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 I took (netinst), all this firmware, plus the
Packages files to describe them, is added to the official image's
contents, including exactly the same DI. Apart metadata text files
describing the contents, there's one binary file, the efi.img,
that contains a few bytes that differ between the two images.
So it really is *the* Debian installer.

Take one firmware .deb as an example, a popular one, iwlwifi.
It contains 56 discrete binary firmware files. Whi

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: dual-boot install question

[deloptes]

Doug wrote:

> And disconnect the Windows drive
> when you install Linux.

completely paranoid approach, but if you are not sure in what you are doing,
it is justified. However for the record it is not necessary to do any of
this and even not required to have 2 drives, unless you do some windows
factory reset that would swipe your disk. I would recommend making backup
upfront such operations.

if grub does not recognize your windows partition, you better look into grub
configuration, or add a file like
 /etc/grub.d/25_windows

with following

insmod part_msdos
insmod ntfs
set root='hd0,2'
chainloader +1

where hd0 is first drive and 2 is second partition - adjust to match your
setup

regards

Re: dual-boot install question

[Doug]

On 02/09/2017 10:24 PM, Jimmy Johnson wrote:

On 02/09/2017 05:11 PM, Lori . wrote:

/snip/

I'm really confused, if you can and or
have the time please guide me for the Dual Boot installation process. 
I've
been a big follower of Debian Linux for 3 years. I don't know why 
this time

I'm having so many problems. Please respond when you receive this
messageThank you


Hi Lori, you already had a bootable system and did not need the boot 
flag. What happens when you boot without the flash drive, just do a 
normal boot starting with the system off.?  What you should see is a 
grub menu offering you the option to boot into Debian or Windows and 
it should timeout and boot into Debian.


You said that Windows will still boot. You're lucky. After one Linux 
install (not Debian, and not really recent) I found my Windows system 
deleted!  And when you've upgraded to a present
Windows system and don't have install disks and serial numbers, that's  
a real problem.  Be VERY careful when you try to install Linux after 
Windows! It can be done, and I've done it since
the problem, but BE CAREFUL! Not many options with a laptop, but on a 
desktop, I strongly recommend two hd or ssd drives, on e for each 
system. And disconnect the Windows drive
when you install Linux. Sort out the Grub later--legacy grub is much 
easier to deal with.


--doug

--
Blessed are the peacemakers...for they shall be shot at from both 
sides.--A.M,Greeley

Re: dual-boot install question

[Jimmy Johnson]

On 02/09/2017 05:11 PM, Lori . wrote:

Hello, I've been having some problematic issues with the install of Debian
8. I'm trying to do a so called "Dual-Boot" with my Windows 10 dell laptop.
I've partitioned my disk and shrunk it to 125gb of free space. I have a
FAT32 usb stick that holds 16gb on it. So when I partitioned one of my disk
for the Dual Boot I labelled it as NTFS, I'm not sure if that was the right
decision on my part. So after all that's done I burned the Debian 8 iso
image onto my FAT32 usb thumb drive. My architecture is amd64 if that
matters.
A few minutes later when the burning of the iso was finished I restarted my
laptop. Then I went into my boot-up interface, which than I selected my
usb's name. It made a loud beep noise then brought me into a little
graphical interface that shown "Install" and "Graphical install", there
were more but I've kind of forgot the names of the other options that were
listed. So then I clicked 'graphical install', it loaded me into the
configuring of the network and selecting were I live.

It had a couple options of how'd I wanted to do the partition, I clicked
"Manual". Another page pops up, now it shows me the partitions on my
computer. I've clicked the partition that was made for the Dual Boot. After
I've done that it showed me a new page of options that had some things on
it. There was a "Use as:" option and there was a "Bootable flag:" option,
the "Bootable flag" was set to off. So I clicked it, and nothing had
happened but it said a few fast lines of words that I didn't catch on time
sadly. Also back to the "Use as:" option, I first used it as ext4 and set
the 'mount point' to "/", which that means the root file system. I saved
the changes to the partition and started writing the files from my usb onto
the partition I've just edited.
When that's done it said I will need to remove my usb from my laptop so the
install runs smoothly. I'd done exactly that, but before I removed it, I
clicked "ok". It soon rebooted, and while it was rebooting I removed the
usb. It had redirected me to the Debian graphical interface again, but this
time it showed me something different. It had showed me if I wanted to just
"Run" it or run it in something that looked like "dev/sda". There was more
to the "dev/sda" but I didn't get a good look at the whole thing.
I had tried both just a plain old simple "Run" and the other option
"dev/sda". When I tried both it loaded me into a terminal type environment
and it said something like "Swap failed to swap". But all the other things
that were listed were labelled with "OK". Then it redirected me into "Opps
something went wrong, please contact a system administrator for
assistance", it had a bright white screen behind the black letters. I had
nothing to worry about, my windows 10 operating system was not damaged so
it didn't affect me. Then I went back to choose a file system and this time
I had chosen "swap" went through the same process and it gave me "Opps
something went wrong, please contact a system administrator for assistance".
Then I labelled FAT32 for the file system on the partition and the same
thing happened like the last time. I'm really confused, if you can and or
have the time please guide me for the Dual Boot installation process. I've
been a big follower of Debian Linux for 3 years. I don't know why this time
I'm having so many problems. Please respond when you receive this
messageThank you


Hi Lori, you already had a bootable system and did not need the boot 
flag. What happens when you boot without the flash drive, just do a 
normal boot starting with the system off.?  What you should see is a 
grub menu offering you the option to boot into Debian or Windows and it 
should timeout and boot into Debian.

--
Jimmy Johnson

Debian Stretch - Plasma 5.8.4 - EXT4 at sda11
Registered Linux User #380263

Re: dual-boot install question

[Patrick Bartek]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 20:11:55 -0500 "Lori ."  wrote:

> Hello, I've been having some problematic issues with the install of
> Debian
> 8. I'm trying to do a so called "Dual-Boot" with my Windows 10 dell
> laptop. I've partitioned my disk and shrunk it to 125gb of free
> space. I have a FAT32 usb stick that holds 16gb on it. So when I
> [big snip of what was done and its failure]

To do what you want to do, particularly witn Windows 10 factory
installed, is not as simple as putting in a Debian install disc or
flash drive, and off you go.  You need to research the procedure:
Windows doesn't work or play well with others. Maybe, the following will
get you started:

https://www.lifewire.com/dual-boot-windows-8-1-debian-jessie-2202088

Yes, I know it's for W8.1 and not W10, but the basic install process is
the same.

Personally, I abandoned Dual-Boot years ago.  I install Windows in
VirtualBox under a Linux host.  That way, I can run Linux and Windows
simultaneously and switch back and forth between them as needed.

B.

dual-boot install question

[Lori .]

Hello, I've been having some problematic issues with the install of Debian
8. I'm trying to do a so called "Dual-Boot" with my Windows 10 dell laptop.
I've partitioned my disk and shrunk it to 125gb of free space. I have a
FAT32 usb stick that holds 16gb on it. So when I partitioned one of my disk
for the Dual Boot I labelled it as NTFS, I'm not sure if that was the right
decision on my part. So after all that's done I burned the Debian 8 iso
image onto my FAT32 usb thumb drive. My architecture is amd64 if that
matters.
A few minutes later when the burning of the iso was finished I restarted my
laptop. Then I went into my boot-up interface, which than I selected my
usb's name. It made a loud beep noise then brought me into a little
graphical interface that shown "Install" and "Graphical install", there
were more but I've kind of forgot the names of the other options that were
listed. So then I clicked 'graphical install', it loaded me into the
configuring of the network and selecting were I live.

It had a couple options of how'd I wanted to do the partition, I clicked
"Manual". Another page pops up, now it shows me the partitions on my
computer. I've clicked the partition that was made for the Dual Boot. After
I've done that it showed me a new page of options that had some things on
it. There was a "Use as:" option and there was a "Bootable flag:" option,
the "Bootable flag" was set to off. So I clicked it, and nothing had
happened but it said a few fast lines of words that I didn't catch on time
sadly. Also back to the "Use as:" option, I first used it as ext4 and set
the 'mount point' to "/", which that means the root file system. I saved
the changes to the partition and started writing the files from my usb onto
the partition I've just edited.
When that's done it said I will need to remove my usb from my laptop so the
install runs smoothly. I'd done exactly that, but before I removed it, I
clicked "ok". It soon rebooted, and while it was rebooting I removed the
usb. It had redirected me to the Debian graphical interface again, but this
time it showed me something different. It had showed me if I wanted to just
"Run" it or run it in something that looked like "dev/sda". There was more
to the "dev/sda" but I didn't get a good look at the whole thing.
I had tried both just a plain old simple "Run" and the other option
"dev/sda". When I tried both it loaded me into a terminal type environment
and it said something like "Swap failed to swap". But all the other things
that were listed were labelled with "OK". Then it redirected me into "Opps
something went wrong, please contact a system administrator for
assistance", it had a bright white screen behind the black letters. I had
nothing to worry about, my windows 10 operating system was not damaged so
it didn't affect me. Then I went back to choose a file system and this time
I had chosen "swap" went through the same process and it gave me "Opps
something went wrong, please contact a system administrator for assistance".
Then I labelled FAT32 for the file system on the partition and the same
thing happened like the last time. I'm really confused, if you can and or
have the time please guide me for the Dual Boot installation process. I've
been a big follower of Debian Linux for 3 years. I don't know why this time
I'm having so many problems. Please respond when you receive this
messageThank you

Re: (SOLVED) Re: Backported Kernel - install question

[Kailash Kalyani]

On Saturday 14 December 2013 02:22 PM, Reco wrote:

  Hi.

On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 12:06:15 +0530
Kailash Kalyani  wrote:


Apt-get gave me the following error:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
   linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-686-pae : Breaks: initramfs-tools (< 0.110~)
but 0.109.1 is to be installed
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

And so I installed initramfs-tools from wheezy-backports first and then
the linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-686-pae

However, was apt-get correct in not attempting to upgrade
initramfs-tools as well?


Yes, it was. Compare this:

# apt-get install linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-amd64

The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
  linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-amd64 : Breaks: initramfs-tools (< 0.110~)
but 0.109.1 is to be installed E:
Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages


To this:

apt-get install -t wheezy-backports linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-amd64

The following extra packages will be installed:
   initramfs-tools
Suggested packages:
   linux-doc-3.11 debian-kernel-handbook
The following NEW packages will be installed:
   linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-amd64
The following packages will be upgraded:
   initramfs-tools


Unless you allow apt to search dependencies outside of preferred
release (wheezy) - it will try to install from backports only the
package you've told it to install (i.e. linux-image).

Reco



Thanks for the clarification! Much appreciated!
K


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52ac28ea.6070...@gmail.com

Re: (SOLVED) Re: Backported Kernel - install question

[Reco]

 Hi.

On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 12:06:15 +0530
Kailash Kalyani  wrote:

> Apt-get gave me the following error:
> 
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>   linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-686-pae : Breaks: initramfs-tools (< 0.110~) 
> but 0.109.1 is to be installed
> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> 
> And so I installed initramfs-tools from wheezy-backports first and then 
> the linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-686-pae
> 
> However, was apt-get correct in not attempting to upgrade 
> initramfs-tools as well?

Yes, it was. Compare this:

# apt-get install linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-amd64

The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-amd64 : Breaks: initramfs-tools (< 0.110~)
but 0.109.1 is to be installed E:
Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages


To this:

apt-get install -t wheezy-backports linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-amd64

The following extra packages will be installed:
  initramfs-tools
Suggested packages:
  linux-doc-3.11 debian-kernel-handbook
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-amd64
The following packages will be upgraded:
  initramfs-tools


Unless you allow apt to search dependencies outside of preferred
release (wheezy) - it will try to install from backports only the
package you've told it to install (i.e. linux-image).

Reco


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20131214125254.1cfd76cc50fd9cdf2c4fb...@gmail.com

Re: (SOLVED) Re: Backported Kernel - install question

[Kailash Kalyani]

On Saturday 14 December 2013 12:06 PM, Kailash Kalyani wrote:

On Friday 13 December 2013 02:32 AM, Reco wrote:

Hi.

On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 21:33:45 +0100
Ralf Mardorf  wrote:


On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 21:32 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:


I experienced that synaptic for *buntu Saucy is broken, perhaps it's
for
Debian broken too. Sometimes nothing is inconsistent, but Synaptic
claims that a dependency should be broken. After closing and opening
Synaptic everything is ok.


If apt-get does work, than a not buggy Synaptic must work too ;).


apt, aptitude and synaptic handle package install conflicts differently.

These tools do the same in trivial situations like installing or
removing package from the main archive.

But, put a number of packages with the same name and different versions
(add versioned dependencies to the picture) - and these 3 tools start
behaving differently. Add the fact that any package in backports
archive has special version that is _lower_ that any version in main
archive - and sometimes these tools may produce funny results.

Basically, apt provides you with the most dumb solution possible
(works most of the time) - install what you want, upgrade dependencies.

Aptitude gives you multiple ways of installing package (and one has to
choose carefully) - install what you want, upgrade/downgrade
dependencies (and may remove something just for fun :).

Synaptic assumes that you are not lazy, and will use Ctrl+E (IIRC, may
be wrong) to force particular versions for needed packages.

So, it's possible to use Synaptic for the task, it just will violate
the great IBM principle - 'People should think, machine should work'.

Reco



Hi,

Apt-get gave me the following error:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
  linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-686-pae : Breaks: initramfs-tools (< 0.110~)
but 0.109.1 is to be installed
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

And so I installed initramfs-tools from wheezy-backports first and then
the linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-686-pae

However, was apt-get correct in not attempting to upgrade
initramfs-tools as well?

Thanks,
Kailash

FYI only.

My new install of the kernel caused VirtualBox to stop functioning:
I followed the following steps:
1. Installed the wheezy-backports version of VirtualBox (no change- the 
kernel modules failed to start)
2. Tried to check versions of dkms - have the latest stable (no updates 
in backports)
3. After looking through VirtualBox installation page 
(http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch02.html#install-linux-host)

I figured I was missing the headers for the new kernel.
4. sudo apt-get install linux-headers-3.11-0.bpo.2-686-pae
followed by
sudo apt-get install virtualbox/wheezy-backports --reinstall

fixed the issue.

Hope this helps.
K.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52ac1505.9040...@gmail.com

(SOLVED) Re: Backported Kernel - install question

[Kailash Kalyani]

On Friday 13 December 2013 02:32 AM, Reco wrote:

Hi.

On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 21:33:45 +0100
Ralf Mardorf  wrote:


On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 21:32 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:


I experienced that synaptic for *buntu Saucy is broken, perhaps it's for
Debian broken too. Sometimes nothing is inconsistent, but Synaptic
claims that a dependency should be broken. After closing and opening
Synaptic everything is ok.


If apt-get does work, than a not buggy Synaptic must work too ;).


apt, aptitude and synaptic handle package install conflicts differently.

These tools do the same in trivial situations like installing or
removing package from the main archive.

But, put a number of packages with the same name and different versions
(add versioned dependencies to the picture) - and these 3 tools start
behaving differently. Add the fact that any package in backports
archive has special version that is _lower_ that any version in main
archive - and sometimes these tools may produce funny results.

Basically, apt provides you with the most dumb solution possible
(works most of the time) - install what you want, upgrade dependencies.

Aptitude gives you multiple ways of installing package (and one has to
choose carefully) - install what you want, upgrade/downgrade
dependencies (and may remove something just for fun :).

Synaptic assumes that you are not lazy, and will use Ctrl+E (IIRC, may
be wrong) to force particular versions for needed packages.

So, it's possible to use Synaptic for the task, it just will violate
the great IBM principle - 'People should think, machine should work'.

Reco



Hi,

Apt-get gave me the following error:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-686-pae : Breaks: initramfs-tools (< 0.110~) 
but 0.109.1 is to be installed

E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

And so I installed initramfs-tools from wheezy-backports first and then 
the linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-686-pae


However, was apt-get correct in not attempting to upgrade 
initramfs-tools as well?


Thanks,
Kailash


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52abfc5f.1010...@gmail.com

Re: Backported Kernel - install question

[Reco]

Hi.

On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 21:33:45 +0100
Ralf Mardorf  wrote:

> On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 21:32 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > 
> > I experienced that synaptic for *buntu Saucy is broken, perhaps it's for
> > Debian broken too. Sometimes nothing is inconsistent, but Synaptic
> > claims that a dependency should be broken. After closing and opening
> > Synaptic everything is ok.
> 
> If apt-get does work, than a not buggy Synaptic must work too ;).

apt, aptitude and synaptic handle package install conflicts differently.

These tools do the same in trivial situations like installing or
removing package from the main archive.

But, put a number of packages with the same name and different versions
(add versioned dependencies to the picture) - and these 3 tools start
behaving differently. Add the fact that any package in backports
archive has special version that is _lower_ that any version in main
archive - and sometimes these tools may produce funny results.

Basically, apt provides you with the most dumb solution possible
(works most of the time) - install what you want, upgrade dependencies.

Aptitude gives you multiple ways of installing package (and one has to
choose carefully) - install what you want, upgrade/downgrade
dependencies (and may remove something just for fun :).

Synaptic assumes that you are not lazy, and will use Ctrl+E (IIRC, may
be wrong) to force particular versions for needed packages.

So, it's possible to use Synaptic for the task, it just will violate
the great IBM principle - 'People should think, machine should work'.

Reco


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20131213010245.46f9feb53fc50bafd5390...@gmail.com

Re: Backported Kernel - install question

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 21:32 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 23:03 +0400, Reco wrote:
> >  Hi.
> > 
> > On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:17:02 +0530
> > Kailash Kalyani  wrote:
> > 
> > > My understanding is that it should be possible to install backports 
> > > without breaking a stable install. What am I missing?
> > 
> > Sure, it is possible. You're just using wrong tool for the task.
> > 
> > Try:
> > 
> > apt-get install -t wheezy-backports linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-686-pae
> > 
> > Reco
> 
> I experienced that synaptic for *buntu Saucy is broken, perhaps it's for
> Debian broken too. Sometimes nothing is inconsistent, but Synaptic
> claims that a dependency should be broken. After closing and opening
> Synaptic everything is ok.

If apt-get does work, than a not buggy Synaptic must work too ;).



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1386880425.688.3.camel@archlinux

Re: Backported Kernel - install question

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 23:03 +0400, Reco wrote:
>  Hi.
> 
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:17:02 +0530
> Kailash Kalyani  wrote:
> 
> > My understanding is that it should be possible to install backports 
> > without breaking a stable install. What am I missing?
> 
> Sure, it is possible. You're just using wrong tool for the task.
> 
> Try:
> 
> apt-get install -t wheezy-backports linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-686-pae
> 
> Reco

I experienced that synaptic for *buntu Saucy is broken, perhaps it's for
Debian broken too. Sometimes nothing is inconsistent, but Synaptic
claims that a dependency should be broken. After closing and opening
Synaptic everything is ok.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1386880328.688.2.camel@archlinux

Re: Backported Kernel - install question

[Reco]

 Hi.

On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:17:02 +0530
Kailash Kalyani  wrote:

> My understanding is that it should be possible to install backports 
> without breaking a stable install. What am I missing?

Sure, it is possible. You're just using wrong tool for the task.

Try:

apt-get install -t wheezy-backports linux-image-3.11-0.bpo.2-686-pae

Reco


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20131212230317.0c983c58b8cc0e7d2eb38...@gmail.com

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Selim T. Erdogan]

Karen Lewellen, 26.06.2012:
> Hi Lici,
> That was the nicest way to say...get to the point!
> Honestly, I cannot speak to how layout appears for others.
> I actually have the same question when I use, pico, the editor here.
> In google mail there is an option.  Wrap lines to  fit displayed area?

I use nano instead of pico and I can get lines to wrap by putting

unset nowrap

into my .nanorc file.  You could try putting that into your .picorc 
file.  (Create that file if it doesn't exist already.)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120629140848.gi23...@cs.utexas.edu

Re: unique install question?

[Karen Lewellen]

Hi lisi,
Thank you!
what your post shows, and what I honestly stopped trying to express is 
this.

There is no such thing as a so called one size fits all blind user.

Like every single aspect of the human experience, sight loss is a 100% 
individual thing.
Just like sight presence.  to claim that everyone uses anything the same is 
well...
as nonsensical as claiming every rose is the same, or that everyone paints 
like Picasso...and not everyone cares for him!
a buffet of options with an individual deciding what works from them 
uniquely is a far more productive stance than the efforts at uniformity.
I realize those efforts are rooted in the human condition called 
insecurity.
The fear of appreciating both what makes us treasured individual 
works of human art, and what we share as humans in  a common way.
But we have overcome limited thinking about others things before and can 
again.
I appreciate the motivation behind  vinux, but frankly feel like much 
comparative conversation that it does the individual a disservice.
after all, my working from the accessibility is the same dictionary is how I 
got into the install mess I  was in to start with...lol.

Back to my seat in the corner,
Karen

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, Lisi wrote:


On Wednesday 13 June 2012 19:55:19 Julien Claassen wrote:

Knoppix did support blind users as well. There is Vinux, which is a Debian
version specially compiled for blind users.


Julien -

Vinux is based on Ubuntu, not Debian, and I do not like it.  I am partially
sighted, not fully blind, but could not get on with it at all.  The large
icons (well, largish) and text are skin deep only, and all menus and things
were running in the usual tiny print and were therefore unusable.  I also
thought that its speech was bad, and was thankful that I didn't need to use
it.

I found Knoppix-Adriane vastly better.  Highly usable with adequate speech and
a lot of text (so much easier to work with without pictures etc. messing up
the text image).  The version I saw was basically sans serif black on white.
Great for me, though I realise that it would be less helpful to some others.
I did not try to run it in speech because I am still very incompetent at
that.

Klaus Knopper wrote Knoppix-Adriane for, and with the collaboration of, his
wife Adriane, who is partially sighted.  I have version 6.2.1, and like it,
but have not yet looked at version 7.x.x .

Lisi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201206262327.11955.lisi.re...@gmail.com





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/pine.bsf.4.64.1206271351050.96...@server1.shellworld.net

Re: unique install question?

[Lisi]

Hi, Julien!

On Wednesday 13 June 2012 20:42:04 Julien Claassen wrote:
> Debian has much more to offer to me as a blnd
> user and it's more stable. :-)

+1  Much better also for a partially sighted user.  I use Lenny with KDE 
3.5.10, which is highly configurable, and I have configured it for me!

I shall soon move kicking and screaming into the 21st Century and use Squeeze 
with TDE 3.5.13.  (Trinity Desktop Environment, the continuation of KDE 
3.5.x).  It would, of course be better from most points of view to move 
straight to Wheezy.  But TDE for Wheezy isn't ready yet, so I shall have park 
in Squeeze for a bit.

Nothing else is as configurable as KDE 3.5.x.  Only TDE, its continuation.  I 
have tried several alternatives.  Most are just too fond of bling, at the 
expense of functionality.

If I can persuade any of my blind friends to use Linux, I may pick your brains 
on Debian for the blind.  I always prefer to use Debian for everything.

Best wishes,
Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201206262339.39860.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Karen Lewellen]

Hi Lici,
That was the nicest way to say...get to the point!
Honestly, I cannot speak to how layout appears for others.
I actually have the same question when I use, pico, the editor here.
In google mail there is an option.  Wrap lines to  fit displayed area?
I always say now, since the displayed area is going to differ based on 
what you are using.

Therefore I am not sure I can do much about how Pico  is blocking the text.
That might not be the main issue though.
I admit to a William Faulkner or Charles Dickens  sentence  structure 
tendency.

Do either of those names ring a bell?
You know, starting a sentence on say page 7 that goes on for a a couple of 
pages?

That is a Falkner hing.

Writing my email in a word processor might  help me on that front, but 
pico 
like word is no word processor.

No idea if that helps!
Would you feel better if I shared that Brian tabled my main issue ages 
back?

Falknerly yours,
Kare

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, Lisi wrote:


On Wednesday 13 June 2012 02:47:37 Karen Lewellen wrote:

Rob,
I do not work in most popular, because this may or may not mean most
accessible from a screen reading standpoint, or more flexible from a
usability standpoint...in my personal dictionary, there is no such thing
as "most people."
I am using pure dos  on my main computer for example, having never
regarded windows as either a reasonable or practical way to run a
computer, no matter how popular..but back to debian.

case in point, I sing professionally and am a radio producer, for me there
is no such thing as too many music players, smiles.
Again if there were a list that one could review outside of the install
process detailing the packages  and the images with which they were
associated, you would have a point.  However without such a list to review
in advance I would likely never discover other program options.
If you know of such a list send away.
Otherwise, the idea that I might find 20 music players  waiting on DVD4,
means I will most certainly now  install everything to get to them lol!
I seriously understand what you and the others are saying, but I am working
with very limited information, and  have more than enough room on the
30gig hard
drive I am using for all  of the packages.  Then I can choose so that for
my next machine I can install less.


Karen, I hesitate to ask, since you are clearly so much worse off than I.

I am partially sighted, and have great difficulty with your emails because the
blocks are so large.  The largest block of text in this email is 14 lines,
which is still problematic, but the largest block in your previous email was
44 lines long. [ I didn't count myself, I got KWrite to do it. ;-) ]

I realise that you may not be able to do anything about it, and that you may
not even know that you are doing it.  But if you do know that you are doing
it, and would be able to do something about it, could you possibly?

I find your emails worth reading and am prepared to take some effort to read
them.  And I could always copy and paste into a word processor and edit it.
It's just that it would be nice not to have to do so.

Thanks,
Lisi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201206262248.38314.lisi.re...@gmail.com





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/pine.bsf.4.64.1206261823510.55...@server1.shellworld.net

Re: unique install question?

[Lisi]

On Wednesday 13 June 2012 19:55:19 Julien Claassen wrote:
> Knoppix did support blind users as well. There is Vinux, which is a Debian
> version specially compiled for blind users.

Julien -

Vinux is based on Ubuntu, not Debian, and I do not like it.  I am partially 
sighted, not fully blind, but could not get on with it at all.  The large 
icons (well, largish) and text are skin deep only, and all menus and things 
were running in the usual tiny print and were therefore unusable.  I also 
thought that its speech was bad, and was thankful that I didn't need to use 
it.

I found Knoppix-Adriane vastly better.  Highly usable with adequate speech and 
a lot of text (so much easier to work with without pictures etc. messing up 
the text image).  The version I saw was basically sans serif black on white.  
Great for me, though I realise that it would be less helpful to some others.  
I did not try to run it in speech because I am still very incompetent at 
that.

Klaus Knopper wrote Knoppix-Adriane for, and with the collaboration of, his 
wife Adriane, who is partially sighted.  I have version 6.2.1, and like it, 
but have not yet looked at version 7.x.x .

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201206262327.11955.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Lisi]

On Wednesday 13 June 2012 02:47:37 Karen Lewellen wrote:
> Rob,
> I do not work in most popular, because this may or may not mean most
> accessible from a screen reading standpoint, or more flexible from a
> usability standpoint...in my personal dictionary, there is no such thing
> as "most people."
> I am using pure dos  on my main computer for example, having never
> regarded windows as either a reasonable or practical way to run a
> computer, no matter how popular..but back to debian.
>
> case in point, I sing professionally and am a radio producer, for me there
> is no such thing as too many music players, smiles.
> Again if there were a list that one could review outside of the install
> process detailing the packages  and the images with which they were
> associated, you would have a point.  However without such a list to review
> in advance I would likely never discover other program options.
> If you know of such a list send away.
> Otherwise, the idea that I might find 20 music players  waiting on DVD4,
> means I will most certainly now  install everything to get to them lol!
> I seriously understand what you and the others are saying, but I am working
> with very limited information, and  have more than enough room on the
> 30gig hard
> drive I am using for all  of the packages.  Then I can choose so that for
> my next machine I can install less.

Karen, I hesitate to ask, since you are clearly so much worse off than I.  

I am partially sighted, and have great difficulty with your emails because the 
blocks are so large.  The largest block of text in this email is 14 lines, 
which is still problematic, but the largest block in your previous email was  
44 lines long. [ I didn't count myself, I got KWrite to do it. ;-) ]

I realise that you may not be able to do anything about it, and that you may 
not even know that you are doing it.  But if you do know that you are doing 
it, and would be able to do something about it, could you possibly?

I find your emails worth reading and am prepared to take some effort to read 
them.  And I could always copy and paste into a word processor and edit it.  
It's just that it would be nice not to have to do so.

Thanks,
Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201206262248.38314.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:32:56 +1000, Scott wrote in message 
<4fd9a1b8.9050...@gmail.com>:

> On 14/06/12 04:04, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:27:22 +1000, Scott wrote in message 
> > <4fd7de6a.6020...@gmail.com>:
> > 
> >> On 13/06/12 04:45, Brian wrote:
> >>> On Tue 12 Jun 2012 at 16:52:43 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> >>>
>  On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:01:22 +0100, Brian wrote in message 
>  <20120612100122.GJ30016@desktop>:
> 
> > The DVD is a USB device. She cannot boot from USB on the machine
> > she wishes to install Debian to.
> >>
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> >> I've tried that a number of times with old machines whose BIOS
> >> didn't support USB booting, only on a couple of occasions did GRUB
> >> manage to use the root=/dev/sdb line.
> >> :-(
> > 
> > ..the key is use the cdrom grub boot as a stepping stone to 
> > find the usb dvd's boot record, and boot that.  E.g. Knoppix 
> > have a few 16?MB "boot only" isos to boot their 4GB dvd isos.
> 
> Yes - I think (guess) it's the same as the one from DamnSmallLinux,
> (and uses the same mechanism as SBM), - a floppy chainloader for CD
> boot. It gets around the BIOS not being able to see the device
> attached to the USB. AFAIK GRUB can't get around that limitation
> (boot a device unseen by the BIOS) - though I don't doubt GRUB has
> the capacity to do so if SmartBootManager type hooks were written
> into a GRUB module (the spaceinvaders module for GRUB is a good
> example of how simple that might be).

..easiest way is chainload SBM, I suspect that may be what SBM does,
I was able to hop back and forth between harddisk and cd or floppy
by simply picking that item in SBM's menu.  Got that idea idea 
trying to set up lilo boot on a box with a raid1 disk setup. ;o)

> > ..in my (grub legacy) experience, I did this 3 ways, chainload 
> > the next boot loader, or, use memdisk as kernel and the iso 
> > image as initrd, 
> 
> Which should (I suspect) allow you to boot from devices not 'seen' by
> the BIOS (e.g. attached to cards, removable)

..correct.

> > and finally "the grub way", "root ([tab][tab]". 
> > I borrowed memdisk from syslinux. ;o)
> > 
> > ..but yes, grub and the kernel will often disagree on "what's
> > where."
> 
> Your third way (I suspect) allows you to boot a device that is seen by
> the BIOS, but is seen by the BIOS as unbootable. Eg. BIOS sees USB,
> but doesn't allow for booting from a USB device (possibly the
> scenario in question).

..probably, I was trying to make money getting it out my door. ;o)

> 
> 
> > 
> > ..the first time I pulled such a stunt, (5 1996 vintage IBM 760ED
> > thinkpads that came with 3 cdrom and 2 bootable floppy drives to 
> > fit the auxillary disk|battery compartment,) I put Smart Boot
> > Manager (http://btmgr.sourceforge.net/about.html) on the harddisk
> > mbrs, then removed the floppy drives and put in the cd drives and
> > booted the distro installer cds from the harddisks.
> 
> I suspect SBM uses the same mechanism as the Knoppix/DSL boot CD from
> floppy method.
> 
> > First X boot was an early knoppix clone that took 2.5 hours 
> > off that poor 4x cd drive. ;o) 
> > 
> 
> ...but almost certainly it got you some sort of graphical display - a
> major Linux achievement at the time (kudos to kudzu and Klaus's config
> scripting).

..probably, I don't recall any details other than that black screen 
suddenly lighting up into X half way thru my tax return, most 
installers back then (2000-2002?) used ncurses style "graphics."

> Not much earlier than that it was just floppy installs as CDs wouldn't
> boot off card controllers - so DOS and laplink was considered corner
> cutting (I'd forgotten how unreliable floppy disks were).

..aye, I came aboard with a SuSE-5.2 cd trying to save data 
from ~25 Wintendo-95 crashes in a coupla weeks. ;o)

-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120615042455.26a37...@celsius.lan

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Brian]

On Thu 14 Jun 2012 at 13:28:31 +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:

> On 14/06/12 01:45, Curt wrote:
> 
> > and once an "expert" you may choose Squeeze as the target distribution.
> 
> after choosing the mirrors module during the load installer components
> from cd option (expert mode).

Won't work with a Wheezy netinst or full CD. Neither Squeeze nor Sid is
offered as an installation choice. Wheezy is what you have; Wheezy is
what you get.

Tested and didn't work. Please see bug #356105.

The mail at

   http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg00348.html

and its followup are also relevant.

If it was a viable procedure we really should add it to

   http://www.debian.org/CD/faq/#unstable-images

> alternatively you can just use the wheezy installer (it loads to ram) to
> load the squeeze installer (loadmedium module).

Doesn't work. Dealt with elsewhere in this thread. load-media is for
loading installer components. A Squeeze image doesn't seem to fit that
category.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120614154440.GW30016@desktop

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Brian]

On Thu 14 Jun 2012 at 13:17:59 +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:

> On 13/06/12 19:29, Brian wrote:
> > On Wed 13 Jun 2012 at 10:57:42 +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> > 
> >> On 13/06/12 04:35, a troll wrote:
> >>>
> >>> By the time the choosing a mirror stage is reached with a netinst image
> >>> or the first CD the base files (Stable or Testing versions) have been
> >>> installed in /target. 
> >>
> >> Instead of just hitting "Enter" at every opportunity try the "expert"
> >> - prior to partitioning (*before anything is written to the hard drive*)
> >> you'll be asked which release you want to install:-
> >>
> >> Stage: Choose a mirror of the Debian archive
> >> di question:
> >> Debian version to install:
> >> choice: squeeze - stable
> > 
> > The main menu for a netinst iso:
> 
> This is an *audio* install - hence the OPs choice of the Wheezy
> installer. There is no graphical menu.

My understanding of the situation hasn't changed since I first read the
original post.  
 
> Boot from wheezy and combine speakup with an expert install and the
> Squeeze DVDs to build Squeeze.
> 
> Pick a method to start the speakup installer (the OP provided detailed
> instructions for one method).
> Combine it with expert (low debconf).
> 
> start install with cmdline "/install.386/vmlinux vga=788 priority=low
> initrd=/install.386/gtk/initrd.gz speakup.synth=soft -- quiet":-
> ;pick speakup from the menu - edit it to add priority=low
> ;after disk noise stops press 's' then Enter, at first menu select the
> ;change priority/debconf
> ;other variations
> 
> (one method):-
> Follow the voice prompted menu...
> language - choose 6 (English - default)
> location - 2
> locale - 2
> additional locale - 135
> default locale - 1
> *then* choose detect and mount cd-rom
> which is where you'd add the first Squeeze CD-ROM...

Adding the first Squeeze CD is on the difficult side when there is only
one CD-ROM on the machine. Perhaps you mean the Wheezy CD should be
removed first. We'll do that, although it can be forecast what is going
to happen.

Step 4 is successful. The CD-ROM is detected and the CD is reported as
containing the Binary-1 for Squeeze. Great, we are on our way!

Now for loading the installer components. Full stop!

No kernel modules were found. This probably is due to a
mismatch between the kernel used by this version of the
installer . . . .

The installer is using a Wheezy kernel; the modules on the Squeeze CD
are for a Squeeze kernel. Sounds reasonable.

Ok, we'll leave the Wheezy CD in the drive and add the Squeeze CD on a
USB stick. This is the same as having a machine with two CD-ROMs as far
as d-i is concerned.

At step 4 the Wheezy CD is detected and the install continues with it.
Seems sensible. Why choose a Squeeze CD to use when it does not have the
correct kernel modules? 


> > I don't see what you do. Is this a bug in my installer?
> 
> There is a bug, but clearly it's not in your installer.

The significant thing here is your failure to remark on the missing
stage in the main menu (Choose a mirror of the Debian archive) which you
claimed would offer a choice of which Debian version to install. It
seems we are in agreement it does not exist for an install from the
first CD or a netinst iso. It's good to have that out of the way.

You have now taken a completely different tack. It is one which is not
documented in the installer manual and is doomed to failure.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120614104653.GV30016@desktop

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Scott Ferguson]

On 14/06/12 17:20, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 16:49 +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> My primary concern would be whether the audio chipset is going to be
>> supported
> 
> Those old boards perhaps often use AC'97? 

Post 1997 - yes (funny that)


AC is just Intel's "standard" (v1 - current v2.3) - many chips provide
it. They can often be disabled in the BIOS and/or IRQs and channels
changed - many PII boards also have ACPI "quirks" that make careful BIOS
configuration a requirement, enabling PlugNPray is usually required. The
OP has mentioned a 30GB drive being supported - so it's a not a stone
age pre-LBA BIOS.

> It's supported by ALSA. 

I 'suspect' alsa is only possible post-install, but I'd have to read all
the d-i documentation to be certain...

Maybe the modules list can tell you?
screen scrapes from an install:-
http://ge.tt/1JVT87J/v/0





Kind regards

-- 
Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding
answers to questions about Debian:-
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/Scott_Ferguson/debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd9ae32.8030...@gmail.com

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Scott Ferguson]

On 14/06/12 04:04, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:27:22 +1000, Scott wrote in message 
> <4fd7de6a.6020...@gmail.com>:
> 
>> On 13/06/12 04:45, Brian wrote:
>>> On Tue 12 Jun 2012 at 16:52:43 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>>>
 On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:01:22 +0100, Brian wrote in message 
 <20120612100122.GJ30016@desktop>:

> The DVD is a USB device. She cannot boot from USB on the machine
> she wishes to install Debian to.
>>



>>
>> I've tried that a number of times with old machines whose BIOS didn't
>> support USB booting, only on a couple of occasions did GRUB manage to
>> use the root=/dev/sdb line.
>> :-(
> 
> ..the key is use the cdrom grub boot as a stepping stone to 
> find the usb dvd's boot record, and boot that.  E.g. Knoppix 
> have a few 16?MB "boot only" isos to boot their 4GB dvd isos.

Yes - I think (guess) it's the same as the one from DamnSmallLinux, (and
uses the same mechanism as SBM), - a floppy chainloader for CD boot. It
gets around the BIOS not being able to see the device attached to the USB.
AFAIK GRUB can't get around that limitation (boot a device unseen by the
BIOS) - though I don't doubt GRUB has the capacity to do so if
SmartBootManager type hooks were written into a GRUB module (the
spaceinvaders module for GRUB is a good example of how simple that might
be).


> 
> 
> ..in my (grub legacy) experience, I did this 3 ways, chainload 
> the next boot loader, or, use memdisk as kernel and the iso 
> image as initrd, 

Which should (I suspect) allow you to boot from devices not 'seen' by
the BIOS (e.g. attached to cards, removable)

> and finally "the grub way", "root ([tab][tab]". 
> I borrowed memdisk from syslinux. ;o)
> 
> ..but yes, grub and the kernel will often disagree on "what's where."

Your third way (I suspect) allows you to boot a device that is seen by
the BIOS, but is seen by the BIOS as unbootable. Eg. BIOS sees USB, but
doesn't allow for booting from a USB device (possibly the scenario in
question).



> 
> ..the first time I pulled such a stunt, (5 1996 vintage IBM 760ED
> thinkpads that came with 3 cdrom and 2 bootable floppy drives to 
> fit the auxillary disk|battery compartment,) I put Smart Boot Manager
> (http://btmgr.sourceforge.net/about.html) on the harddisk mbrs, then
> removed the floppy drives and put in the cd drives and booted the 
> distro installer cds from the harddisks.

I suspect SBM uses the same mechanism as the Knoppix/DSL boot CD from
floppy method.

> First X boot was an early knoppix clone that took 2.5 hours 
> off that poor 4x cd drive. ;o) 
> 

...but almost certainly it got you some sort of graphical display - a
major Linux achievement at the time (kudos to kudzu and Klaus's config
scripting).

Not much earlier than that it was just floppy installs as CDs wouldn't
boot off card controllers - so DOS and laplink was considered corner
cutting (I'd forgotten how unreliable floppy disks were).




Kind regards


-- 
Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding
answers to questions about Debian:-
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/Scott_Ferguson/debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd9a1b8.9050...@gmail.com

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Scott Ferguson]

On 14/06/12 17:46, Curt wrote:
> On 2012-06-14, Scott Ferguson  wrote:



>>
> 
> I'm snide and curmudgeonly.  It could be worse.


Indeed. Best try and stay sane.
If you don't you'd be snide, curmudgeonly, and nuts. Which would make
you some sort of a snack bar. You can see the problem right there.

Mmmm snack bars

Kind regards


-- 
Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding
answers to questions about Debian:-
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/Scott_Ferguson/debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd99ffe.2050...@gmail.com

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Scott Ferguson]

On 14/06/12 17:24, Curt wrote:
> On 2012-06-14, Scott Ferguson 
> wrote:
>> 
>> Claim?

Hey - if I made a "claim" (actually just agreed with the OPs
information) what sort of specious allegation do we label the d-i and
speakup developers claims?
HINT: I believe it involves inciting jaywalking and wire fraud.

> 
> Well, there's that other guy trying desperately to find "technical 
> evidence" against your "empircal data,"

[straight face] Is that what that's about?

> so I employed a word I hoped 
> would demonstrate my scientific objectivity in the matter.

[slaps forehead] Oh course.
And it does. Aptly.
:-)

> 
>> curmudgeonly - says nothing of me, speaks volumes of you.
> 
> I'll have to read them sometime with my psychiatrist! (the volumes)


Be sure and get the genuine leather bound edition - the pleather (vinyl)
edition is just tacky.


Kind regards

-- 
Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding
answers to questions about Debian:-
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/Scott_Ferguson/debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd99e62.2070...@gmail.com

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Curt]

On 2012-06-14, Scott Ferguson  wrote:
>> 
>> I may be assuming wrong,
>
> No. But don't let that stop you from being snide.
>

I'm snide and curmudgeonly.  It could be worse.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnjtj5of.1th.cu...@einstein.electron.org

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Curt]

On 2012-06-13, Brian  wrote:
>> 
>> Technical evidence that inside the Wheezy installer, in expert mode,
>> prior to partitioning, but after choosing a mirror of the Debian
>> archive, the installer asks which release you wish to install, at which
>> point you may choose Squeeze? 
>
> I have presented the installer's main menu in an earlier post. There is
> no option for choosing a mirror before partitioning is offered. Now I
> may, of course, misunderstood what is happening, or not seen a menu
> item, or failed to delve deeply enough into the options offered. But
> there is a 'Configure the package manager' option after installing the
> base system - so why have the same thing twice?

God, I don't know, brother.  I think you're on to something!

>> The technical evidence is in the empirical data referenced in the article
>> of an experienced, regular user of this list.
>
> This is technical evidence? The only evidence you should be satisfied
> with is what you can obtain and verify for yourself. So do it. Run a
> Wheezy netinst installer inexpert mode. You need go no further than
> loading the installer components from CD.

This is an interesting theory.  Experimental data not harvested
personally is invalid.  My personal theory is that experimental data not
amenable to reproducibility is invalid, though I am not responsible for
personally reproducing each and every datum bit until the universe keels
over from fatigue.

But why would I run the installer in inexpert mode, when the man said

 Instead of just hitting "Enter" at every opportunity try the "expert"

?



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnjtj59b.1th.cu...@einstein.electron.org

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Curt]

On 2012-06-14, Scott Ferguson  wrote:
>
> Claim?

Well, there's that other guy trying desperately to find "technical
evidence" against your "empircal data," so I employed a word I hoped
would demonstrate my scientific objectivity in the matter.

> curmudgeonly - says nothing of me, speaks volumes of you.

I'll have to read them sometime with my psychiatrist! (the volumes)



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnjtj4fb.1th.cu...@einstein.electron.org

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 16:49 +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> My primary concern would be whether the audio chipset is going to be
> supported

Those old boards perhaps often use AC'97? It's supported by ALSA. BIOS
settings might need a check up, dunno. Google found hits regarding to
issues with pulseaudio and the AC'97, but I suspect that pulseaudio
isn't relevant for the Debian installer.
If Karen should use a more professional sound card, it might be, that it
can't work for the installer, if she can't launch the mixer, so for an
install an onboard device might be the better choice.

You never know, but I agree that it's likely that a hardware speech
synth is less resource hungry, than a soft synth.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1339658451.2085.59.camel@precise

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Scott Ferguson]

On 14/06/12 15:46, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:01:23 -0400 (EDT), Karen wrote in message 
> :



>> but there is only so much possible WITH this present box,

Provided you have at least 128MB of RAM there's not much *non-graphical*
"desktop-type" tasks that you *cannot* do.

>> its a Pentium II,  which I admit I felt should have allowed for DVD
>> booting from usb but it does not.

generally (sadly) many PII boards do not have USB boot support in the
BIOS (though updates may be available for your mb - providing someone
can install it for you. If your board has USB built in (it'll be USB
1.0) you 'might' have an option in the BIOS for "legacy USB support"
which will then allow you to use "floppy zip(?)" as a boot option. If
not then the methods Arnt has proposed will allow you to boot from the
USB DVD drive (knoppix/dsl floppy boot for CD/sbm)

> 
> ..pentium II or III (2 or 3) or both?  Very old, you could buy a new
> machine for the money you'll save on power.  On the other hand, these
> slow old boxes will help heat your home.
> 
> ..a bigger question is, does a Pentium II have enough omph to run an
> audio installer?
> 

It should do based on my experience - though I've not done a speakup
install with less than 128MB RAM, and I use the software synth. Karen
mentioned serial port for hardware voice synth support earlier (which
the wheezy installer also supports) - I don't know what it's
requirements are compared to software (I'd 'assume' hardware would
require less).
My primary concern would be whether the audio chipset is going to be
supported - boards of that era often had BIOS and/or mb options that
needed to be configured.

This list covers a wide range of hardware - if you know the motherboard
make and model someone will probably have (or had) the board and can
advice on USB booting and audio experience.


Kind regards

-- 
Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding
answers to questions about Debian:-
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/Scott_Ferguson/debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd9895c.1030...@gmail.com

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:01:23 -0400 (EDT), Karen wrote in message 
:

> oh my...what have I started?

..nobody told you what happens when you toss lighted matches 
down gas tank holes?  Hint, it's usually audible. ;o)

> put a creative challenge to this bunch and the ideas flow.
> *however*
> I have the equipment I have for this project, no more, so will need
> the the knowledgable human first with extra if I am going to spend
> energy this way. Honestly, I remain amazed, but there is only so much
> possible WITH this present box, its a Pentium II,  which I admit I
> felt should have allowed for DVD booting from usb but it does not.

..pentium II or III (2 or 3) or both?  Very old, you could buy 
a new machine for the money you'll save on power.  On the other
hand, these slow old boxes will help heat your home. 

..a bigger question is, does a Pentium II have enough omph 
to run an audio installer?

-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120614074644.13177...@celsius.lan

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Scott Ferguson]

On 14/06/12 02:14, Curt wrote:
> On 2012-06-13, Ralf Mardorf  wrote:
>>
>> IIRC it was Scott? who does exactly mentioned this in his kindly
>> style :D. Options could have sub-options. - Ralf
>>
> 
> Yes, I was replying to Brian's inquiry concerning Scott's
> claim that one can install Squeeze using the Wheezy installer.
> 
> 


Claim?

curmudgeonly - says nothing of me, speaks volumes of you.



Regards.

-- 
Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding
answers to questions about Debian:-
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/Scott_Ferguson/debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd95b10.7050...@gmail.com

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Scott Ferguson]

On 14/06/12 01:45, Curt wrote:
> On 2012-06-13, Brian  wrote:
>>
>> I don't see what you do. Is this a bug in my installer?
> 
> He said prior to partitioning so I assume once you get into the partitioning
> dialogue, the installer gives you the opportunity to choose an "expert" 
> install,

The installer gives you an opportunity to choose "expert" right at the
very beginning of the install. Two choices - expertgui and just plain
expert.

Additionally you can change to expert install anytime during the install
by changing the debconf level to low - expert simply means less is
default and you are asked more question.

Well prior to partitioning you have the opportunity to load additional
modules (sound, ssh, parted, mirror choices, loadmedium etc).

Though the choices are greater now the expert option has been in the
debian installer for quite a few years - you just don't see it unless
you make non-default choices (which suits most people).

> and once an "expert" you may choose Squeeze as the target distribution.

after choosing the mirrors module during the load installer components
from cd option (expert mode).

alternatively you can just use the wheezy installer (it loads to ram) to
load the squeeze installer (loadmedium module).

> 
> I may be assuming wrong,

No. But don't let that stop you from being snide.





Kind regards

-- 
Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding
answers to questions about Debian:-
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/Scott_Ferguson/debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd95a5f.6020...@gmail.com

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Scott Ferguson]

On 13/06/12 19:29, Brian wrote:
> On Wed 13 Jun 2012 at 10:57:42 +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> 
>> On 13/06/12 04:35, a troll wrote:
>>>
>>> By the time the choosing a mirror stage is reached with a netinst image
>>> or the first CD the base files (Stable or Testing versions) have been
>>> installed in /target. 
>>
>> Instead of just hitting "Enter" at every opportunity try the "expert"
>> - prior to partitioning (*before anything is written to the hard drive*)
>> you'll be asked which release you want to install:-
>>
>> Stage: Choose a mirror of the Debian archive
>> di question:
>> Debian version to install:
>> choice: squeeze - stable
> 
> The main menu for a netinst iso:

This is an *audio* install - hence the OPs choice of the Wheezy
installer. There is no graphical menu.

Boot from wheezy and combine speakup with an expert install and the
Squeeze DVDs to build Squeeze.

Pick a method to start the speakup installer (the OP provided detailed
instructions for one method).
Combine it with expert (low debconf).

start install with cmdline "/install.386/vmlinux vga=788 priority=low
initrd=/install.386/gtk/initrd.gz speakup.synth=soft -- quiet":-
;pick speakup from the menu - edit it to add priority=low
;after disk noise stops press 's' then Enter, at first menu select the
;change priority/debconf
;other variations

(one method):-
Follow the voice prompted menu...
language - choose 6 (English - default)
location - 2
locale - 2
additional locale - 135
default locale - 1
*then* choose detect and mount cd-rom
which is where you'd add the first Squeeze CD-ROM...


> 
> I don't see what you do. Is this a bug in my installer?


There is a bug, but clearly it's not in your installer.





-- 
Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding
answers to questions about Debian:-
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/Scott_Ferguson/debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd957e7.70...@gmail.com

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Whit Hansell]

Karen,
I believe I can help you but am asking if it's ok to contact you off 
list to discuss.  I also have a vision problem so am somewhat aware of
your difficulty.  Just reply to the list or to me private and I'll do
what I can to get you up and running and learning Debian. 
Regards,
Whit Hansell

On 06/13/2012 03:22 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
> Actually, and I am putting one answer here for more than one post in
> an effort to save clutter.
> where I sought to interrupt the installer as Sam detailed was prior to
> the network install section,  there are network cards in the machine,
> but no connection.  I found no reference to the archive mirror source
> on the menu, as that hinted at the Internet.
> I could not interrupt at the cd reference, I tried there as well.  the
> command  to exit and change the priority levels simply did not work at
> all, perhaps because the installer was too far along.
>  Not that it matters now, it seems simplest to find a squeeze cd and
> hppe I can combine installing from both the cd and the external dvd.
> Which brings up another question, if I have all of the dvd images, do
> not I have all of  the distribution?   why will I have to go on line
> for anything at all until I learn more and want to make changes?
> Karen
>
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012, Curt wrote:
>
>> On 2012-06-13, Brian  wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't see what you do. Is this a bug in my installer?
>>
>> He said prior to partitioning so I assume once you get into the
>> partitioning
>> dialogue, the installer gives you the opportunity to choose an
>> "expert" install,
>> and once an "expert" you may choose Squeeze as the target distribution.
>>
>> I may be assuming wrong, but that's how I understood what he said (in
>> his rather curmudgeonly style).
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
>> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
>> listmas...@lists.debian.org
>> Archive:
>> http://lists.debian.org/slrnjthdd8.2pu.cu...@einstein.electron.org
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd95283.1040...@comcast.net

Re: unique install question? (Squeeze audio install using the Wheezy-di from a USB drive)

[Brian]

On Wed 13 Jun 2012 at 23:17:49 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:14 +, Curt wrote:
> > The technical evidence is in the empirical data referenced in the article
> > of an experienced, regular user of this list.
> 
> I only skim the text and my English is terrible broken. I'm sure that
> what ever Scott has written is correct. From memory my understanding is,
> that it's possible to install squeeze by booting the first wheezy media
> (CD or DVD) and than to continue with the wheezy medias.
> 
> No doubt, Scott can make a mistake, but regarding to this topic I don't
> think he's mistaken, it's more likely that my memory or translation is
> bad.

Here, I'll help you out. No need to rely on memory or hearsay. The first
Wheezy CD is at

   http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/wheezy_di_alpha1/i386/iso-cd/

What shall we say? 15/20 minutes to download? Another 5 minutes to put
on a USB stick? Boot.

Whereabouts are you given the choice to install from Squeeze medias? I
think we are all agreed it has to be before the partitioning stage, so
there isn't too much for you to do.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120613224940.GU30016@desktop