made broken by this version, simply because 
the drivers hadn't been ported at the time). It might've been better to 
have stuck to XFree3.3.6 if that was the best XFree4 available.

On the basis of it being better to light a candle / flamethrower (delete 
according to preference) than curse the darkness, I'm going to write 
down a "Woody installer's cheat sheet" documenting all the little 
foibles I came across, for my own use if nothing else (I look after 2 
DMZ servers, and I'm going to upgrade the other one to keep it in line). 
Would the Debian project find such a document useful? (All the required 
information is already present in the ref manual; as usual, the problem 
is finding the right bits at the right time.)

...

<op-ed bsLevel="high">

One frequently hears reviewers saying things like, "Debian is not for 
the faint-hearted."

Well, say rather that Debian is not for the feeble-minded.

When faced with some disagreeable task, there's a common tendency to get 
someone or something else to do it for us. Undeniably this makes life 
easier. However, there's a downside: ultimately, the entity which is 
actually doing the work, is also the entity that's in charge. The two go 
together.

In Windows, and increasingly in the more commercially-oriented Linux 
distros, this entity is a quasi-intelligent "setup tool" of some kind; 
it does the work while you sit there and watch.

In Debian, this entity is you. (Yes, there is a script which acts as a 
guide, but that's really all it does.)

So, what's so great about a distro which makes you do all the drudge 
work? Well, it gets you clear of three big hidden drawbacks.

Firstly, these "smart" installers aren't nearly as smart as you are, or 
even as smart they'd have you believe. When faced with unusual 
circumstances, they generally fall over. And when they do, you are 
stuffed, because there's no manual fallback.

Secondly, can you really trust the installer? Is it working for you? Or 
is it working for whoever sold it to you? Windowsland has this problem 
already (M$ product activation etc.), and I suspect that it won't be 
long before it becomes an issue in Linuxland as well - the behaviour of 
Red Hat in particular (the company) gives cause for concern.

The final issue is subtle, but potentially the most insidious: smart 
tools encourage dumb users. More accurately, they encourage users to 
adopt a passive mindset wherein they accept the choices the machine 
gives them, rather than actively taking control of the process and 
ensuring that the machine does what they want it to. There are 
unintelligences vast and greedy and unsympathetic which dearly wish that 
computers were overgrown TV's, and would have us behave as though they 
were. To do this, they first need to passivate us. Viewed in this light, 
smart install tools are potentially the thin end of a very nasty wedge. 
(Paranoid? Me? Why did They tell you that? :-)

</op-ed>

_______________________________________________
sclug mailing list
sclug at sclug.org.uk http://www.sclug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/sclug