Re: Plop in Debian install HDD into entirely new system

[David Christensen]

On 2/11/22 16:28, David Christensen wrote:

On 2/11/22 12:34, Thomas Anderson wrote:

Hello friends,

I was curious what would happen if I threw my server HDD, into an 
entirely new system:


different motherboard, different CPU (Intel instead of AMD), Ram, 
video card, everything.


I would like to upgrade my system, and ideal case, this would simply 
work. I think I have done


it in the past, but with less variables. I have never done it with 
EVERYTHING outside of the hard drive


being different.


Thanks.



If both machines are the same architecture (e.g. x64_64/amd64), 



Correction x86_64/amd64.


both use 
the same style firmware (e.g. BIOS or UEFI), and both are configured to 
boot from the same partitioning scheme (e.g. MBR or GPT), the system 
instance should boot and you should be able to log in from the console. 
  As other readers have noted, you may need to install/ configure/ 
reconfigure networking, graphics, sound, and/or other drivers; and 
hypervisor optimizations may be different (if you are running virtual 
machines).



David

Re: Plop in Debian install HDD into entirely new system

[David Christensen]

On 2/11/22 12:34, Thomas Anderson wrote:

Hello friends,

I was curious what would happen if I threw my server HDD, into an 
entirely new system:


different motherboard, different CPU (Intel instead of AMD), Ram, video 
card, everything.


I would like to upgrade my system, and ideal case, this would simply 
work. I think I have done


it in the past, but with less variables. I have never done it with 
EVERYTHING outside of the hard drive


being different.


Thanks.



If both machines are the same architecture (e.g. x64_64/amd64), both use 
the same style firmware (e.g. BIOS or UEFI), and both are configured to 
boot from the same partitioning scheme (e.g. MBR or GPT), the system 
instance should boot and you should be able to log in from the console. 
 As other readers have noted, you may need to install/ configure/ 
reconfigure networking, graphics, sound, and/or other drivers; and 
hypervisor optimizations may be different (if you are running virtual 
machines).



David

Re: Plop in Debian install HDD into entirely new system

[Felix Miata]

Dan Ritter composed on 2022-02-11 15:52 (UTC-0500):

> Thomas Anderson wrote: 

>> I was curious what would happen if I threw my server HDD, into an entirely
>> new system:
>>... intel ...

> This will usually mostly work. Things to think about:
... > - you'll need to install different video drivers
...
Unless you've installed proprietary drivers, this is highly unlikely. The kernel
selects the only appropriate hardware module (driver), which is provided with 
each
individual kernel, automatically. The X systems are highly competent at 
selecting
an appropriate display driver for Intel IGPs. There are only two that matter, 
one
of which (intel) hasn't had an official release in going on a decade and is
unofficially deprecated, the other, which is the default, being of younger
technology and applicable to AMD, Intel and NVidia GPUs, as well as others.

> - disk names may change

But not UUIDs, so it shouldn't matter, but could.

Plopping a disk from one PC into another is pretty routine here, not a big deal 
in
most cases, but could be if you've set MODULES=dep instead of MODULES=most in
/etc/initramfs-tools/initramfs.conf. Traditionally it's been necessary to 
restore
most and rebuild initrd before the switch when going between AMD and Intel. I
haven't tested in a while whether that's still true. IMO, NIC poses the biggest
potential nuisance, if your new hardware is too new. If network works, other
things are usually easily fixed, if they even broke.

A quite new potential obstacle is newer Intel motherboard chipsets do not enable
the UEFI BIOS to provide a CSM boot option. The B560 chipset in my Rocket Lake
LGA1200 does not. According to Asus, all 500 series Intel chipsets are this way.
If you put your disk with an MBR configuration in and it isn't recognized as
bootable, this could be the reason, and a pain to correct.
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion,
based on faith, not based on science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata

Re: Plop in Debian install HDD into entirely new system

[Dan Ritter]

Thomas Anderson wrote: 
> I was curious what would happen if I threw my server HDD, into an entirely
> new system:
> 
> different motherboard, different CPU (Intel instead of AMD), Ram, video
> card, everything.
> 
> I would like to upgrade my system, and ideal case, this would simply work. I
> think I have done
> 
> it in the past, but with less variables. I have never done it with
> EVERYTHING outside of the hard drive
> 
> being different.

This will usually mostly work. Things to think about:

- you'll need to install different microcode
- you'll need to install different video drivers
- you may need to adjust settings on virtual machines that you
  are running, if you have any and you set them to copy the host
  cpu
- disk names may change
- network interface names may change, and you may need different
  firmware for the NICs

All of these things can be fixed; in the cases of the drivers
and firmware, you can pre-install them before doing the
transfer.

-dsr-

Re: Plop in Debian install HDD into entirely new system

[Christian Britz]

On 2022-02-11 21:34 UTC+0100, Thomas Anderson wrote:
> I was curious what would happen if I threw my server HDD, into an 
> entirely new system:
I would guess it would work, with some minor adjustmenst being
necessary. Typically, all needed kernel modules for hardware support are
available and Debian is much less hard-wired to the hardware which it
runs on than, for example, MS Windows.

-- 
http://www.cb-fraggle.de

Plop in Debian install HDD into entirely new system

[Thomas Anderson]

Hello friends,

I was curious what would happen if I threw my server HDD, into an 
entirely new system:


different motherboard, different CPU (Intel instead of AMD), Ram, video 
card, everything.


I would like to upgrade my system, and ideal case, this would simply 
work. I think I have done


it in the past, but with less variables. I have never done it with 
EVERYTHING outside of the hard drive


being different.


Thanks.

Re: location of screenshots during debian install

[David Wright]

On Wed 28 Jul 2021 at 11:16:42 (+1200), Richard Hector wrote:
> On 27/07/21 7:14 pm, Jupiter777 wrote:
> > I am in the middle of installing buster 10.10.x on my computer.
> > 
> > I see that I can take screenshots as the dialog boxes tell me:
> > 
> >    Screenshot Saved as /var/log/
> > 
> > But /var/log is not on the bootable  usb I am using ...
> > 
> > Where are the screenshots?  I like to  use them for troubleshooting?
> 
> I've never used this facility, so I'm only guessing.
> 
> But if they're not on the installer media, then they're presumably on
> the disk you're installing to, which is mounted on /target/ during the
> installation - so /target/var/log/.
> 
> Whether and how you can get them off that disk if you haven't finished
> the installation is a different matter, of course :-)

You can start taking screenshots long before /target exists.
As indicated above, screenshots are placed in /var/log/…
which is a filesystem created in memory for the duration of the
actual installation process.

If you don't want to go as far as "Save debug logs" in the main menu,
then you have to copy them somewhere yourself. Once /target _does_
exist, you could copy them there, but that means getting as far as
"Install the base system", which populates /target with something
recognisable as a system disk (meaning that, say, /target/root/ would
be available).

So, the quick way is:

. Alt-F4 to view the syslog
. Insert a fresh stick, and watch screen
. Alt-F2(or 3) for a shell
. Mount stick (device name just seen on log) onto /mnt
. cp /var/log/… stuff to /mnt/… (may as well grab the lot)
. Unmount stick
. Remove stick after activity ceases
. Alt-F1 to carry on installing

Cheers,
David.

Re: encrypt/lvm issue during install.... [WAS: location of screenshots during debian install

[David Wright]

On Wed 28 Jul 2021 at 14:22:52 (+0100), Tixy wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-07-28 at 13:31 +0100, Tixy wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-07-28 at 07:54 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:05:54PM -0600, Jupiter777 wrote:
> > > > so loop-with-no-exit went like:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -- installer recognized the disk, OK
> > > > 
> > > > -- did the 1gb /boot ext2 non-encrypted configured , OK   /dev/sda7
> > > > 
> > > > -- 150gb partition, planned to be / with everything in it,
> > > >    recognized by installer, OK  /dev/sda6
> > > > 
> > > > -- configured /dev/sda6 to be / and mount-point /  too , OK
> > > > 
> > > > -- went inside the lvm config/manager 
> > > > 
> > > > -- added volume group vg1 off of /dev/sda6 , OK
> > > > 
> > > > -- added logical volume lv1 (inside vg1) , OK
> > > 
> > > I've never done disk encryption, so I can only speak to the LVM parts
> > > of this.
> > > 
> > > If you're planning to use LVM for everything except /boot, then your
> > > third and fourth steps above are incorrect.  You don't want to create
> > > a regular root file system on sda6 if you're planning to use sda6 for LVM.
> > > 
> > > What you want to do instead is:
> > > 
> > > 1) Create your /boot partition + file system as you did.
> > > 
> > > 2) Create a partition to hold the LVM subsystem, but do not mount it.
> > > 
> > > 3) Go into the LVM subsystem, and turn your empty partition into a
> > >    volume group.
> > > 
> > > 4) Create logical volumes within the VG for each file system you want,
> > >    including root.
> > > 
> > > However, since you were trying to do encryption as well, you should
> > > definitely look for advice from someone who has done that.
> > 
> > Between steps 2) and 3) you encrypt the partition.
> 
> Well, that's what I do, but if you want to encrypt filesystems
> individually then I don't know what the sequence is for that.

Complementarywise, these screens are from a nonce encrypted-root
installation, but I've yet to try LVM. (Comments follow the screen
they apply to.)

  ┌┤ [!!] Partition disks ├─┐   
  │ │   
  │ This is an overview of your currently configured partitions and mount   │   
  │ points. Select a partition to modify its settings (file system, mount   │   
  │ point, etc.), a free space to create partitions, or a device to │   
  │ initialize its partition table. │   
  │ │   
  │   Guided partitioning  ↑│   
  │   Configure software RAID  ▮│   
  │   Configure the Logical Volume Manager ▒│   
  │   Configure encrypted volumes  ▒│   
  │   Configure iSCSI volumes  ▒│   
  │▒│   
  │   SCSI1 (0,0,0) (sda) - 500.1 GB ATA ST3500413AS   ▒│   
  │   > 1.0 MB   FREE SPACE▒│   
  │   > #1  3.1 MBK  biosgrubBIOS boot pa  ▒│   
  │   > #2520.1 MB   BullBoot  ▒│   
  │   > #3524.3 MB   ext2Linux swap▒│   
  │   > #4 31.5 GB   ext4Viva-A▒│   
  │   > #5 31.5 GB   ext3Viva-B▒│   
  │   > #6436.1 GB   Viva-Home ▒│   
  │   > 7.7 kB   FREE SPACE▒│   
  │   SCSI7 (0,0,0) (sdb) - 1.0 GB Multiple Card Reader▒│   
  │↓│   
  │ │   
  ││   
  │ │   
  └─┘   

I renamed my ESP (future-proofing the disk) as BullBoot. The ext3 was
created thus, just for recognisability. Partitions 1, 3, 4 and 6 are
the "real" ones, to remain untouched (except that 1 may get clobbered).

  ┌┤ [!!] Partition disks ├─┐   
  │ │   
  │ You are editing partition #2 of SCSI1 (0,0,0) (sda). No existing file   │   
  

Re: encrypt/lvm issue during install.... [WAS: location of screenshots during debian install

[Tixy]

On Wed, 2021-07-28 at 13:31 +0100, Tixy wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-07-28 at 07:54 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:05:54PM -0600, Jupiter777 wrote:
> > > so loop-with-no-exit went like:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- installer recognized the disk, OK
> > > 
> > > -- did the 1gb /boot ext2 non-encrypted configured , OK   /dev/sda7
> > > 
> > > -- 150gb partition, planned to be / with everything in it,
> > >    recognized by installer, OK  /dev/sda6
> > > 
> > > -- configured /dev/sda6 to be / and mount-point /  too , OK
> > > 
> > > -- went inside the lvm config/manager 
> > > 
> > > -- added volume group vg1 off of /dev/sda6 , OK
> > > 
> > > -- added logical volume lv1 (inside vg1) , OK
> > 
> > I've never done disk encryption, so I can only speak to the LVM parts
> > of this.
> > 
> > If you're planning to use LVM for everything except /boot, then your
> > third and fourth steps above are incorrect.  You don't want to create
> > a regular root file system on sda6 if you're planning to use sda6 for LVM.
> > 
> > What you want to do instead is:
> > 
> > 1) Create your /boot partition + file system as you did.
> > 
> > 2) Create a partition to hold the LVM subsystem, but do not mount it.
> > 
> > 3) Go into the LVM subsystem, and turn your empty partition into a
> >    volume group.
> > 
> > 4) Create logical volumes within the VG for each file system you want,
> >    including root.
> > 
> > However, since you were trying to do encryption as well, you should
> > definitely look for advice from someone who has done that.
> 
> Between steps 2) and 3) you encrypt the partition.

Well, that's what I do, but if you want to encrypt filesystems
individually then I don't know what the sequence is for that.

-- 
Tixy

Re: encrypt/lvm issue during install.... [WAS: location of screenshots during debian install

[Tixy]

On Wed, 2021-07-28 at 07:54 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:05:54PM -0600, Jupiter777 wrote:
> > so loop-with-no-exit went like:
> > 
> > 
> > -- installer recognized the disk, OK
> > 
> > -- did the 1gb /boot ext2 non-encrypted configured , OK   /dev/sda7
> > 
> > -- 150gb partition, planned to be / with everything in it,
> >    recognized by installer, OK  /dev/sda6
> > 
> > -- configured /dev/sda6 to be / and mount-point /  too , OK
> > 
> > -- went inside the lvm config/manager 
> > 
> > -- added volume group vg1 off of /dev/sda6 , OK
> > 
> > -- added logical volume lv1 (inside vg1) , OK
> 
> I've never done disk encryption, so I can only speak to the LVM parts
> of this.
> 
> If you're planning to use LVM for everything except /boot, then your
> third and fourth steps above are incorrect.  You don't want to create
> a regular root file system on sda6 if you're planning to use sda6 for LVM.
> 
> What you want to do instead is:
> 
> 1) Create your /boot partition + file system as you did.
> 
> 2) Create a partition to hold the LVM subsystem, but do not mount it.
> 
> 3) Go into the LVM subsystem, and turn your empty partition into a
>    volume group.
> 
> 4) Create logical volumes within the VG for each file system you want,
>    including root.
> 
> However, since you were trying to do encryption as well, you should
> definitely look for advice from someone who has done that.

Between steps 2) and 3) you encrypt the partition.

-- 
Tixy

Re: encrypt/lvm issue during install.... [WAS: location of screenshots during debian install

[Greg Wooledge]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:05:54PM -0600, Jupiter777 wrote:
> so loop-with-no-exit went like:
> 
> 
> -- installer recognized the disk, OK
> 
> -- did the 1gb /boot ext2 non-encrypted configured , OK   /dev/sda7
> 
> -- 150gb partition, planned to be / with everything in it,
>recognized by installer, OK  /dev/sda6
> 
> -- configured /dev/sda6 to be / and mount-point /  too , OK
> 
> -- went inside the lvm config/manager 
> 
> -- added volume group vg1 off of /dev/sda6 , OK
> 
> -- added logical volume lv1 (inside vg1) , OK

I've never done disk encryption, so I can only speak to the LVM parts
of this.

If you're planning to use LVM for everything except /boot, then your
third and fourth steps above are incorrect.  You don't want to create
a regular root file system on sda6 if you're planning to use sda6 for LVM.

What you want to do instead is:

1) Create your /boot partition + file system as you did.

2) Create a partition to hold the LVM subsystem, but do not mount it.

3) Go into the LVM subsystem, and turn your empty partition into a
   volume group.

4) Create logical volumes within the VG for each file system you want,
   including root.

However, since you were trying to do encryption as well, you should
definitely look for advice from someone who has done that.

Re: encrypt/lvm issue during install.... [WAS: location of screenshots during debian install

[Jupiter777]

On 2021-07-27 12:53 PM, Brian wrote:

On Tue 27 Jul 2021 at 11:55:32 -0600, Jupiter777 wrote:




On 2021-07-27 06:10 AM, Peter Ehlert wrote:


On 7/27/21 12:14 AM, Jupiter777 wrote:



hello,

I am in the middle of installing buster 10.10.x on my computer.

I see that I can take screenshots as the dialog boxes tell me:

   Screenshot Saved as /var/log/


But /var/log is not on the bootable  usb I am using ...

Where are the screenshots?  I like to  use them for troubleshooting?


short answer: If you complete the installation, the screenshots can also
be found in the directory /var/log/installer/ (after the reboot into the
installed system).

long answer:
https://wiki.debian.org/ScreenShots#Debian_Installer_GUI_screenshots




hello,

no, I can not complete the installation  either because of
what I do or what I don't know (how to do) ...


I was hoping screenshots debian installation advertises
may be something I can use to (a) research the problem on my own
or (b) share it with folks here to get help.


You are obviously trying to help yourself. That is good. Please say
at what stage the installation fails and what you see on the screen
then.






. . . the issue was that I got caught in a seemingly
loop during encryption/lvm portion of partitioning section
of the install! I guess what made it a bit annoying
was that the loop had no exit sign ;-)


here is the sketchy version of the story:

... in Advanced->GUI Expert Install  

in partitioning section one is presented with :

Guided: largest contiguous 

Guided: entire disk (3 of these)

Manual


The 'entire disk' ones would not work for me
as I did not want to destroy the other OS.


The aforementioned loop-with-no-exit occurred in the Manual method.


it *did not* happen in 'Guided: largest contiguous '  and
I finished the install!



so loop-with-no-exit went like:


-- installer recognized the disk, OK

-- did the 1gb /boot ext2 non-encrypted configured , OK   /dev/sda7

-- 150gb partition, planned to be / with everything in it,
   recognized by installer, OK  /dev/sda6

-- configured /dev/sda6 to be / and mount-point /  too , OK

-- went inside the lvm config/manager 

-- added volume group vg1 off of /dev/sda6 , OK

-- added logical volume lv1 (inside vg1) , OK

-- now every time i go back out into the 'encrypt volumes' section
   and tell it to encrypt /dev/sda6 which is / the root, which it does
   encrypt it,  and i get back out in the parent menu, the "/" is lost
and of course at this time choosing 'Finish' or 'Done with this
partition' is  no use since the ultimate result is seeing the famous
   'no root file system is defined'



   at that point, I wish I could delete the lv1 and vg1 and
   start over again in the partitioning section
   of the process or maybe do something else ... but no such luck
   it would not let me and had to power-down the system
   and start from scratch to try something else ..






thank you,

Re: location of screenshots during debian install

[Richard Hector]

On 27/07/21 7:14 pm, Jupiter777 wrote:



hello,

I am in the middle of installing buster 10.10.x on my computer.

I see that I can take screenshots as the dialog boxes tell me:

   Screenshot Saved as /var/log/


But /var/log is not on the bootable  usb I am using ...

Where are the screenshots?  I like to  use them for troubleshooting?


I've never used this facility, so I'm only guessing.

But if they're not on the installer media, then they're presumably on 
the disk you're installing to, which is mounted on /target/ during the 
installation - so /target/var/log/.


Whether and how you can get them off that disk if you haven't finished 
the installation is a different matter, of course :-)


Richard

Re: location of screenshots during debian install

[Brian]

On Tue 27 Jul 2021 at 11:55:32 -0600, Jupiter777 wrote:

> 
> 
> On 2021-07-27 06:10 AM, Peter Ehlert wrote:
> > 
> > On 7/27/21 12:14 AM, Jupiter777 wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > hello,
> > > 
> > > I am in the middle of installing buster 10.10.x on my computer.
> > > 
> > > I see that I can take screenshots as the dialog boxes tell me:
> > > 
> > >   Screenshot Saved as /var/log/
> > > 
> > > 
> > > But /var/log is not on the bootable  usb I am using ...
> > > 
> > > Where are the screenshots?  I like to  use them for troubleshooting?
> > > 
> > short answer: If you complete the installation, the screenshots can also
> > be found in the directory /var/log/installer/ (after the reboot into the
> > installed system).
> > 
> > long answer:
> > https://wiki.debian.org/ScreenShots#Debian_Installer_GUI_screenshots
> > 
> 
> 
> hello,
> 
> no, I can not complete the installation  either because of
> what I do or what I don't know (how to do) ...
> 
> 
> I was hoping screenshots debian installation advertises
> may be something I can use to (a) research the problem on my own
> or (b) share it with folks here to get help.

You are obviously trying to help yourself. That is good. Please say
at what stage the installation fails and what you see on the screen
then.

-- 
Brian.

Re: location of screenshots during debian install

[Hello-World]

On 2021-07-27 12:00 PM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 11:55:32AM -0600, Jupiter777 wrote:

[...]

I can't help you with your install problem: too few details
to venture a try. But:


Also,  thank you for sharing the https://screenshots.debian.net/

Do you know how I can use it?

I mean:  when I click on 'Upload' it appears to me the page is
telling me what I upload "must" be related to some topic or something!


What topic should I choose on the 'Upload' page  on
https://screenshots.debian.net/ ?

I may solve the issue myself but still it's good for me to know
how to use the https://screenshots.debian.net/ .


I think screenshots.debian.net is for people to "see" how software
"looks like": users of some software upload their screenshots for
others to have an idea of the user interface. So it is more kind
of a documentation project.


documentation/documenting is invaluable;

by that token, I certainly  don't want to mess it up
by uploading , in this case, pics of debian install issues
into , let say, ttf-mscorefonts-installer folder 


how can I start a new folder/project/sub-section or whatever is the
terminology ... on https://screenshots.debian.net


thank you,





Cheers
  - t

Re: location of screenshots during debian install

[tomas]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 11:55:32AM -0600, Jupiter777 wrote:

[...]

I can't help you with your install problem: too few details
to venture a try. But:

> Also,  thank you for sharing the https://screenshots.debian.net/
> 
> Do you know how I can use it?
> 
> I mean:  when I click on 'Upload' it appears to me the page is
> telling me what I upload "must" be related to some topic or something!
> 
> 
> What topic should I choose on the 'Upload' page  on
> https://screenshots.debian.net/ ?
> 
> I may solve the issue myself but still it's good for me to know
> how to use the https://screenshots.debian.net/ .

I think screenshots.debian.net is for people to "see" how software
"looks like": users of some software upload their screenshots for
others to have an idea of the user interface. So it is more kind
of a documentation project.

Cheers
 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: location of screenshots during debian install

[Jupiter777]

On 2021-07-27 06:10 AM, Peter Ehlert wrote:


On 7/27/21 12:14 AM, Jupiter777 wrote:



hello,

I am in the middle of installing buster 10.10.x on my computer.

I see that I can take screenshots as the dialog boxes tell me:

  Screenshot Saved as /var/log/


But /var/log is not on the bootable  usb I am using ...

Where are the screenshots?  I like to  use them for troubleshooting?


short answer: If you complete the installation, the screenshots can also
be found in the directory /var/log/installer/ (after the reboot into the
installed system).

long answer:
https://wiki.debian.org/ScreenShots#Debian_Installer_GUI_screenshots




hello,

no, I can not complete the installation  either because of
what I do or what I don't know (how to do) ...


I was hoping screenshots debian installation advertises
may be something I can use to (a) research the problem on my own
or (b) share it with folks here to get help.

since (b) is obviously not an option, I continue on see
how far I can go in the install ...


Also,  thank you for sharing the https://screenshots.debian.net/

Do you know how I can use it?

I mean:  when I click on 'Upload' it appears to me the page is
telling me what I upload "must" be related to some topic or something!


What topic should I choose on the 'Upload' page  on
https://screenshots.debian.net/ ?

I may solve the issue myself but still it's good for me to know
how to use the https://screenshots.debian.net/ .


Thank you,












thank you

Re: location of screenshots during debian install

[Peter Ehlert]

On 7/27/21 12:14 AM, Jupiter777 wrote:



hello,

I am in the middle of installing buster 10.10.x on my computer.

I see that I can take screenshots as the dialog boxes tell me:

  Screenshot Saved as /var/log/


But /var/log is not on the bootable  usb I am using ...

Where are the screenshots?  I like to  use them for troubleshooting?

short answer: If you complete the installation, the screenshots can also 
be found in the directory /var/log/installer/ (after the reboot into the 
installed system).


long answer: 
https://wiki.debian.org/ScreenShots#Debian_Installer_GUI_screenshots




thank you

Re: location of screenshots during debian install

[tomas]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 01:14:36AM -0600, Jupiter777 wrote:
> 
> 
> hello,
> 
> I am in the middle of installing buster 10.10.x on my computer.
> 
> I see that I can take screenshots as the dialog boxes tell me:
> 
>   Screenshot Saved as /var/log/
> 
> 
> But /var/log is not on the bootable  usb I am using ...

Are you using a live distro?

Then /var/log is possibly on a temporary file system: you'd have to
save it (e.g. to another USB stick, to the 'net) before shutting
down.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood you thoroughly.

Cheers
 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: location of screenshots during debian install

[Stella Ashburne]

> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 7:14 AM
> From: "Jupiter777" 
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: location of screenshots during debian install
>
>
> Where are the screenshots?  I like to  use them for troubleshooting?
>

I'm sorry to ask you but have you googled the internet for answers before 
writing to this mailing list?

Based on my experience in asking for help here, Mr David Wright is the one guy 
who doesn't ask you refer to man pages. He's actually quite nice. There's only 
one guy who can match David in both helpfulness and a being a gentleman. You 
can find him in the OpenBSD forum.

And based on my experience as a beginner of all things Linux, man pages are not 
for those who don't have a foundation in computer science like e. The commands 
contained in them aren't accompanied by examples on how to use them. Sure, a 
brief description is given for each command. However, IMHO, it isn't enough to 
help me.

Best regards.

Stella

location of screenshots during debian install

[Jupiter777]

hello,

I am in the middle of installing buster 10.10.x on my computer.

I see that I can take screenshots as the dialog boxes tell me:

  Screenshot Saved as /var/log/


But /var/log is not on the bootable  usb I am using ...

Where are the screenshots?  I like to  use them for troubleshooting?

thank you

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[rhkramer]

On Friday, March 05, 2021 08:44:26 PM David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 05 Mar 2021 at 14:30:30 (-0500), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, March 05, 2021 11:56:24 AM David Wright wrote:
> > > On Thu 04 Mar 2021 at 15:47:37 (-0500), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > If a device is sold on a separate card, it's not necessarily
> > > enough to know the model number of the card. Many "identical"
> > > models are sold with various different chips, which will
> > > require different firmware. You might not know which chip you've
> > > got until you look at the board, or even read its codes from
> > > the dmesg output.
> > > 
> > > Being non-free, the firmware usually originates/d from some
> > > manufacturer or other. If the firmware fails to work with the
> > > device, there's not much that Debian can do about it. It might
> > > be something for some sub-sub-group of the linux kernel people,
> > > if the problem lies in how the driver and firmware interact.
> > > 
> > > So in your scheme, the "unofficial installers" that have to be
> > > "vetted" by someone to confirm they "indeed work on those
> > > hardware configurations" are actually hundreds of different
> > > combinations, each one comprising one particular firmware blob,
> > > 
> > > plus the same old official installer image:
> > >  iwlwifi-100-5.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> > >  iwlwifi-105-6.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> > >  iwlwifi-135-6.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> > >  iwlwifi-1000-5.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> > >  iwlwifi-2000-6.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> > >  iwlwifi-2030-6.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> > >  …  …  …  …  …
> > >  
> > >  ad infinitum …
> > 
> > It would be nice (imho), but may be difficult. ;-)
> 
> Imagine you are part of the team, and you've volunteered to shoulder
> the responsibility for firmware-iwlwifi_20190114-2_all.deb. In order
> to vet it, you have to track down, purchase and install 35 different
> types of wifi "cards", and over half a dozen more for bluetooth. With
> each, you need to run the first half dozen steps of the installer,
> presumably by preseed.
> 
> I wrote "cards" because you're not just juggling PCI cards here, but
> excavating tiny little boards out of the guts of various sorts of
> laptop. But you picked an easy option. Many of the ethernet hardware
> options are integrated with the mobo.
> 
> IMHO, "difficult" doesn't cover it. Nor expensive, nor tedious.

That's not how I would do it, and not what I'm trying to suggest.  If person A 
has hardware B and he tries installer C and it works, he reports (or even 
updates a web page  himself) the point that he successfully used installer C 
on hardware B.

Somebody else might do the same for hardware they have.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[David Wright]

On Fri 05 Mar 2021 at 14:30:30 (-0500), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 05, 2021 11:56:24 AM David Wright wrote:
> > On Thu 04 Mar 2021 at 15:47:37 (-0500), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > If a device is sold on a separate card, it's not necessarily
> > enough to know the model number of the card. Many "identical"
> > models are sold with various different chips, which will
> > require different firmware. You might not know which chip you've
> > got until you look at the board, or even read its codes from
> > the dmesg output.
> > 
> > Being non-free, the firmware usually originates/d from some
> > manufacturer or other. If the firmware fails to work with the
> > device, there's not much that Debian can do about it. It might
> > be something for some sub-sub-group of the linux kernel people,
> > if the problem lies in how the driver and firmware interact.
> > 
> > So in your scheme, the "unofficial installers" that have to be
> > "vetted" by someone to confirm they "indeed work on those
> > hardware configurations" are actually hundreds of different
> > combinations, each one comprising one particular firmware blob,
> > plus the same old official installer image:
> > 
> >  iwlwifi-100-5.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> >  iwlwifi-105-6.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> >  iwlwifi-135-6.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> >  iwlwifi-1000-5.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> >  iwlwifi-2000-6.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> >  iwlwifi-2030-6.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> >  …  …  …  …  …
> > 
> >  ad infinitum …
> 
> It would be nice (imho), but may be difficult. ;-)

Imagine you are part of the team, and you've volunteered to shoulder
the responsibility for firmware-iwlwifi_20190114-2_all.deb. In order
to vet it, you have to track down, purchase and install 35 different
types of wifi "cards", and over half a dozen more for bluetooth. With
each, you need to run the first half dozen steps of the installer,
presumably by preseed.

I wrote "cards" because you're not just juggling PCI cards here, but
excavating tiny little boards out of the guts of various sorts of
laptop. But you picked an easy option. Many of the ethernet hardware
options are integrated with the mobo.

IMHO, "difficult" doesn't cover it. Nor expensive, nor tedious.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[rhkramer]

On Friday, March 05, 2021 11:56:24 AM David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 04 Mar 2021 at 15:47:37 (-0500), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:



> If a device is sold on a separate card, it's not necessarily
> enough to know the model number of the card. Many "identical"
> models are sold with various different chips, which will
> require different firmware. You might not know which chip you've
> got until you look at the board, or even read its codes from
> the dmesg output.
> 
> Being non-free, the firmware usually originates/d from some
> manufacturer or other. If the firmware fails to work with the
> device, there's not much that Debian can do about it. It might
> be something for some sub-sub-group of the linux kernel people,
> if the problem lies in how the driver and firmware interact.
> 
> So in your scheme, the "unofficial installers" that have to be
> "vetted" by someone to confirm they "indeed work on those
> hardware configurations" are actually hundreds of different
> combinations, each one comprising one particular firmware blob,
> plus the same old official installer image:
> 
>  iwlwifi-100-5.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
>  iwlwifi-105-6.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
>  iwlwifi-135-6.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
>  iwlwifi-1000-5.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
>  iwlwifi-2000-6.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
>  iwlwifi-2030-6.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
>  …  …  …  …  …
> 
>  ad infinitum …

It would be nice (imho), but may be difficult. ;-)

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[David Wright]

On Thu 04 Mar 2021 at 15:47:37 (-0500), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 04, 2021 12:40:00 PM David Wright wrote:
> > On Wed 03 Mar 2021 at 10:36:42 (-0500), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 10:01:09 PM David Wright wrote:
> > Brian wrote: '"+1" for what? Advertising each and every non-Debian
> > installer that comes along and is uploaded to unofficial?'
> > 
> > > > I was under the impression that "The Debian Images Team is a small
> > > > team of people working on creating, testing and distributing Debian
> > > > images for [us]", whereas you seem to be describing something like
> > > > a wiki where any Tom, Dick or Harry dumps their cobbled together
> > > > installer.
> > > 
> > > Well, until and unless some person or group tries to vet those Debian
> > > installation images, that may be the best that can be done.
> > 
> > You cut the context. 
> 
> > They wouldn't be "Debian installation images",
> > but "non-Debian installers", as quoted above.
> 
> Ok.
> > 
> > I don't want non-Debian installers on cdimage.debian.org, official
> > or unofficial. Do bear in mind that the debian-installer in the
> > official image is the same debian-installer as in the unofficial
> > image. The latter image just contains some extra files, almost
> > all of which originate from the kernel team or Debian.
> > 
> > What I did suggest go into a wiki was the *method* of extracting
> > firmware from a particular driver. I notice that there is already
> > one fwcutter in my unofficial image (for Broadcom B54xx), but
> > I don't know how it works, nor whether it works in the same way
> > as one for the p54usb would.
> > 
> > > It would be nicer if there was some person or group that tried to vet
> > > them, or maybe even suggesting that something like a requirement that at
> > > least one other person attest that an installation image worked for them
> > > (on the target hardware).
> > 
> > AIUI the Debian Install System Team build the Debian installer, and
> > the aforementioned Debian Images Team put it into the unofficial
> > images, along with some extra .debs and a couple of Packages files.
> > So I'm not sure I understand exactly what this person/group would
> > be expected to vet.
> 
> If there are non-free non-official Debian installers that add non-free 
> firmware 
> or such in order to install on specific hardware, the vetting would be to 
> have 
> someone else confirm that the install did indeed work on that hardware.
> 
> Maybe I've confused this thread, but all that I'm trying to say is that:
> If:
>1) the official Debian installer will not work on some hardware 
> configurations, 
> and 
>2) the only Debian installer listed on the main page of debian.org is that 
> official one
> Then:
> 
>1) I'd like to see a (non-snarky) note on that main page that points out 
> that installer may not work for everyone, and a little bit about why 
> (hardware 
> that doesn't have free drivers or firmware or such)

Agreed, and I think there may have been recent improvements.

> and
> 
>2) it should include a link to some place (not necessarily the wiki you 
> envision), and not necessarily on debian.org (but I think that would be good) 
> to installers that work with various hardware configuraions that don't work 
> with the official installer

Ditto.

IMO it's important that each link to the official downloads is
accompanied by one to the unofficial ones. Otherwise the effect
is like letting go of a blind person's arm without first ensuring
that they know they've reached their destination.

> and
> 
>3) as mentioned above, it would be nice if those unofficial installers 
> have 
> been vetted by someone to confirm they indeed work on those hardware 
> configurations.

Take amd64 PCs as an example, being perhaps the most popular
variety. There's an installer, DI, for that architecture. It's
bundled in various ways, depending on size of medium (CD/DVD)
and size of download (netinst/xfce). So for netinst, one arrives
at https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/iso-cd/

The official images contain myriads of hardware drivers, most of
them from the linux kernel tree, to make them work on "those
hardware configurations", as you put it.

However, as you know, they lack the firmware that typically makes
the chip on the board know how to do what it does. The unofficial
*images* contain a collection of .debs, each of which contains
related or unrelated collections of firmware in various revisions.

In the example that 

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Steve McIntyre]

Brian wrote:
>On Thu 04 Mar 2021 at 11:40:00 -0600, David Wright wrote:
>
>> On Wed 03 Mar 2021 at 10:36:42 (-0500), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>> > It would be nicer if there was some person or group that tried to vet 
>> > them, or 
>> > maybe even suggesting that something like a requirement that at least one 
>> > other person attest that an installation image worked for them (on the 
>> > target 
>> > hardware).
>> 
>> AIUI the Debian Install System Team build the Debian installer, and
>
>That's certainly correct. The effort put into this deserves to be better
>appreciated. They provide a free installer of high quality.
>
>> the aforementioned Debian Images Team put it into the unofficial
>> images, along with some extra .debs and a couple of Packages files.
>> So I'm not sure I understand exactly what this person/group would
>> be expected to vet.
>
>I am less sure that the Debian Images Team interact wih unofficial.
>I'd be inclined to say that the conribution in unofficial is from a
>DD, who may or not be part of the installer team. It is "unofficail"
>after all.

Time to set this straight, I think...

I'm the team lead and main developer in the Debian Images Team (aka
debian-cd), and I have been for many years now. *I* did the work to
add the unofficial images that include non-free firmware. They're
produced on the same machine as our official images, using the same
software to build them. There's just some small config tweaks, that's
all.

In our team, we are ~always looking for more people to help, both for
testing and development. We're a small group of volunteers, and we're
all also busy doing other things in Debian too. This is the pattern
for most Debian developers, in fact

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
"You can't barbecue lettuce!" -- Ellie Crane

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[rhkramer]

On Thursday, March 04, 2021 12:40:00 PM David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 03 Mar 2021 at 10:36:42 (-0500), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 10:01:09 PM David Wright wrote:
> Brian wrote: '"+1" for what? Advertising each and every non-Debian
> installer that comes along and is uploaded to unofficial?'
> 
> > > I was under the impression that "The Debian Images Team is a small
> > > team of people working on creating, testing and distributing Debian
> > > images for [us]", whereas you seem to be describing something like
> > > a wiki where any Tom, Dick or Harry dumps their cobbled together
> > > installer.
> > 
> > Well, until and unless some person or group tries to vet those Debian
> > installation images, that may be the best that can be done.
> 
> You cut the context. 





> They wouldn't be "Debian installation images",
> but "non-Debian installers", as quoted above.

Ok.


> 
> I don't want non-Debian installers on cdimage.debian.org, official
> or unofficial. Do bear in mind that the debian-installer in the
> official image is the same debian-installer as in the unofficial
> image. The latter image just contains some extra files, almost
> all of which originate from the kernel team or Debian.
> 
> What I did suggest go into a wiki was the *method* of extracting
> firmware from a particular driver. I notice that there is already
> one fwcutter in my unofficial image (for Broadcom B54xx), but
> I don't know how it works, nor whether it works in the same way
> as one for the p54usb would.
> 
> > It would be nicer if there was some person or group that tried to vet
> > them, or maybe even suggesting that something like a requirement that at
> > least one other person attest that an installation image worked for them
> > (on the target hardware).
> 
> AIUI the Debian Install System Team build the Debian installer, and
> the aforementioned Debian Images Team put it into the unofficial
> images, along with some extra .debs and a couple of Packages files.
> So I'm not sure I understand exactly what this person/group would
> be expected to vet.

If there are non-free non-official Debian installers that add non-free firmware 
or such in order to install on specific hardware, the vetting would be to have 
someone else confirm that the install did indeed work on that hardware.

Maybe I've confused this thread, but all that I'm trying to say is that:

If:

   1) the official Debian installer will not work on some hardware 
configurations, 

and 

   2) the only Debian installer listed on the main page of debian.org is that 
official one

Then:

   1) I'd like to see a (non-snarky) note on that main page that points out 
that installer may not work for everyone, and a little bit about why (hardware 
that doesn't have free drivers or firmware or such)

and

   2) it should include a link to some place (not necessarily the wiki you 
envision), and not necessarily on debian.org (but I think that would be good) 
to installers that work with various hardware configuraions that don't work 
with the official installer

and

   3) as mentioned above, it would be nice if those unofficial installers have 
been vetted by someone to confirm they indeed work on those hardware 
configurations.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Brian]

On Thu 04 Mar 2021 at 11:40:00 -0600, David Wright wrote:

> On Wed 03 Mar 2021 at 10:36:42 (-0500), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > It would be nicer if there was some person or group that tried to vet them, 
> > or 
> > maybe even suggesting that something like a requirement that at least one 
> > other person attest that an installation image worked for them (on the 
> > target 
> > hardware).
> 
> AIUI the Debian Install System Team build the Debian installer, and

That's certainly correct. The effort put into this deserves to be better
appreciated. They provide a free installer of high quality.

> the aforementioned Debian Images Team put it into the unofficial
> images, along with some extra .debs and a couple of Packages files.
> So I'm not sure I understand exactly what this person/group would
> be expected to vet.

I am less sure that the Debian Images Team interact wih unofficial.
I'd be inclined to say that the conribution in unofficial is from a
DD, who may or not be part of the installer team. It is "unofficail"
after all.

-- 
Brian.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[David Wright]

On Thu 04 Mar 2021 at 10:54:14 (+), Leandro neto wrote:
>  I volunteer to be [ ] a mirror on Rio de Janeiro Brasil. I build computers 
> but I don't know about programming leandro

AIUI we're not talking about mirrors, but about building the software
that might eventually be mirrored.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[David Wright]

On Wed 03 Mar 2021 at 10:36:42 (-0500), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 10:01:09 PM David Wright wrote:

Brian wrote: '"+1" for what? Advertising each and every non-Debian
installer that comes along and is uploaded to unofficial?'

> > I was under the impression that "The Debian Images Team is a small
> > team of people working on creating, testing and distributing Debian
> > images for [us]", whereas you seem to be describing something like
> > a wiki where any Tom, Dick or Harry dumps their cobbled together
> > installer.
> 
> Well, until and unless some person or group tries to vet those Debian 
> installation images, that may be the best that can be done.  

You cut the context. They wouldn't be "Debian installation images",
but "non-Debian installers", as quoted above.

I don't want non-Debian installers on cdimage.debian.org, official
or unofficial. Do bear in mind that the debian-installer in the
official image is the same debian-installer as in the unofficial
image. The latter image just contains some extra files, almost
all of which originate from the kernel team or Debian.

What I did suggest go into a wiki was the *method* of extracting
firmware from a particular driver. I notice that there is already
one fwcutter in my unofficial image (for Broadcom B54xx), but
I don't know how it works, nor whether it works in the same way
as one for the p54usb would.

> It would be nicer if there was some person or group that tried to vet them, 
> or 
> maybe even suggesting that something like a requirement that at least one 
> other person attest that an installation image worked for them (on the target 
> hardware).

AIUI the Debian Install System Team build the Debian installer, and
the aforementioned Debian Images Team put it into the unofficial
images, along with some extra .debs and a couple of Packages files.
So I'm not sure I understand exactly what this person/group would
be expected to vet.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Leandro neto]

 

 I volunteer to beca mirror on Rio de Janeiro Brasil. I build computers but I don't know about programming leandro
 
 Enviado via UOL Mail


 
 _
Assunto: Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]
De: rhkra...@gmail.com
Enviado em: 3 de março de 2021 12:37
Para: debian-user@lists.debian.org


On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 10:01:09 PM David Wright wrote:
> I was under the impression that "The Debian Images Team is a small
> team of people working on creating, testing and distributing Debian
> images for [us]", whereas you seem to be describing something like
> a wiki where any Tom, Dick or Harry dumps their cobbled together
> installer.

Well, until and unless some person or group tries to vet those Debian 
installation images, that may be the best that can be done.  

It would be nicer if there was some person or group that tried to vet them, or 
maybe even suggesting that something like a requirement that at least one 
other person attest that an installation image worked for them (on the target 
hardware).

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Curt]

On 2021-03-03, rhkra...@gmail.com  wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 10:01:09 PM David Wright wrote:
>> I was under the impression that "The Debian Images Team is a small
>> team of people working on creating, testing and distributing Debian
>> images for [us]", whereas you seem to be describing something like
>> a wiki where any Tom, Dick or Harry dumps their cobbled together
>> installer.
>
> Well, until and unless some person or group tries to vet those Debian 
> installation images, that may be the best that can be done.  
>
> It would be nicer if there was some person or group that tried to vet them, 
> or 
> maybe even suggesting that something like a requirement that at least one 
> other person attest that an installation image worked for them (on the target 
> hardware).

It's when you don't know what you don't know that you need to know it.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[rhkramer]

On Wednesday, March 03, 2021 06:15:03 PM Brian wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 03, 2021 03:18:25 PM Brian wrote:

> > A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
> > problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users
> > with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is
> > advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better
> > (non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
> > mind!
> 
> Indeed, that was my characteristion of the issue. However, it appears
> to have been addressed by the copious links now existing on the Debian
> website.

I'm not sure the escape route is all that obvious, but if you don't have a 
problem, and nobody else has a problem, I guess I don't have a problem.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Brian]

On Wed 03 Mar 2021 at 16:41:18 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 03, 2021 03:18:25 PM Brian wrote:
> > There are at least half a dozen www.debian.org pages that point to a
> > non-Debian installation image. Andrei POPESCU has given one route:
> > 
> >   https://www.debian.org/distrib/
> > 
> > What's the problem?
> 
> I thought the problem was as described in this from Brian:
> 
> Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]
> From: Brian  (resent from debian-user@lists.debian.org)
>   To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>   Date: Fri Feb 26 13:41:40 2021
> 
> ...
> 
> A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
> problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users
> with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is
> advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better
> (non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
> mind!

Indeed, that was my characteristion of the issue. However, it appears
to have been addressed by the copious links now existing on the Debian
website.

-- 
Brian.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[rhkramer]

On Wednesday, March 03, 2021 03:18:25 PM Brian wrote:
> There are at least half a dozen www.debian.org pages that point to a
> non-Debian installation image. Andrei POPESCU has given one route:
> 
>   https://www.debian.org/distrib/
> 
> What's the problem?

I thought the problem was as described in this from Brian:

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]
From: Brian  (resent from debian-user@lists.debian.org)
  To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
  Date: Fri Feb 26 13:41:40 2021

...

A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users
with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is
advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better
(non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
mind!

-- 
Brian.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Brian]

On Wed 03 Mar 2021 at 10:27:42 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 06:29:15 PM Brian wrote:
> > On Tue 02 Mar 2021 at 16:19:45 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 02:55:08 PM Brian wrote:
> > > > On Mon 01 Mar 2021 at 08:13:13 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > > No.  Providing a reasonable explanatory text about why some other
> > > installer may be required and a link to a place where you can find one
> > > or more.
> > 
> > My installer is aimed at users with an adapter that uses the p54usb
> > driver. It requires firmware that needs to be extracted from the device
> > and there aren't any such files in the non-free archive. I imagine there
> > are other similar devices.
> > 
> > I can easlily provide explanatory text about why my installer is needed
> > and why it would benefit users. Would it be ok to have it in unofficial
> > as a non-Debian installer?
> > 
> > Just a thought!
> 
> If you're asking me specifically, I'll say fine with me, as long as there is 
> something on the official installer page that reasonably "nicely" explains 
> that 
> some people may require an unofficial installer, and a little bit about why, 
> and 
> points to a page that leads that person to a variety of installers that might 
> fill her needs.
> 
> Others may have additional (or different) thoughts.

There are at least half a dozen www.debian.org pages that point to a
non-Debian installation image. Andrei POPESCU has given one route:

  https://www.debian.org/distrib/

What's the problem?

-- 
Brian.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Brian]

On Tue 02 Mar 2021 at 21:01:09 -0600, David Wright wrote:

> On Tue 02 Mar 2021 at 23:29:15 (+), Brian wrote:

[...]

> > > > "+1" for what? Advertising each and every non-Debian installer that
> > > > comes along and is uploaded to unofficial?
> 
> I was under the impression that "The Debian Images Team is a small
> team of people working on creating, testing and distributing Debian
> images for [us]", whereas you seem to be describing something like
> a wiki where any Tom, Dick or Harry dumps their cobbled together
> installer.

Not at all. I specifically had in mind DDs who devise installation
images that are uploaded to unofficial. Are these to be advertised
alongside what is there now?
 
> > My installer is aimed at users with an adapter that uses the p54usb
> > driver. It requires firmware that needs to be extracted from the device
> > and there aren't any such files in the non-free archive. I imagine there
> > are other similar devices.
> > 
> > I can easlily provide explanatory text about why my installer is needed
> > and why it would benefit users. Would it be ok to have it in unofficial
> > as a non-Debian installer?
> 
> Extracting firmware from the device itself is something I've never had
> to do, and wouldn't know where to get started. That might be the sort
> of process to describe in the Firmware wiki, under "Location of
> firmware files".
> 
> Having extracted it, the "naive" user might then follow the
> instructions in the Installation Guide, of course, and then wonder
> why the d-i wouldn't find and load it.

This touches on where in the BTS to report a problem with a non-Debian
installation image.

-- 
Brian.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[rhkramer]

On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 10:01:09 PM David Wright wrote:
> I was under the impression that "The Debian Images Team is a small
> team of people working on creating, testing and distributing Debian
> images for [us]", whereas you seem to be describing something like
> a wiki where any Tom, Dick or Harry dumps their cobbled together
> installer.

Well, until and unless some person or group tries to vet those Debian 
installation images, that may be the best that can be done.  

It would be nicer if there was some person or group that tried to vet them, or 
maybe even suggesting that something like a requirement that at least one 
other person attest that an installation image worked for them (on the target 
hardware).

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[rhkramer]

On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 06:29:15 PM Brian wrote:
> On Tue 02 Mar 2021 at 16:19:45 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 02:55:08 PM Brian wrote:
> > > On Mon 01 Mar 2021 at 08:13:13 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

> > No.  Providing a reasonable explanatory text about why some other
> > installer may be required and a link to a place where you can find one
> > or more.
> 
> My installer is aimed at users with an adapter that uses the p54usb
> driver. It requires firmware that needs to be extracted from the device
> and there aren't any such files in the non-free archive. I imagine there
> are other similar devices.
> 
> I can easlily provide explanatory text about why my installer is needed
> and why it would benefit users. Would it be ok to have it in unofficial
> as a non-Debian installer?
> 
> Just a thought!

If you're asking me specifically, I'll say fine with me, as long as there is 
something on the official installer page that reasonably "nicely" explains that 
some people may require an unofficial installer, and a little bit about why, 
and 
points to a page that leads that person to a variety of installers that might 
fill her needs.

Others may have additional (or different) thoughts.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[David Wright]

On Tue 02 Mar 2021 at 23:29:15 (+), Brian wrote:
> On Tue 02 Mar 2021 at 16:19:45 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 02:55:08 PM Brian wrote:
> > > On Mon 01 Mar 2021 at 08:13:13 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, February 28, 2021 12:03:31 PM Celejar wrote:
> > > > > "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require
> > > > > non-free firmware to function properly. This firmware is not included
> > > > > in the standard installation images, due to Debian's free software
> > > > > ideals. If the network hardware your installation will rely upon
> > > > > requires such firmware, you may consider using the alternate non-free
> > > > > installation images available here."
> > > > 
> > > > +1
> > > 
> > > "+1" for what? Advertising each and every non-Debian installer that
> > > comes along and is uploaded to unofficial?

I was under the impression that "The Debian Images Team is a small
team of people working on creating, testing and distributing Debian
images for [us]", whereas you seem to be describing something like
a wiki where any Tom, Dick or Harry dumps their cobbled together
installer.

> > No.  Providing a reasonable explanatory text about why some other installer 
> > may be required and a link to a place where you can find one or more.
> 
> My installer is aimed at users with an adapter that uses the p54usb
> driver. It requires firmware that needs to be extracted from the device
> and there aren't any such files in the non-free archive. I imagine there
> are other similar devices.
> 
> I can easlily provide explanatory text about why my installer is needed
> and why it would benefit users. Would it be ok to have it in unofficial
> as a non-Debian installer?

Extracting firmware from the device itself is something I've never had
to do, and wouldn't know where to get started. That might be the sort
of process to describe in the Firmware wiki, under "Location of
firmware files".

Having extracted it, the "naive" user might then follow the
instructions in the Installation Guide, of course, and then wonder
why the d-i wouldn't find and load it.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[mick crane]

On 2021-03-02 23:29, Brian wrote:

On Tue 02 Mar 2021 at 16:19:45 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:


On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 02:55:08 PM Brian wrote:
> On Mon 01 Mar 2021 at 08:13:13 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2021 12:03:31 PM Celejar wrote:
> > > "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require
> > > non-free firmware to function properly. This firmware is not included
> > > in the standard installation images, due to Debian's free software
> > > ideals. If the network hardware your installation will rely upon
> > > requires such firmware, you may consider using the alternate non-free
> > > installation images available here."
> >
> > +1
>
> "+1" for what? Advertising each and every non-Debian installer that
> comes along and is uploaded to unofficial?

No.  Providing a reasonable explanatory text about why some other 
installer

may be required and a link to a place where you can find one or more.


My installer is aimed at users with an adapter that uses the p54usb
driver. It requires firmware that needs to be extracted from the device
and there aren't any such files in the non-free archive. I imagine 
there

are other similar devices.

I can easlily provide explanatory text about why my installer is needed
and why it would benefit users. Would it be ok to have it in unofficial
as a non-Debian installer?

Just a thought!


The suggestion somebody made of having a tethered phone plugged into USB 
in case non-free drivers are required for network after installation 
seemed like a good one.


mick

--
Key ID4BFEBB31

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Brian]

On Tue 02 Mar 2021 at 16:19:45 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 02:55:08 PM Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 01 Mar 2021 at 08:13:13 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 28, 2021 12:03:31 PM Celejar wrote:
> > > > "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require
> > > > non-free firmware to function properly. This firmware is not included
> > > > in the standard installation images, due to Debian's free software
> > > > ideals. If the network hardware your installation will rely upon
> > > > requires such firmware, you may consider using the alternate non-free
> > > > installation images available here."
> > > 
> > > +1
> > 
> > "+1" for what? Advertising each and every non-Debian installer that
> > comes along and is uploaded to unofficial?
> 
> No.  Providing a reasonable explanatory text about why some other installer 
> may be required and a link to a place where you can find one or more.

My installer is aimed at users with an adapter that uses the p54usb
driver. It requires firmware that needs to be extracted from the device
and there aren't any such files in the non-free archive. I imagine there
are other similar devices.

I can easlily provide explanatory text about why my installer is needed
and why it would benefit users. Would it be ok to have it in unofficial
as a non-Debian installer?

Just a thought!

-- 
Brian.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[rhkramer]

On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 02:55:08 PM Brian wrote:
> On Mon 01 Mar 2021 at 08:13:13 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2021 12:03:31 PM Celejar wrote:
> > > "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require
> > > non-free firmware to function properly. This firmware is not included
> > > in the standard installation images, due to Debian's free software
> > > ideals. If the network hardware your installation will rely upon
> > > requires such firmware, you may consider using the alternate non-free
> > > installation images available here."
> > 
> > +1
> 
> "+1" for what? Advertising each and every non-Debian installer that
> comes along and is uploaded to unofficial?

No.  Providing a reasonable explanatory text about why some other installer 
may be required and a link to a place where you can find one or more.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Brian]

On Mon 01 Mar 2021 at 08:13:13 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, February 28, 2021 12:03:31 PM Celejar wrote:
> > "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require
> > non-free firmware to function properly. This firmware is not included
> > in the standard installation images, due to Debian's free software
> > ideals. If the network hardware your installation will rely upon
> > requires such firmware, you may consider using the alternate non-free
> > installation images available here."
> 
> +1

"+1" for what? Advertising each and every non-Debian installer that
comes along and is uploaded to unofficial?

-- 
Brian.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Brian]

On Mon 01 Mar 2021 at 11:29:57 +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Du, 28 feb 21, 12:03:31, Celejar wrote:
> > 
> > Snark aside, what's wrong with something like this:
> > 
> > "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require
> > non-free firmware to function properly. This firmware is not included
> > in the standard installation images, due to Debian's free software
> > ideals. If the network hardware your installation will rely upon
> > requires such firmware, you may consider using the alternate non-free
> > installation images available here."
> 
> For those who didn't visit the Debian website recently, following the 
> discussion on debian-devel this is now two clicks away from the home 
> page (-> More... -> Download: More variants of Debian images):
> 
> https://www.debian.org/distrib/
> 
> If any of the hardware in your system requires non-free firmware to 
> be loaded with the device driver, you can use one of the tarballs of 
> common firmware packages or download an unofficial image including 
> these non-free firmwares.
> 
> Instructions how to use the tarballs and general information about 
> loading firmware during an installation can be found in the 
> Installation Guide.
> 
> unofficial installation images for "stable" with firmware included

The page https://www.debian.org/distrib/ is entitled "Getting Debian".
And what is Debian? asks a user. The answer is at

  https://www.debian.org/intro/philosophy

  > The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made
  > common cause to create a **free** operating system.

(Emphasis is mine).

Then, at the bottom of https://www.debian.org/distrib/, we see an advert
to download an unofficial image of the installer. "unofficial" is mealy-
mouthed. What is meant is "non-free". What it says is "Hey, we have a
better installation image for you but we had to sneak it in here because
of the Debian thing" :).

The Installer is the Jewel in the Crown of Debian. Tainting it and having
it competing is a new development. I am all for being pragmatic, but
usurping the Installer's status appears a step too far.

-- 
Brian.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Brian]

On Mon 01 Mar 2021 at 10:23:51 +, David Goodenough wrote:

> How is a naive user meant to know whether his hardware required
> non-free firmware?

That's a very tricky one to give a definitive answer to. It possibly
depends on the quality and quantity of research done by the user.
Howerever, the user has to get an ISO from somewhere and could come
across the text that Andrei quotes. If difficulties are encountered,
returning there to get another image is an option.

-- 
Brian.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[rhkramer]

On Sunday, February 28, 2021 12:03:31 PM Celejar wrote:
> "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require
> non-free firmware to function properly. This firmware is not included
> in the standard installation images, due to Debian's free software
> ideals. If the network hardware your installation will rely upon
> requires such firmware, you may consider using the alternate non-free
> installation images available here."

+1

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Celejar]

[Fixed top-posting.]

On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 10:23:51 +
David Goodenough  wrote:

> On Monday, 1 March 2021 09:29:57 GMT Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Du, 28 feb 21, 12:03:31, Celejar wrote:
> > > Snark aside, what's wrong with something like this:
> > > 
> > > "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require
> > > non-free firmware to function properly. This firmware is not included
> > > in the standard installation images, due to Debian's free software
> > > ideals. If the network hardware your installation will rely upon
> > > requires such firmware, you may consider using the alternate non-free
> > > installation images available here."
> > 
> > For those who didn't visit the Debian website recently, following the
> > discussion on debian-devel this is now two clicks away from the home
> > page (-> More... -> Download: More variants of Debian images):
> > 
> > https://www.debian.org/distrib/
> > 
> > If any of the hardware in your system requires non-free firmware to
> > be loaded with the device driver, you can use one of the tarballs of
> > common firmware packages or download an unofficial image including
> > these non-free firmwares.
> > 
> > Instructions how to use the tarballs and general information about
> > loading firmware during an installation can be found in the
> > Installation Guide.
> > 
> > unofficial installation images for "stable" with firmware included

> How is a naive user meant to know whether his hardware required non-free 
> firmware?  
> The only route that seems to be given by this wording is that they install 
> (or try to install) 
> the system using the official image, and then have to work out for themselves 
> what does 
> not work, and from that which unofficial image to use.  
> 
> Could the installer not help here by identifying hardware it can not support 
> but which an 
> unofficial image does support and point the user in the right 
> direction?  Yes the knowledge of which hardware exists changes over time, and 
> after the 
> installer is built, but if the unofficial images had machine readable 
> descriptors on the 
> debian web site of what they support (which would be updated each time a new 
> image 
> was added) then the installer could consult this and thus be able to give the 
> best available 
> advice.

It's even worse than that - as I reported here:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=895258

in at least some cases, if NIC firmware is missing, the installer will
simply display the rather unhelpful message: "Network configuration
failure," with no hint of what the problem might actually be. A savvy user
will know to look in the logs, where the problem is made quite clear,
but the installer itself could certainly do with some improvement.

Celejar

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[David Goodenough]

How is a naive user meant to know whether his hardware required non-free 
firmware?  
The only route that seems to be given by this wording is that they install (or 
try to install) 
the system using the official image, and then have to work out for themselves 
what does 
not work, and from that which unofficial image to use.  

Could the installer not help here by identifying hardware it can not support 
but which an 
unofficial image does support and point the user in the right 
direction?  Yes the knowledge of which hardware exists changes over time, and 
after the 
installer is built, but if the unofficial images had machine readable 
descriptors on the 
debian web site of what they support (which would be updated each time a new 
image 
was added) then the installer could consult this and thus be able to give the 
best available 
advice.

On Monday, 1 March 2021 09:29:57 GMT Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Du, 28 feb 21, 12:03:31, Celejar wrote:
> > Snark aside, what's wrong with something like this:
> > 
> > "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require
> > non-free firmware to function properly. This firmware is not included
> > in the standard installation images, due to Debian's free software
> > ideals. If the network hardware your installation will rely upon
> > requires such firmware, you may consider using the alternate non-free
> > installation images available here."
> 
> For those who didn't visit the Debian website recently, following the
> discussion on debian-devel this is now two clicks away from the home
> page (-> More... -> Download: More variants of Debian images):
> 
> https://www.debian.org/distrib/
> 
> If any of the hardware in your system requires non-free firmware to
> be loaded with the device driver, you can use one of the tarballs of
> common firmware packages or download an unofficial image including
> these non-free firmwares.
> 
> Instructions how to use the tarballs and general information about
> loading firmware during an installation can be found in the
> Installation Guide.
> 
> unofficial installation images for "stable" with firmware included
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> Andrei

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Du, 28 feb 21, 12:03:31, Celejar wrote:
> 
> Snark aside, what's wrong with something like this:
> 
> "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require
> non-free firmware to function properly. This firmware is not included
> in the standard installation images, due to Debian's free software
> ideals. If the network hardware your installation will rely upon
> requires such firmware, you may consider using the alternate non-free
> installation images available here."

For those who didn't visit the Debian website recently, following the 
discussion on debian-devel this is now two clicks away from the home 
page (-> More... -> Download: More variants of Debian images):

https://www.debian.org/distrib/

If any of the hardware in your system requires non-free firmware to 
be loaded with the device driver, you can use one of the tarballs of 
common firmware packages or download an unofficial image including 
these non-free firmwares.

Instructions how to use the tarballs and general information about 
loading firmware during an installation can be found in the 
Installation Guide.

unofficial installation images for "stable" with firmware included


Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Brian]

On Sun 28 Feb 2021 at 14:27:24 -0500, Celejar wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:11:51 +
> Brian  wrote:
> 
> > On Sun 28 Feb 2021 at 12:03:31 -0500, Celejar wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 22:49:58 +
> > > Brian  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Fri 26 Feb 2021 at 16:28:56 -0500, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: 
> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:41:40PM +, Brian wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
> > > > > > > problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users
> > > > > > > with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is
> > > > > > > advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better
> > > > > > > (non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
> > > > > > > mind!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > No easy solution to that, sigh.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sure there is -- add a link directly underneath it saying "if
> > > > > you require wireless connectivity during the installation, you
> > > > > may need to use this [link: alternate installer]."
> > > > 
> > > > "if you require wireless connectivity during the installation, we
> > > > have a much better installer for you. [link: alternate installer]."
> > > > 
> > > > (Don't ask ask why the inferior installer is prominent :).)
> > > 
> > > Snark aside, what's wrong with something like this:
> > > 
> > > "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require
> > > non-free firmware to function properly. This firmware is not included
> > > in the standard installation images, due to Debian's free software
> > > ideals. If the network hardware your installation will rely upon
> > > requires such firmware, you may consider using the alternate non-free
> > > installation images available here."
> > 
> > Submitted as a bug against www.debian.org, it could fly. However,
> > the word "standard" seems superfluous. It implies the existemce of
> > non-standard (non-free?) installer images and these, of course,
> > would not be capable of distribution. Bear in mind there is only
> 
> I don't think I really understand your points - as per others posts in
> this thread, there are certainly things that are entirely "capable of
> distribution" but Debian still will not include in the standard
> installation (for reasons that I completely respect). This is exactly
> what the "unofficial" images are - they contain "proprietary but
> redistributable firmware," and Debian is willing to distribute them
> from project architecture, just not as a "standard" (my term) installer:
> 
> https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/

Presumabely, this space

  https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/

could contain as many packages as there are developers willing to
commit packages there, free or non-free. Or is it reserved only for
the specific images we are discussing? In the case of installer
images, could there be many official "non-official" offerings?

It is as well to note that non-free is not considered to be part of
Debian:

  https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html

Your patch to the main web page could be submitted. I acknowledge the
visibilty issue. Whether the suggestion is accepted or not might 
clarify things.

-- 
Brian.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Celejar]

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:11:51 +
Brian  wrote:

> On Sun 28 Feb 2021 at 12:03:31 -0500, Celejar wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 22:49:58 +
> > Brian  wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri 26 Feb 2021 at 16:28:56 -0500, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > 
> > > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: 
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:41:40PM +, Brian wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > 
> > > > > > A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
> > > > > > problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users
> > > > > > with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is
> > > > > > advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better
> > > > > > (non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
> > > > > > mind!
> > > > > 
> > > > > No easy solution to that, sigh.
> > > > 
> > > > Sure there is -- add a link directly underneath it saying "if
> > > > you require wireless connectivity during the installation, you
> > > > may need to use this [link: alternate installer]."
> > > 
> > > "if you require wireless connectivity during the installation, we
> > > have a much better installer for you. [link: alternate installer]."
> > > 
> > > (Don't ask ask why the inferior installer is prominent :).)
> > 
> > Snark aside, what's wrong with something like this:
> > 
> > "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require
> > non-free firmware to function properly. This firmware is not included
> > in the standard installation images, due to Debian's free software
> > ideals. If the network hardware your installation will rely upon
> > requires such firmware, you may consider using the alternate non-free
> > installation images available here."
> 
> Submitted as a bug against www.debian.org, it could fly. However,
> the word "standard" seems superfluous. It implies the existemce of
> non-standard (non-free?) installer images and these, of course,
> would not be capable of distribution. Bear in mind there is only

I don't think I really understand your points - as per others posts in
this thread, there are certainly things that are entirely "capable of
distribution" but Debian still will not include in the standard
installation (for reasons that I completely respect). This is exactly
what the "unofficial" images are - they contain "proprietary but
redistributable firmware," and Debian is willing to distribute them
from project architecture, just not as a "standard" (my term) installer:

https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/

> one true installer.
> 
> As for "alternate"; how can a non-free image be an alternative to
> a free one and be promoted for download on the Debian main page?

Celejar

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Brian]

On Sun 28 Feb 2021 at 12:03:31 -0500, Celejar wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 22:49:58 +
> Brian  wrote:
> 
> > On Fri 26 Feb 2021 at 16:28:56 -0500, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > 
> > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: 
> > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:41:40PM +, Brian wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > [...]
> > > > 
> > > > > A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
> > > > > problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users
> > > > > with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is
> > > > > advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better
> > > > > (non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
> > > > > mind!
> > > > 
> > > > No easy solution to that, sigh.
> > > 
> > > Sure there is -- add a link directly underneath it saying "if
> > > you require wireless connectivity during the installation, you
> > > may need to use this [link: alternate installer]."
> > 
> > "if you require wireless connectivity during the installation, we
> > have a much better installer for you. [link: alternate installer]."
> > 
> > (Don't ask ask why the inferior installer is prominent :).)
> 
> Snark aside, what's wrong with something like this:
> 
> "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require
> non-free firmware to function properly. This firmware is not included
> in the standard installation images, due to Debian's free software
> ideals. If the network hardware your installation will rely upon
> requires such firmware, you may consider using the alternate non-free
> installation images available here."

Submitted as a bug against www.debian.org, it could fly. However,
the word "standard" seems superfluous. It implies the existemce of
non-standard (non-free?) installer images and these, of course,
would not be capable of distribution. Bear in mind there is only
one true installer.

As for "alternate"; how can a non-free image be an alternative to
a free one and be promoted for download on the Debian main page?

-- 
Brian.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Celejar]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 22:49:58 +
Brian  wrote:

> On Fri 26 Feb 2021 at 16:28:56 -0500, Dan Ritter wrote:
> 
> > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: 
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:41:40PM +, Brian wrote:
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > > A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
> > > > problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users
> > > > with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is
> > > > advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better
> > > > (non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
> > > > mind!
> > > 
> > > No easy solution to that, sigh.
> > 
> > Sure there is -- add a link directly underneath it saying "if
> > you require wireless connectivity during the installation, you
> > may need to use this [link: alternate installer]."
> 
> "if you require wireless connectivity during the installation, we
> have a much better installer for you. [link: alternate installer]."
> 
> (Don't ask ask why the inferior installer is prominent :).)

Snark aside, what's wrong with something like this:

"Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require
non-free firmware to function properly. This firmware is not included
in the standard installation images, due to Debian's free software
ideals. If the network hardware your installation will rely upon
requires such firmware, you may consider using the alternate non-free
installation images available here."

Celejar

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Celejar]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 18:41:40 +
Brian  wrote:

...

> A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
> problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users
> with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is
> advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better
> (non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
> mind!

Just FTR, some *wired* ethernet cards also require non-free firmware
not present in the standard images:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=895258

I have no idea how common this is with modern NICs.

Celejar

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[tomas]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:49:58PM +, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 26 Feb 2021 at 16:28:56 -0500, Dan Ritter wrote:
> 
> > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: 
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:41:40PM +, Brian wrote:
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > > A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
> > > > problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users
> > > > with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is
> > > > advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better
> > > > (non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
> > > > mind!
> > > 
> > > No easy solution to that, sigh.
> > 
> > Sure there is -- add a link directly underneath it saying "if
> > you require wireless connectivity during the installation, you
> > may need to use this [link: alternate installer]."
> 
> "if you require wireless connectivity during the installation, we
> have a much better installer for you. [link: alternate installer]."
> 
> (Don't ask ask why the inferior installer is prominent :).)
   ^

That surely is a typo. You meant "Do ask why ..."-

Cheers
 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Brian]

On Fri 26 Feb 2021 at 16:28:56 -0500, Dan Ritter wrote:

> to...@tuxteam.de wrote: 
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:41:40PM +, Brian wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
> > > problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users
> > > with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is
> > > advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better
> > > (non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
> > > mind!
> > 
> > No easy solution to that, sigh.
> 
> Sure there is -- add a link directly underneath it saying "if
> you require wireless connectivity during the installation, you
> may need to use this [link: alternate installer]."

"if you require wireless connectivity during the installation, we
have a much better installer for you. [link: alternate installer]."

(Don't ask ask why the inferior installer is prominent :).)

-- 
Brian.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Dan Ritter]

to...@tuxteam.de wrote: 
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:41:40PM +, Brian wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
> > problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users
> > with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is
> > advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better
> > (non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
> > mind!
> 
> No easy solution to that, sigh.

Sure there is -- add a link directly underneath it saying "if
you require wireless connectivity during the installation, you
may need to use this [link: alternate installer]."

-dsr-

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Brian]

On Fri 26 Feb 2021 at 21:15:31 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:41:40PM +, Brian wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
> > problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users
> > with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is
> > advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better
> > (non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
> > mind!
> 
> No easy solution to that, sigh.

Indeed.

But now we impel users to start using the non-free archive or a
so-called unofficial ISO to get their hardware working. non-free
in sources.list becomes obligatory. It is difficult to see how
this helps Debian's focus on creating a free software ecosystem.

-- 
Brian.

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[tomas]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:41:40PM +, Brian wrote:

[...]

> A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
> problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users
> with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is
> advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better
> (non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
> mind!

No easy solution to that, sigh.

Cheers
 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[Brian]

On Fri 26 Feb 2021 at 13:59:38 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 02:08:26PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Jo, 25 feb 21, 11:53:18, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > 
> > > No worries. Things happen -- and in this case you happened to step
> > > onto a sticky issue which has no "nice" solution. The two extremes
> > > 
> > >  (a) Debian should be a free distribution. If you're holding a
> > >Debian "CD" [1] on your hands, you should be safe trusting
> > >that all the stuff in there is free to use, study, modify
> > >and give to others
> > > 
> > >  (b) Debian should be welcoming to newbies, it should be easy
> > >to install
> > > 
> > > This is a point of conflict, and won't be solved as long as there
> > > are hardware companies out there saying "my firmware is MINE and
> > > you are not allowed to redistribute it" while at the same time
> ~~
> > > spreading this oh-too-valuable-stuff all over the Internets.
> > 
> > It's more complicated than this. Debian is allowed distribute the 
> > firmware (otherwise it wouldn't be included in non-free or in the 
> > image), but the firmware doesn't satisfy one or more of the requirements 
> > in the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)[1].
> 
> You're right. This was a too-abbreviated version. So much as
> to be wrong.

AFAIAC, it was in the right ballpark. For various reasons, many firmware
blobs are seen by Debian as non-free. Debian, and Debian users, have to
live with this. Hardware vendors suddenly seeing the light is unlikely,
as is some skilled user devising a tool chain to produce free versions.

> There are those cases -- where the end user is supposed to
> download the stuff directly; there, the Debian package is
> just a wrapper which does the download and marks the package
> as installed. But this isn't typical for firmware, it happens
> rather with video drivers et al.
> 
> For firmware, you might encounter other nasties, like (as
> you stated) no source, perhaps some form of prohibition
> of reverse engineering (legally void in many jurisdictions
> anyway)... lots of stuff contradicting DFSG.
> 
> Whether that's progress or not depends on your goals, of course.
> That's why Debian tries hard to keep things separate.

A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users
with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is
advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better
(non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
mind!

-- 
Brian.

Re: Debian install Question

[Anssi Saari]

Andrei POPESCU  writes:

> Try installing in expert mode (if the image boots), as far as I recall 
> there was an option to enable and use backports.

Thanks. Well, the referenced LWN discussion mentioned tethering and
indeed, plugging in my phone and enabling USB tethering resulted in a
detected network connection.

Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

[tomas]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 02:08:26PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 25 feb 21, 11:53:18, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > 
> > No worries. Things happen -- and in this case you happened to step
> > onto a sticky issue which has no "nice" solution. The two extremes
> > 
> >  (a) Debian should be a free distribution. If you're holding a
> >Debian "CD" [1] on your hands, you should be safe trusting
> >that all the stuff in there is free to use, study, modify
> >and give to others
> > 
> >  (b) Debian should be welcoming to newbies, it should be easy
> >to install
> > 
> > This is a point of conflict, and won't be solved as long as there
> > are hardware companies out there saying "my firmware is MINE and
> > you are not allowed to redistribute it" while at the same time
~~
> > spreading this oh-too-valuable-stuff all over the Internets.
> 
> It's more complicated than this. Debian is allowed distribute the 
> firmware (otherwise it wouldn't be included in non-free or in the 
> image), but the firmware doesn't satisfy one or more of the requirements 
> in the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)[1].

You're right. This was a too-abbreviated version. So much as
to be wrong.

There are those cases -- where the end user is supposed to
download the stuff directly; there, the Debian package is
just a wrapper which does the download and marks the package
as installed. But this isn't typical for firmware, it happens
rather with video drivers et al.

For firmware, you might encounter other nasties, like (as
you stated) no source, perhaps some form of prohibition
of reverse engineering (legally void in many jurisdictions
anyway)... lots of stuff contradicting DFSG.

Whether that's progress or not depends on your goals, of course.
That's why Debian tries hard to keep things separate.

Cheers
 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian install Question

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Jo, 25 feb 21, 18:30:55, Anssi Saari wrote:
> 
> But what if someone needs a newer kernel than 4.19 too? My chosen HW
> needs kernel 5.1 for wifi and 5.9 for ethernet plus FW from Intel and
> Realtek. And no, I don't want to install testing or unstable. Or Ubuntu.
> 
> I figured I'll install from a USB stick and I have the debs from
> buster-backports for a 5.10 kernel and firmware and hope I can install
> those from a USB stick too.
 
Try installing in expert mode (if the image boots), as far as I recall 
there was an option to enable and use backports.

Hope this helps,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian install Question

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Jo, 25 feb 21, 11:53:18, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> 
> No worries. Things happen -- and in this case you happened to step
> onto a sticky issue which has no "nice" solution. The two extremes
> 
>  (a) Debian should be a free distribution. If you're holding a
>Debian "CD" [1] on your hands, you should be safe trusting
>that all the stuff in there is free to use, study, modify
>and give to others
> 
>  (b) Debian should be welcoming to newbies, it should be easy
>to install
> 
> This is a point of conflict, and won't be solved as long as there
> are hardware companies out there saying "my firmware is MINE and
> you are not allowed to redistribute it" while at the same time
> spreading this oh-too-valuable-stuff all over the Internets.

It's more complicated than this. Debian is allowed distribute the 
firmware (otherwise it wouldn't be included in non-free or in the 
image), but the firmware doesn't satisfy one or more of the requirements 
in the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)[1].

Apparently some firmwares even would satisfy the DFSG (in theory), but 
the hardware accepts only firmware signed by the manufacturer, so Debian 
can't rebuild it from source.

I'd say this is still progress (compared to not having the source at 
all).

[1] https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian install Question

[David Wright]

On Wed 24 Feb 2021 at 21:05:00 (-0800), Weaver wrote:
> On 25-02-2021 14:53, David Wright wrote:
> > On Wed 24 Feb 2021 at 16:44:18 (-0800), Weaver wrote:
> >> On 25-02-2021 09:32, Dan Ritter wrote:
> >> > IL Ka wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I am sorry for giving inadequate advice. Please forgive me as I am new 
> >> >> to
> >> >> Debian.
> >> >> My idea was to install Debian, and then install non-free firmware.
> >>
> >> This is quite possible.
> >>
> >> >> This is the third question about "how to install Debian if I have nic 
> >> >> that
> >> >> needs non-free firmware" I see in this list on this week.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, what is the best practice to do so? Use an unofficial installer that
> >> >> contains non-free firmware?
> >>
> >> That's actually not required.
> >> For a little while now, I've had a 2016 Acer TravelMate.
> >> This requires three different blobs of non-free software to operate
> >> efficiently.
> >> As long as you opt for the nonfree and contrib lines to be included in
> >> your sources.list file during installation, they're there when the
> >> install process is over.
> >> As soon as the netinst disc is spat out and reboot happens, there
> >> appears to be a period when I can install aptitude, mc, menu, and a
> >> couple of other niceties.
> >> I then call up aptitude interface and go through the kernel nonfree
> >> sector for the blobs I require, clearly delineated during the install
> >> process.
> >> Intel's iwlwifi being one of the packages required for this machine.
> > 
> > How do you get the wifi to connect, in order to fetch the firmware,
> > without the firmware that the wifi needs to connect?
> 
> The netinst connection seems to remain `live' for a short period of time
> before you are isolated.
> I would have thought the reboot would have cut me off, but that's not
> the case.
> Perhaps it's a feature the developers don't know about, but it has 
> worked for me on at least three occasions, now.

You'd have to elaborate: I don't know what you mean by the "netinst
connection" (which is what we need the firmware for) or which reboot
(one boots the machine before starting the debian-installer, and
reboots it after all the software and firmware has been installed).

Cheers,
David.

Re: Debian install Question

[Greg Wooledge]

Anssi Saari (a...@sci.fi) wrote:

> Henning Follmann  writes:
> 
> > You will find a iso here which includes most of the non-free firmware here:
> > https://cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images-including-firmware/10.8.0+nonfree/amd64/iso-dvd/
> >
> > Please take the time to read AND understand the information on that site.
> 
> I have to ask since I'm on a similar boat. What is this image? Debian
> 10.8 installer with non-free firmware? It's only a guess, Debian's
> latest release is 10.8 but there's usually no third digit in the
> version.

The installer images have a third version component, because sometimes
they make multiple builds after a given Debian point-release.  E.g. if
there's a problem with the first CD build after Debian 10.8 (installer
version 10.8.0) they might release installer version 10.8.1.

A newer installer version will only have changes to the installer, not
to the packages that end up installed on the Debian system when you're
all done.

Re: Debian install Question

[Anssi Saari]

Henning Follmann  writes:

> You will find a iso here which includes most of the non-free firmware here:
> https://cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images-including-firmware/10.8.0+nonfree/amd64/iso-dvd/
>
> Please take the time to read AND understand the information on that site.

I have to ask since I'm on a similar boat. What is this image? Debian
10.8 installer with non-free firmware? It's only a guess, Debian's
latest release is 10.8 but there's usually no third digit in the
version.

But what if someone needs a newer kernel than 4.19 too? My chosen HW
needs kernel 5.1 for wifi and 5.9 for ethernet plus FW from Intel and
Realtek. And no, I don't want to install testing or unstable. Or Ubuntu.

I figured I'll install from a USB stick and I have the debs from
buster-backports for a 5.10 kernel and firmware and hope I can install
those from a USB stick too.

Re: Debian install Question

[Henning Follmann]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 01:36:58AM +0300, IL Ka wrote:
> >
> > Please do not do that.
> >
> >
> > You will find a iso here which includes most of the non-free firmware here:
> >
> > https://cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images-including-firmware/10.8.0+nonfree/amd64/iso-dvd/
> >
> > Please take the time to read AND understand the information on that site.
> >
> 
> I am sorry for giving inadequate advice. Please forgive me as I am new to
> Debian.
> My idea was to install Debian, and then install non-free firmware.
>
I did not mean this as a critizism directly against you.
But the OP asked for the installer WITH the non-free firmware specifically.


> This is the third question about "how to install Debian if I have nic that
> needs non-free firmware" I see in this list on this week.
> 
> So, what is the best practice to do so? Use an unofficial installer that
> contains non-free firmware?
> If so, I believe this info is worth adding to the Debian installation guide
> somewhere in the wiki, so we can give a link to this wiki to newbies.
> It seems that a lot of people face this problem trying to install Debian on
> their laptops.

And it will continue to be a source of confusion with debian. However
there is excellent documentation (wiki and installation manual) for debian.
Unfortunately it seems reading documentation is a burden nobody can be
bothered with.


-H

-- 
Henning Follmann   | hfollm...@itcfollmann.com

Re: Debian install Question

[tomas]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 01:36:58AM +0300, IL Ka wrote:
> >
> > Please do not do that.
> >
> >
> > You will find a iso here which includes most of the non-free firmware here:
> >
> > https://cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images-including-firmware/10.8.0+nonfree/amd64/iso-dvd/
> >
> > Please take the time to read AND understand the information on that site.
> >
> 
> I am sorry for giving inadequate advice. Please forgive me as I am new to
> Debian.

No worries. Things happen -- and in this case you happened to step
onto a sticky issue which has no "nice" solution. The two extremes

 (a) Debian should be a free distribution. If you're holding a
   Debian "CD" [1] on your hands, you should be safe trusting
   that all the stuff in there is free to use, study, modify
   and give to others

 (b) Debian should be welcoming to newbies, it should be easy
   to install

This is a point of conflict, and won't be solved as long as there
are hardware companies out there saying "my firmware is MINE and
you are not allowed to redistribute it" while at the same time
spreading this oh-too-valuable-stuff all over the Internets.

Back to Debian. The solution is to create some "enhanced" distributions
to cater for (b), but they cannot be Debian because of (a) and are
clearly marked as such. Rightly so.

Of course there are very opinionated people who say "scratch (a). Who
cares about freedom? It's all about convenience/market share/whatever".

Likewise you'll find opinionated people at the other end of the
spectrum.

Back to you. You offered your help. Thanks for that. That's what
this list thrives on. Again: *thank you*.

And yes: I found Henning's dry "Please do not do that" quite a
bit too harsh. Let's blame it on mail as a limited communication
medium. Don't let that discourage you.

Cheers

[1] Remember those times with CDs and things?

 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian install Question

[Gene Heskett]

On Thursday 25 February 2021 02:23:22 deloptes wrote:

> IL Ka wrote:
> > If so, I believe this info is worth adding to the Debian
> > installation guide somewhere in the wiki, so we can give a link to
> > this wiki to newbies.
>
> newbies use ubuntu :)

Yeah, but it doesn't take long to get over that.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page 

Re: Debian install Question

[Thomas Schmitt]

Hi,

David Wright wrote:
> > Take care: this stick will have very strange partitioning.

I am preaching against this partition table layout since years.


deloptes wrote:
> newbies use ubuntu :)

... which eventually switched to a neater layout in the 20.10 ISOs with
only one partition table hack left (to please old HP laptops without
alienating new Lenovos).


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

Re: Debian install Question

[deloptes]

IL Ka wrote:

> If so, I believe this info is worth adding to the Debian installation
> guide somewhere in the wiki, so we can give a link to this wiki to
> newbies.

newbies use ubuntu :)

Re: Debian install Question

[David Christensen]

On 2021-02-24 14:36, IL Ka wrote:


I am sorry for giving inadequate advice. Please forgive me as I am new to
Debian.
My idea was to install Debian, and then install non-free firmware.

This is the third question about "how to install Debian if I have nic that
needs non-free firmware" I see in this list on this week.

So, what is the best practice to do so? Use an unofficial installer that
contains non-free firmware?
If so, I believe this info is worth adding to the Debian installation guide
somewhere in the wiki, so we can give a link to this wiki to newbies.
It seems that a lot of people face this problem trying to install Debian on
their laptops.



https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/out+of+the+mouths+of+babes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room


I agree that the "Download" button on the Debian home page links to an 
ISO image that is inadequate for installing Debian onto computers 
without an Ethernet interface (e.g. many laptop/ notebook/ netbook 
computers).



A deeper "gotcha" is that building a multi-boot computer with Windows, 
Chrome, Linux, BSD, etc., is a non-trivial feat, especially when it 
involves UEFI, Secure Boot, GPT, and proprietary firmware/ drivers.  I 
avoid these complexities by installing each OS instance onto a dedicated 
storage device (I prefer 2.5" SATA SSD's).



AIUI the Debian project has prioritized "freedom" over everything else. 
But, by not providing sufficient information for users to make an 
informed choice, they are damaging "freedom of choice", frustrating new 
users, and wasting resources on conversations like this (over and over 
and over...).



David

Re: Debian install Question

[Weaver]

On 25-02-2021 14:53, David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 24 Feb 2021 at 16:44:18 (-0800), Weaver wrote:
>> On 25-02-2021 09:32, Dan Ritter wrote:
>> > IL Ka wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I am sorry for giving inadequate advice. Please forgive me as I am new to
>> >> Debian.
>> >> My idea was to install Debian, and then install non-free firmware.
>>
>> This is quite possible.
>>
>> >> This is the third question about "how to install Debian if I have nic that
>> >> needs non-free firmware" I see in this list on this week.
>> >>
>> >> So, what is the best practice to do so? Use an unofficial installer that
>> >> contains non-free firmware?
>>
>> That's actually not required.
>> For a little while now, I've had a 2016 Acer TravelMate.
>> This requires three different blobs of non-free software to operate
>> efficiently.
>> As long as you opt for the nonfree and contrib lines to be included in
>> your sources.list file during installation, they're there when the
>> install process is over.
>> As soon as the netinst disc is spat out and reboot happens, there
>> appears to be a period when I can install aptitude, mc, menu, and a
>> couple of other niceties.
>> I then call up aptitude interface and go through the kernel nonfree
>> sector for the blobs I require, clearly delineated during the install
>> process.
>> Intel's iwlwifi being one of the packages required for this machine.
> 
> How do you get the wifi to connect, in order to fetch the firmware,
> without the firmware that the wifi needs to connect?

The netinst connection seems to remain `live' for a short period of time
before you are isolated.
I would have thought the reboot would have cut me off, but that's not
the case.
Perhaps it's a feature the developers don't know about, but it has 
worked for me on at least three occasions, now.

>> >> If so, I believe this info is worth adding to the Debian installation 
>> >> guide
>> >> somewhere in the wiki, so we can give a link to this wiki to newbies.
>>
>> Definitely!
>>
>> >> It seems that a lot of people face this problem trying to install Debian 
>> >> on
>> >> their laptops.
>>
>> It's how I learnt to deal with it, two or three installs later.
> 
> Cheers,
> David.

-- 
`The World is not dangerous because of those who do harm but
 because of those who look on without doing anything'.
 -- Albert Einstein

Re: Debian install Question

[David Wright]

On Wed 24 Feb 2021 at 16:44:18 (-0800), Weaver wrote:
> On 25-02-2021 09:32, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > IL Ka wrote: 
> >>
> >> I am sorry for giving inadequate advice. Please forgive me as I am new to
> >> Debian.
> >> My idea was to install Debian, and then install non-free firmware.
> 
> This is quite possible.
> 
> >> This is the third question about "how to install Debian if I have nic that
> >> needs non-free firmware" I see in this list on this week.
> >>
> >> So, what is the best practice to do so? Use an unofficial installer that
> >> contains non-free firmware?
> 
> That's actually not required.
> For a little while now, I've had a 2016 Acer TravelMate.
> This requires three different blobs of non-free software to operate
> efficiently.
> As long as you opt for the nonfree and contrib lines to be included in
> your sources.list file during installation, they're there when the
> install process is over.
> As soon as the netinst disc is spat out and reboot happens, there
> appears to be a period when I can install aptitude, mc, menu, and a
> couple of other niceties.
> I then call up aptitude interface and go through the kernel nonfree
> sector for the blobs I require, clearly delineated during the install
> process.
> Intel's iwlwifi being one of the packages required for this machine.

How do you get the wifi to connect, in order to fetch the firmware,
without the firmware that the wifi needs to connect?

> >> If so, I believe this info is worth adding to the Debian installation guide
> >> somewhere in the wiki, so we can give a link to this wiki to newbies.
> 
> Definitely!
> 
> >> It seems that a lot of people face this problem trying to install Debian on
> >> their laptops.
> 
> It's how I learnt to deal with it, two or three installs later.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Debian install Question

[Weaver]

On 25-02-2021 09:32, Dan Ritter wrote:
> IL Ka wrote: 
>>
>> I am sorry for giving inadequate advice. Please forgive me as I am new to
>> Debian.
>> My idea was to install Debian, and then install non-free firmware.

This is quite possible.

>> This is the third question about "how to install Debian if I have nic that
>> needs non-free firmware" I see in this list on this week.
>>
>> So, what is the best practice to do so? Use an unofficial installer that
>> contains non-free firmware?

That's actually not required.
For a little while now, I've had a 2016 Acer TravelMate.
This requires three different blobs of non-free software to operate
efficiently.
As long as you opt for the nonfree and contrib lines to be included in
your sources.list file during installation, they're there when the
install process is over.
As soon as the netinst disc is spat out and reboot happens, there
appears to be a period when I can install aptitude, mc, menu, and a
couple of other niceties.
I then call up aptitude interface and go through the kernel nonfree
sector for the blobs I require, clearly delineated during the install
process.
Intel's iwlwifi being one of the packages required for this machine.

>> If so, I believe this info is worth adding to the Debian installation guide
>> somewhere in the wiki, so we can give a link to this wiki to newbies.

Definitely!

>> It seems that a lot of people face this problem trying to install Debian on
>> their laptops.

It's how I learnt to deal with it, two or three installs later.
Cheers!

Harry.

-- 
`The World is not dangerous because of those who do harm but
 because of those who look on without doing anything'.
 -- Albert Einstein

Re: Debian install Question

[Dan Ritter]

IL Ka wrote: 
> 
> I am sorry for giving inadequate advice. Please forgive me as I am new to
> Debian.
> My idea was to install Debian, and then install non-free firmware.
> 
> This is the third question about "how to install Debian if I have nic that
> needs non-free firmware" I see in this list on this week.
> 
> So, what is the best practice to do so? Use an unofficial installer that
> contains non-free firmware?
> If so, I believe this info is worth adding to the Debian installation guide
> somewhere in the wiki, so we can give a link to this wiki to newbies.
> It seems that a lot of people face this problem trying to install Debian on
> their laptops.


Yes.

It's in the wiki, but it isn't at the front.

Most people with laptops are going to need it, or a similar
workaround.

Here's some recent discussion: https://lwn.net/Articles/843172/

-dsr-

Re: Debian install Question

[Brian]

On Thu 25 Feb 2021 at 01:36:58 +0300, IL Ka wrote:

> >
> > Please do not do that.
> >
> >
> > You will find a iso here which includes most of the non-free firmware here:
> >
> > https://cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images-including-firmware/10.8.0+nonfree/amd64/iso-dvd/
> >
> > Please take the time to read AND understand the information on that site.
> >
> 
> I am sorry for giving inadequate advice. Please forgive me as I am new to
> Debian.
> My idea was to install Debian, and then install non-free firmware.

That was what I thought your intention was and I do not think it is
such bad idea, unless the user knows that she does not want Gnome.
 
> This is the third question about "how to install Debian if I have nic that
> needs non-free firmware" I see in this list on this week.
> 
> So, what is the best practice to do so? Use an unofficial installer that
> contains non-free firmware?

If the widest installation framework is required, that is probably best.

> If so, I believe this info is worth adding to the Debian installation guide
> somewhere in the wiki, so we can give a link to this wiki to newbies.
> It seems that a lot of people face this problem trying to install Debian on
> their laptops.

I've not looked at the wiki.

-- 
Brian.

Re: Debian install Question

[IL Ka]

>
> Please do not do that.
>
>
> You will find a iso here which includes most of the non-free firmware here:
>
> https://cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images-including-firmware/10.8.0+nonfree/amd64/iso-dvd/
>
> Please take the time to read AND understand the information on that site.
>

I am sorry for giving inadequate advice. Please forgive me as I am new to
Debian.
My idea was to install Debian, and then install non-free firmware.

This is the third question about "how to install Debian if I have nic that
needs non-free firmware" I see in this list on this week.

So, what is the best practice to do so? Use an unofficial installer that
contains non-free firmware?
If so, I believe this info is worth adding to the Debian installation guide
somewhere in the wiki, so we can give a link to this wiki to newbies.
It seems that a lot of people face this problem trying to install Debian on
their laptops.

Re: Debian install Question

[Henning Follmann]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 08:49:32PM +0300, IL Ka wrote:
> Hello.
> Try to download and install "debian-10.8.0-amd64-DVD-1.iso"
> from here:
> https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/iso-dvd/
> 
>

Please do not do that.


You will find a iso here which includes most of the non-free firmware here:
https://cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images-including-firmware/10.8.0+nonfree/amd64/iso-dvd/

Please take the time to read AND understand the information on that site.


-H




-- 
Henning Follmann   | hfollm...@itcfollmann.com

Re: Debian install Question

[David Christensen]

On 2021-02-24 09:47, M.R.P. zensky wrote:

Hello I am installing Debian on a amd processor computer. I connect to the net 
with wifi. I have tried the net install iso and it did not work. I think I need 
the unoficial stable non free firmware included. I select a mirror site but 
Here I am confused about what iso file I want. I am also assuming that I need 
an image for cd-rom. Any help would be apreciated.



I suggest that you try an "unofficial" installer that includes non-free 
firmware:


https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/


David

Re: Debian install Question

[IL Ka]

Hello.
Try to download and install "debian-10.8.0-amd64-DVD-1.iso"
from here:
https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/iso-dvd/



On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 8:48 PM M.R.P. zensky 
wrote:

> Hello I am installing Debian on a amd processor computer. I connect to the
> net with wifi. I have tried the net install iso and it did not work. I
> think I need the unoficial stable non free firmware included. I select a
> mirror site but Here I am confused about what iso file I want. I am also
> assuming that I need an image for cd-rom. Any help would be apreciated.
>

Debian install Question

[M.R.P. zensky]

Hello I am installing Debian on a amd processor computer. I connect to the net 
with wifi. I have tried the net install iso and it did not work. I think I need 
the unoficial stable non free firmware included. I select a mirror site but 
Here I am confused about what iso file I want. I am also assuming that I need 
an image for cd-rom. Any help would be apreciated.

Re: Debian Install CD, locks up computer system.

[Felix Miata]

Joe composed on 2021-01-14 17:25 (UTC):

> Windows does not contain any provision for running any
> other operating system but itself.

But, unless something changed very recently, it still retains the ability to 
read
and transfer control to the PBR of an alien partition (i.e. chainload to Grub).

> It is necessary for a new operating system to hijack the boot process,

Strictly speaking, it is not necessary. Practically speaking, it is what usually
happens, same as what Windows does if installed after Linux.

> or at least to amend the BIOS boot list to place itself as highest priority,
> and it will then offer Windows as an option at boot time.
Probably it should in most cases, but don't count on it happening without
intervention.
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools, like religion,
is based on faith, not on science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Re: Debian Install CD, locks up computer system.

[Joe]

On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 12:20:44 +0100
Pierre-Elliott Bécue  wrote:

> Le mercredi 13 janvier 2021 à 16:19:40-0500, brian.h...@hotmail.com a
> écrit :
> > I am being run around in circles trying to get assistance.  I am
> > being redirected by individuals and WEB pages having "ALL THE
> > ANSWERS" and not needing to know the facts.
> > 
> > It is clear that I have encountered a serious and destructive
> > problem.
> > 
> > 
> > I have installed the "debian-10.7.0-amd64-DVD-1.iso" to a USB drive
> > connected to a Lenovo T420 which was running Windows 10 Pro.
> > 
> > The system boots to Windows 10 on the C: drive with the option of
> > booting to another device if I press F12 at booting.
> > 
> > I use F12 to boot to the CD Drive, "debian-10.7.0-amd64-DVD-1.iso".
> > I installed as Debian to an attached USB external drive. I used the
> > standard non graphical installer. Installation
> > proceeded fine, I accepted all defaults and did not install any
> > additional software/drivers.  After 'Install System' the installer
> > opened the CD Drive and asked me to reboot.  The "Install Grub"
> > never came up.
> > 
> > I rebooted and got the bios Boot Menu that would come up when I
> > pressed F12 came up without my pressing F12.  The boot device list
> > now has "debian" now added to the top of the boot menu.  None of
> > the items in the list boot their respective devices.
> > 
> > 
> > The Menu Reads:
> > 
> > debian
> > Windows Boot Manager
> > ATA HDD0: WDC WD3200BEKT-08PBMT1
> > USB HDD: FUJISTU MHV2080AH
> > ATAPI CD0: Optiarca DVD RW AD-7710H
> > 
> > item ATA...
> > is my Drive containing the all the Windows 10 system,
> > including the Windows Boot Manager
> > 
> > item USB...
> > is my external drive containing the newly installed Debian
> > 10
> > 
> > item ATAPI...
> > in my CD Drive
> > 
> > 
> > Additional Notes:
> > 
> > I have used the same process to install Debian version 2 through 8
> > to secondary drives.
> > 
> > Nothing in documentation that I have come across indicates that
> > this "new" debian would alter the "bios" boot menu or in anyway
> > effect the Windows 10 operating systems drive.  By right it had no
> > business doing so automatically.
> > 
> > I can see no reason for some-one to believe that this would happen.
> > 
> > This is a very destructive problem.
> > 
> > I am looking at $200.00 cost to have new system installed and the
> > loss of everything on my Windows 10 System.
> > 
> > I am retired on a disability pension.  My background is system
> > logistics. This install has altered the existing bios/Windows 10
> > System without notification.  This directly violates the standards
> > set for Debian installs.

No, an additional operating system *must* 'alter' something or it will
never boot. Windows does not contain any provision for running any
other operating system but itself. It is necessary for a new operating
system to hijack the boot process, or at least to amend the BIOS boot
list to place itself as highest priority, and it will then offer Windows
as an option at boot time.
> > 
> > Please, forward this to anyone that might be able to provide
> > assistance.
> > 
> > I would like help, direction as to how to reinstate the original
> > boot sequence for my computer.

Have you tried the BIOS boot key of your computer? I have a problem
where my computer will not boot to its default BIOS entry, but using
the boot key I can choose to boot to Windows. If that works for you,
it's not the answer, but it's a workaround to get Windows running.

> > 
> > I believe the only party capable of addressing this issue is the
> > team or person that setup the Debian installer for this CD.

That is possibly true, at least if they either are or can talk to the
stretch installer team (see below). 
> > 
> > PS:  This is a new problem and therefore there is no documentation
> > in the historical archives that could possible address this issue.  
> 
> Dear Brian,
> 
> For these matters, the debian-user mailing list is the right place to
> go.
> 
> Indeed, the Community Team is a team which is here to handle
> interactions between members of the Debian Community that go wrong,
> and tries to have the Debian Code of Conduct followed by the members
> of the community in their interactions.
> 
> For convenience, I cc-ed the list here.
> 
> As for your specific matter, Windows 10 being an UEFI system, Debian
> installation has to accomodate for this, and if you used the basic
> installer, it did indeed attempt to install grub and create the
> specific entry. Probably something went south there.
> 
> If you indeed tried to boot "Debian", and it failed, I'd guess it's
> because, while the grub binary is on the uefi part of your main disk
> along with the windows bootloader and other potential stuff, the grub
> configuration is on your external drive which is not yet seen properly
> when you hit the "debian" entry choice (which is the one you should
> use, as grub 

Re: Debian Install CD, locks up computer system.

[Leandro neto]

 

 I am haven the same problem I found a hidden file :0 debian magic cookie. Ruined everything mine
 
 Enviado via UOL Mail


 
 
  
  
  Assunto: Re: Debian Install CD, locks up computer system.
  
  De: p...@debian.org
  
  Enviado em: 14 de janeiro de 2021 8:21
  
  Para: brian.h...@hotmail.com
  
  Cópia: debian-user@lists.debian.org
  
  
  
  
  
   
 Le mercredi 13 janvier 2021 à 16:19:40-0500, brian.h...@hotmail.com a écrit : > I am being run around in circles trying to get assistance. I am being > redirected by individuals and WEB pages having "ALL THE ANSWERS" and not > needing to know the facts. > > It is clear that I have encountered a serious and destructive problem. > > > I have installed the "debian-10.7.0-amd64-DVD-1.iso" to a USB drive > connected to a Lenovo T420 which was running Windows 10 Pro. > > The system boots to Windows 10 on the C: drive with the option of booting to > another device if I press F12 at booting. > > I use F12 to boot to the CD Drive, "debian-10.7.0-amd64-DVD-1.iso". > I installed as Debian to an attached USB external drive. I used the standard > non graphical installer. Installation > proceeded fine, I accepted all defaults and did not install any additional > software/drivers. After 'Install System' the installer opened the CD Drive > and asked me to reboot. The "Install Grub" never came up. > > I rebooted and got the bios Boot Menu that would come up when I pressed F12 > came up without my pressing F12. The boot device list now has "debian" now > added to the top of the boot menu. None of the items in the list boot their > respective devices. > > > The Menu Reads: > > debian > Windows Boot Manager > ATA HDD0: WDC WD3200BEKT-08PBMT1 > USB HDD: FUJISTU MHV2080AH > ATAPI CD0: Optiarca DVD RW AD-7710H > > item ATA... > is my Drive containing the all the Windows 10 system, including the Windows > Boot Manager > > item USB... > is my external drive containing the newly installed Debian 10 > > item ATAPI... > in my CD Drive > > > Additional Notes: > > I have used the same process to install Debian version 2 through 8 to > secondary drives. > > Nothing in documentation that I have come across indicates that this "new" > debian would alter the "bios" boot menu or in anyway effect the Windows 10 > operating systems drive. By right it had no business doing so > automatically. > > I can see no reason for some-one to believe that this would happen. > > This is a very destructive problem. > > I am looking at $200.00 cost to have new system installed and the loss of > everything on my Windows 10 System. > > I am retired on a disability pension. My background is system logistics. > This install has altered the existing bios/Windows 10 System without > notification. This directly violates the standards set for Debian installs. > > Please, forward this to anyone that might be able to provide assistance. > > I would like help, direction as to how to reinstate the original boot > sequence for my computer. > > I believe the only party capable of addressing this issue is the team or > person that setup the Debian installer for this CD. > > PS: This is a new problem and therefore there is no documentation in the > historical archives that could possible address this issue. Dear Brian, For these matters, the debian-user mailing list is the right place to go. Indeed, the Community Team is a team which is here to handle interactions between members of the Debian Community that go wrong, and tries to have the Debian Code of Conduct followed by the members of the community in their interactions. For convenience, I cc-ed the list here. As for your specific matter, Windows 10 being an UEFI system, Debian installation has to accomodate for this, and if you used the basic installer, it did indeed attempt to install grub and create the specific entry. Probably something went south there. If you indeed tried to boot "Debian", and it failed, I'd guess it's because, while the grub binary is on the uefi part of your main disk along with the windows bootloader and other potential stuff, the grub configuration is on your external drive which is not yet seen properly when you hit the "debian" entry choice (which is the one you should use, as grub will also allow you to boot windows 10), but it's a wild guess. I'll let some users to chime in, as I admit I'm not the best to help people debug such issues over mail. :/ But I'll keep an eye. Bests, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. 
   
  
 

Re: Debian Install CD, locks up computer system.

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Le mercredi 13 janvier 2021 à 16:19:40-0500, brian.h...@hotmail.com a écrit :
> I am being run around in circles trying to get assistance.  I am being
> redirected by individuals and WEB pages having "ALL THE ANSWERS" and not
> needing to know the facts.
> 
> It is clear that I have encountered a serious and destructive problem.
> 
> 
> I have installed the "debian-10.7.0-amd64-DVD-1.iso" to a USB drive
> connected to a Lenovo T420 which was running Windows 10 Pro.
> 
> The system boots to Windows 10 on the C: drive with the option of booting to
> another device if I press F12 at booting.
> 
> I use F12 to boot to the CD Drive, "debian-10.7.0-amd64-DVD-1.iso".
> I installed as Debian to an attached USB external drive. I used the standard
> non graphical installer. Installation
> proceeded fine, I accepted all defaults and did not install any additional
> software/drivers.  After 'Install System' the installer opened the CD Drive
> and asked me to reboot.  The "Install Grub" never came up.
> 
> I rebooted and got the bios Boot Menu that would come up when I pressed F12
> came up without my pressing F12.  The boot device list now has "debian" now
> added to the top of the boot menu.  None of the items in the list boot their
> respective devices.
> 
> 
> The Menu Reads:
> 
>   debian
>   Windows Boot Manager
> ATA HDD0: WDC WD3200BEKT-08PBMT1
>   USB HDD: FUJISTU MHV2080AH
>   ATAPI CD0: Optiarca DVD RW AD-7710H
> 
> item ATA...
>   is my Drive containing the all the Windows 10 system, including the 
> Windows
> Boot Manager
> 
> item USB...
>   is my external drive containing the newly installed Debian 10
> 
> item ATAPI...
>   in my CD Drive
> 
> 
> Additional Notes:
> 
> I have used the same process to install Debian version 2 through 8 to
> secondary drives.
> 
> Nothing in documentation that I have come across indicates that this "new"
> debian would alter the "bios" boot menu or in anyway effect the Windows 10
> operating systems drive.  By right it had no business doing so
> automatically.
> 
> I can see no reason for some-one to believe that this would happen.
> 
> This is a very destructive problem.
> 
> I am looking at $200.00 cost to have new system installed and the loss of
> everything on my Windows 10 System.
> 
> I am retired on a disability pension.  My background is system logistics.
> This install has altered the existing bios/Windows 10 System without
> notification.  This directly violates the standards set for Debian installs.
> 
> Please, forward this to anyone that might be able to provide assistance.
> 
> I would like help, direction as to how to reinstate the original boot
> sequence for my computer.
> 
> I believe the only party capable of addressing this issue is the team or
> person that setup the Debian installer for this CD.
> 
> PS:  This is a new problem and therefore there is no documentation in the
> historical archives that could possible address this issue.

Dear Brian,

For these matters, the debian-user mailing list is the right place to
go.

Indeed, the Community Team is a team which is here to handle
interactions between members of the Debian Community that go wrong, and
tries to have the Debian Code of Conduct followed by the members of the
community in their interactions.

For convenience, I cc-ed the list here.

As for your specific matter, Windows 10 being an UEFI system, Debian
installation has to accomodate for this, and if you used the basic
installer, it did indeed attempt to install grub and create the specific
entry. Probably something went south there.

If you indeed tried to boot "Debian", and it failed, I'd guess it's
because, while the grub binary is on the uefi part of your main disk
along with the windows bootloader and other potential stuff, the grub
configuration is on your external drive which is not yet seen properly
when you hit the "debian" entry choice (which is the one you should use,
as grub will also allow you to boot windows 10), but it's a wild guess.

I'll let some users to chime in, as I admit I'm not the best to help
people debug such issues over mail. :/ But I'll keep an eye.

Bests,

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: LEAN Debian install: Exploring task selection menu

[Brian]

On Mon 21 Sep 2020 at 08:45:02 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Sb, 19 sep 20, 20:41:05, Brian wrote:
> > On Sat 19 Sep 2020 at 14:12:08 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > 
> > > Best to keep it as simple as possible.
> > 
> > Keep to what we have? Glad you agree.
> 
> Well, having GNOME installed after un-checking it is quite the opposite 
> of intuitive in my opinion, so for what it's worth[1], I'd prefer to 
> have that changed.

Have what changed? GNOME is not checked; easily verified by running
'tasksel'. The premise is questionable.

> On the other hand it seems this isn't a problem in practice, otherwise 
> the d-i developers would have done something about it.

A sensible view, IMO. This menu has been in place for at least 15 years.
A couple of users who cannot sort out how to use it is hardly a basis
for altering it.

-- 
Brian. 

Re: LEAN Debian install: Exploring task selection menu

[David Wright]

On Mon 21 Sep 2020 at 07:30:20 (-0400), Kenneth Parker wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 1:45 AM Andrei POPESCU  > 
> wrote:
> > On Sb, 19 sep 20, 20:41:05, Brian wrote:
> > > On Sat 19 Sep 2020 at 14:12:08 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > >
> > > > Best to keep it as simple as possible.
> > >
> > > Keep to what we have? Glad you agree.
> >
> > Well, having GNOME installed after un-checking it is quite the opposite
> > of intuitive in my opinion, so for what it's worth[1], I'd prefer to
> > have that changed.
> >
> > On the other hand it seems this isn't a problem in practice, otherwise
> > the d-i developers would have done something about it.

None of the desktops is checked on my screen shots, so wouldn't you
have to check GNOME before you unchecked it?

> > [1] All my recent installs were done with debootstrap/mmdebstrap, so I'm
> > not the target audience of the installer.
> 
> I recall a recent (10.2) install of Buster, using netinst Expert Text
> Install, where I allowed a Desktop to install.  The "default" was, actually
> xfce.

Which ISO?

> (Normally, I uncheck all, except for SSH Server and Console Utilities).

(and sometimes Print.)

Cheers,
David.

Re: LEAN Debian install: Exploring task selection menu

[Kenneth Parker]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 1:45 AM Andrei POPESCU 
wrote:

> On Sb, 19 sep 20, 20:41:05, Brian wrote:
> > On Sat 19 Sep 2020 at 14:12:08 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> > > Best to keep it as simple as possible.
> >
> > Keep to what we have? Glad you agree.
>
> Well, having GNOME installed after un-checking it is quite the opposite
> of intuitive in my opinion, so for what it's worth[1], I'd prefer to
> have that changed.
>
> On the other hand it seems this isn't a problem in practice, otherwise
> the d-i developers would have done something about it.
>
> [1] All my recent installs were done with debootstrap/mmdebstrap, so I'm
> not the target audience of the installer.
>
> Kind regards,
> Andrei
> --
> http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


I recall a recent (10.2) install of Buster, using netinst Expert Text
Install, where I allowed a Desktop to install.  The "default" was, actually
xfce.

(Normally, I uncheck all, except for SSH Server and Console Utilities).

Kenneth Parker

Re: LEAN Debian install: Exploring task selection menu

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Sb, 19 sep 20, 20:41:05, Brian wrote:
> On Sat 19 Sep 2020 at 14:12:08 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> 
> > Best to keep it as simple as possible.
> 
> Keep to what we have? Glad you agree.

Well, having GNOME installed after un-checking it is quite the opposite 
of intuitive in my opinion, so for what it's worth[1], I'd prefer to 
have that changed.

On the other hand it seems this isn't a problem in practice, otherwise 
the d-i developers would have done something about it.

[1] All my recent installs were done with debootstrap/mmdebstrap, so I'm 
not the target audience of the installer.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: LEAN Debian install: Exploring task selection menu

[Leslie Rhorer]

On 9/19/2020 6:12 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

On Vi, 18 sep 20, 11:00:11, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:



In my experience (own as well as assisting other newcomers), users
coming from Windows or Mac will be surprised by the mere existence of
different options here.


	Most Windows users are completely shocked by the notion a computer can 
do anything but browse the internet and play solitaire.  To them, 
computer = video monitor = internet.  Frankly, I could not possibly care 
less what Windows or clueless Mac users find surprising.  If soneone 
wants to cater to them, then that is fine (I suppose), but don't make 
that a problem for those of us who actually make our computers work for us.


	"New" and "Stupid" are not the same thing, nor are "long time user" and 
"Stupid" necessarily mutually exclusive.



Best to keep it as simple as possible.


	I doubt I could ever possibly disagree more.  Make it FLEXIBLE, not 
simple.  Make it POWERFUL, not limited.  Make it CONFIGURABLE, not 
paternalistic.  Make it clear and of extreme depth, not infantile.  Give 
the user / admin ABSOLUTE CONTROL.  Maintainers and developers should be 
making as few decisions as possible, which means offering every possible 
alternative.

Re: LEAN Debian install: Exploring task selection menu

[Brian]

On Sat 19 Sep 2020 at 14:12:08 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Vi, 18 sep 20, 11:00:11, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > I don't know for sure, but one suggestion I'd make is to move that first 
> > option 
> > (whatever it said, something like Default debian desktop) to be the last 
> > option and change the wording, something like: "[for advanced users:] [can 
> > be 
> > used to] install X only (with no desktop)" (I guess if you want X only you 
> > have select that in the other place you mentioned.)
> 
> Even if that is technically correct (it can be use to install only X, if 
> you configure the installer to not install Recommends), it is, in my not 
> so humble opinion, an inefficient way to do it and can also have 
> unintended consequences (what if I want to have only X, but with all 
> Recommends?).

A user wants X with all its recommended packages? Then don't use this
technique.
  
> > I suspect many of the newbies to Linux will have heard about GNOME, KDE, 
> > along 
> > with the suggestion to consider one of the other much simpler desktops.  
> > (When 
> > I encounter a newbie, I recommend either KDE or one of the lightweight 
> > desktops, I'm a "never GNOMEr"
> 
> In my experience (own as well as assisting other newcomers), users 
> coming from Windows or Mac will be surprised by the mere existence of 
> different options here.

Indeed.

> Best to keep it as simple as possible.

Keep to what we have? Glad you agree.

-- 
Brian.

Re: LEAN Debian install: Exploring task selection menu

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Vi, 18 sep 20, 11:00:11, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> I don't know for sure, but one suggestion I'd make is to move that first 
> option 
> (whatever it said, something like Default debian desktop) to be the last 
> option and change the wording, something like: "[for advanced users:] [can be 
> used to] install X only (with no desktop)" (I guess if you want X only you 
> have select that in the other place you mentioned.)

Even if that is technically correct (it can be use to install only X, if 
you configure the installer to not install Recommends), it is, in my not 
so humble opinion, an inefficient way to do it and can also have 
unintended consequences (what if I want to have only X, but with all 
Recommends?).
 
> I suspect many of the newbies to Linux will have heard about GNOME, KDE, 
> along 
> with the suggestion to consider one of the other much simpler desktops.  
> (When 
> I encounter a newbie, I recommend either KDE or one of the lightweight 
> desktops, I'm a "never GNOMEr"

In my experience (own as well as assisting other newcomers), users 
coming from Windows or Mac will be surprised by the mere existence of 
different options here.

Best to keep it as simple as possible.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: LEAN Debian install: Exploring task selection menu

[Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY]

rhkra...@gmail.com writes:

> On Friday, September 18, 2020 09:21:21 AM Brian wrote:
>> On Fri 18 Sep 2020 at 07:32:46 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> > Right now, if you un-check GNOME, but leave "Debian desktop" checked,
>> > you get a mystery desktop, which usually but not always turns out to
>> > be GNOME, which is the thing that you just un-checked.
>
>> The default desktop is determined by the Recommends: of task-desktop.
>> The DEs are installed based on the Depends: of the various packages.
>> Is there a better way of doing it?
>>
>> > How you don't find that confusing is a mystery to me.
>
>> Regarding new users: they are just as likely to be mystified by "lxde"
>> and "lxqt" as by "Debian desktop environment".
>
> I don't know for sure, but one suggestion I'd make is to move that first 
> option
> (whatever it said, something like Default debian desktop) to be the last
> option and change the wording, something like: "[for advanced users:] [can be
> used to] install X only (with no desktop)" (I guess if you want X only you
> have select that in the other place you mentioned.)

And in that case, if users insist on this possibility, it would be much
more useful to have this entry *always* install X only even without the
"no recommends" option.

--
Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY
PGP 015AE9B25DCB0511D200A75DE5674DEA514C891D

Re: LEAN Debian install: Exploring task selection menu

[rhkramer]

On Friday, September 18, 2020 09:21:21 AM Brian wrote:
> On Fri 18 Sep 2020 at 07:32:46 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > Right now, if you un-check GNOME, but leave "Debian desktop" checked,
> > you get a mystery desktop, which usually but not always turns out to
> > be GNOME, which is the thing that you just un-checked.

...

> The default desktop is determined by the Recommends: of task-desktop.
> The DEs are installed based on the Depends: of the various packages.
> Is there a better way of doing it?
> 
> > How you don't find that confusing is a mystery to me.
> 

...

> Regarding new users: they are just as likely to be mystified by "lxde"
> and "lxqt" as by "Debian desktop environment".

I don't know for sure, but one suggestion I'd make is to move that first option 
(whatever it said, something like Default debian desktop) to be the last 
option and change the wording, something like: "[for advanced users:] [can be 
used to] install X only (with no desktop)" (I guess if you want X only you 
have select that in the other place you mentioned.)

I suspect many of the newbies to Linux will have heard about GNOME, KDE, along 
with the suggestion to consider one of the other much simpler desktops.  (When 
I encounter a newbie, I recommend either KDE or one of the lightweight 
desktops, I'm a "never GNOMEr"

Re: LEAN Debian install: Exploring task selection menu

[Brian]

On Fri 18 Sep 2020 at 07:32:46 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 10:42:59PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > The function of the menu is crystal clear.
> > 
> > Activating as it as presented a user gets the ticked option.
> > 
> > Unticking the option gets the user nothing.
> > 
> > Start with that.
> 
> Right now, if you un-check GNOME, but leave "Debian desktop" checked,
> you get a mystery desktop, which usually but not always turns out to
> be GNOME, which is the thing that you just un-checked.

I don't really want to nit-pick but, when the menu is presented, only 
"Debian desktop environment" is selected. A user who wonders what it
provides is free to read the available documentation (Installation
Guide, wiki etc) to resolve the mystery. When I have a Bash issue I
often find a bit of reading clarifies matters :).

The default desktop is determined by the Recommends: of task-desktop.
The DEs are installed based on the Depends: of the various packages.
Is there a better way of doing it?

> How you don't find that confusing is a mystery to me.

I'll take that to be rhetorical.

Regarding new users: they are just as likely to be mystified by "lxde"
and "lxqt" as by "Debian desktop environment".

-- 
Brian.

Re: LEAN Debian install: Exploring task selection menu

[rhkramer]

Thank you!

On Friday, September 18, 2020 08:12:34 AM Brian wrote:
> It provides the default DE (and can be preseeded with tasksel/first) :

Re: LEAN Debian install: Exploring task selection menu

[Brian]

On Fri 18 Sep 2020 at 04:36:08 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:

> > > I guess what is not clear to me includes (and I did some googling while 
> > > taking
> > > a break from yardwork):
> > > 
> > > * does task-desktop provide some functionality that would not be 
> > > installed
> > > if the user requested GNOME, KDE, ...?
> > > 
> > > * does task-desktop provide some functionality that would work 
> > > without one
> > > of the other listed DEs (GNOME, KDE, ...)?
> > > * and, for extra credit, what is the functionality that task-desktop
> > > provides that is not included with any of the DEs?
> > 
> > All three of these questions have been answered twice.
> > 
> 
> If answered {which I doubt}, the explicit answers to those explicit
> questions were not conveyed to readers.

> * does task-desktop provide some functionality that would not be installed
> if the user requested GNOME, KDE, ...?

It provides the default DE (and can be preseeded with tasksel/first) :

 Recommends: task-gnome-desktop | task-xfce-desktop | task-kde-desktop | 
 task-lxde-desktop | task-cinnamon-desktop |
 task-mate-desktop | task-lxqt-desktop

It allows only X to be installed (--no-install-recommends):

 Depends: tasksel (= 3.53), xorg, xserver-xorg-video-all,
  xserver-xorg-input-all, desktop-base

> * does task-desktop provide some functionality that would work without one
> of the other listed DEs (GNOME, KDE, ...)?

It allows only X to be installed (--no-install-recommends).

> * and, for extra credit, what is the functionality that task-desktop
> provides that is not included with any of the DEs?

For task-mate-desktop:

 Depends: tasksel (= 3.53), task-desktop, mate-desktop-environment,
  lightdm

It is not possible to install only X.

I hope this helps in the exploration of the task selection menu and the
search for leanness.

-- 
Brian.