Re: Is Debian the last OS ? (Long reply)

[Simon Law]

Was this a compilation error?  Shouldn't have failed, as that is the
correct and documented way of doing it.  What was the error message?  (I
remember a friend who tried compiling and it didn't work because he didn't
have bin86 installed.  Would cut out because it couldn't find as86.)

Of course, since you didn't compile using kernel_image, it wouldn't
generate a .deb file.

On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Adam Scriven wrote:

> At 02:17 2000/08/03 -0400, you wrote:
> >bash$ make-kpkg clean
> >bash$ make-kpkg --revision=custom.1.0 kernel_image
> 
> This line failed, I had to change it to: make-kpkg --revision=custom.1.0 
> kernel.image
> 
> >bash$ dpkg -i ../kernel-image-#.#.#_1.0_i386.deb
> 
> This line failed also, that file doesn't exist.
> There are no .deb files in the /usr/src directory.
> 
> Any ideas?
> Thanks!
> Adam
> Toronto, Ontario, Canada
> 
> 

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[I. Tura]

>I learned Debian as, basically, a complete newbie to Unix/Linux. I think
>it's mostly a matter of visibility. Newbies are just not aware of
>Debian.

I don't know what you'll think, but perhaps the way we Debian users 
could
promote Debian to our colleagues is by referring the old W95 way, that is
'everything happy and easy' but also making remember them the horror
stories they had with that stuff. Actually with Corel Linux happens the
same, so they don't want to suffer more, do they?

So some sacrifice is needed in order to get a decent OS, with the 
rewards
and transparency mentioned in previous messages.

The only event that could damage this debianist attitude for brave 
desktop
users could be if M$ releases something decent with their future mixture of
2000 and 98 (hope it's the same DOS-W integration they did with 9X!)


I believe in the mouth-to-ear promotion.



Hope you find it interesting,


Ignasi  (still nationalizing his computers)






At 18.20 31/7/00 -0400, Tom Pfeifer ha escrit:
>"Arthur H. Edwards" wrote:
>> 
>> The question was "Why is Debian the last, rather than the first,
>> distribution?" To a large degree your response is the answer. People
>> brand new to Linux eat kernels, they don't compile them.  So, if you
>> don't want it to be the last distribution, perhaps you shouldn't
>> expect them to compile their own kernels!  
>
>People brand new to Linux also don't know one kernel from the next. I
>can't see that as a deterrent.
>
>> So, as usual, Debian has to
>> know itself. It IS the last distribution. It requires more than a
>> newbie level of sophistication. 
>
>I learned Debian as, basically, a complete newbie to Unix/Linux. I think
>it's mostly a matter of visibility. Newbies are just not aware of
>Debian.
>
>> It also has large rewards. 
>
>That's for sure!!
>
>Tom
>
>
>-- 
>Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] <
/dev/null
>

___
Do You Yahoo!?
Achetez, vendez! À votre prix! Sur http://encheres.yahoo.fr

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Tom Pfeifer]

"Arthur H. Edwards" wrote:
> 
> The question was "Why is Debian the last, rather than the first,
> distribution?" To a large degree your response is the answer. People
> brand new to Linux eat kernels, they don't compile them.  So, if you
> don't want it to be the last distribution, perhaps you shouldn't
> expect them to compile their own kernels!  

People brand new to Linux also don't know one kernel from the next. I
can't see that as a deterrent.

> So, as usual, Debian has to
> know itself. It IS the last distribution. It requires more than a
> newbie level of sophistication. 

I learned Debian as, basically, a complete newbie to Unix/Linux. I think
it's mostly a matter of visibility. Newbies are just not aware of
Debian.

> It also has large rewards. 

That's for sure!!

Tom

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Ben Collins]

On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 12:28:26AM +1000, Mark Suter wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> How common is the "Debian last" practice, that is, try other
> distributions (including non-GNU/Linux) and then come to Debian
> to stay?

You know, this reminds me of one of Murphy's Laws:

"What you are looking for is always in the last place you look"

Which is to say, everytime you look for something, once you find it, you
don't look any further. So of course, it's always in the lasy place you
look :)

Ben

-- 
 ---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/  Ben Collins  --  ...on that fantastic voyage...  --  Debian GNU/Linux   \
`  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  --  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  --  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  '
 `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Michel Verdier]

Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :

| I have to disagree that Debian should be less "exceptionally pure"
| about free/non-free.  The whole point of the Debian project was to
| create a free OS/system.  It still is.  The fact that commercial
| interests have joined the Linux-bandwagon has no effect on that goal,
| and we're not in competition with anyone but ourselves.

I agree. And we should enjoy all those newbies going on RedHat and
others. They are learning and if motivated they will turn on debian. Yes,
debian is the last OS... to switch to :)

-- 
o-o

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michel Verdier)
http://www.chez.com/mverdier

Re: Is Debian the last OS ? (Long reply)

[Steve Lamb]

On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 11:03:57PM -0400, Adam Scriven wrote:
> But, because of the slow updates, and because it is now 2 releases behind, 

Not from my perspective.  Remember, you always have the choice of
upgrading to a "frozen" or "unstable" whenever you like if you /really/ like
the bleeding edge.  Personally, I've never sat on the stable tree for very
long.

Linux teleute 2.2.13 #11 Sat Dec 25 00:46:25 PST 1999 i586 unknown

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: Is Debian the last OS ? (Long reply)

[Joachim Trinkwitz]

Adam Scriven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> >Kernel sources are *always* available at www.kernel.org.
> They are, but he's not advanced enough yet to compile his own kernel.
> He's a very bright guy, and he'll figure it out eventually, but it's a very 
> minor hobby for him right now, and he just hasn't gotten there yet.
> But, because of the slow updates, and because it is now 2 releases behind, 
> it's difficult to argue the change from RedHat to Debian.  The only stable 
> Debian release is Slink, which is 2.0.36.  He has that already with RedHat 
> 5.2 (I think that's what he's got, it's definitely 2.0.36).  If he were to 
> upgrade to RedHat 6, which has been out for quite a long time, he'd get (I 
> believe) 2.2.  The 2.2 kernel has made some great leaps from the 2.0 series 
> of kernels that he'd like to use (diald upgrades, to mention just one), but 
> the upgrade from 2.0 to 2.2 for RedHat is, AFAIK, rather strange, and 
> unadvised by RedHat themselves (last I checked).
> So, for him to go to 2.2, and get the upgrades that he wants, he needs to 
> reinstall.  He has no problem with this, and I've recommend Debian, but no 
> matter how "stable" the frozen version is, it IS STILL frozen, and not the 
> officially released version, so he's not comfortable switching to it.
> So that leaves him with RedHat, since he understands it.

A name is just a name ... (or, as Gertrude Stein puts it: a rose is a
rose is a rose) -- that is: STABLE in other distributions often seems
less stable as UNSTABLE in Debian. It merely is a label which someone
has set upon a bunch of programs.

> Also, as you mentioned, kernel 2.4 is out now, however many "known 
> problems" it has, it is out.  2.2 has "known problems" as well, it just has 
> less of them.
> Which means that Debian, for all it's good things (and I am using it, and I 
> will continue to use it, because I like it), is SLOW in it's release 
> schedule, and this IS a deterrent for some intelligent people, who are 
> LEARNING Linux.

Well, one of the things he should learn is that Debian FROZEN indeed
seems more stable as other distributions which call themselves STABLE.

"Stephan Hachinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> hamm (see the above issue). Some months later, I helped a friend who had
> problems with a SUSE setup. When I wanted to configure something, YAST
> crashed, and after this I was absolutely convinced of using debian and not
> SUSE because debian tools work reliably. SUSE has not even a tool like
> modconf!!!

You see the point? There you are with a version called STABLE which in
reality is *UNSTABLE*! (When had you such an experience with FROZEN
last?)

Regarding the kernel version I can here (with the so called UNSTABLE
woody) issue the command:

$ apt-cache search kernel-image

and receive:

kernel-image-2.2.17 - Linux kernel binary image for version 2.2.17.
kernel-image-2.2.17-compact - Linux kernel binary image.
kernel-image-2.2.17-idepci - Linux kernel binary image.
kernel-image-2.2.17-ide - Linux kernel binary image for version 2.2.17.
kernel-image-2.4.0-test5 - Linux kernel binary image for version 2.4.0-test5

(running the latter just now.)

Greetings,
joachim

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[John L. Fjellstad]

On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 11:03:50AM -0500, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
 
> 1) The switch from RedHat to Debian is a reinstall.  Going from RedHat
> 5.2 to 6 is a reinstall.  One's not a whole lot harder than the other,
> as far as I know.

Going from one version to another, even in a point release, in Redhat
is a reinstall. I have never (and I used RedHat from 5.2-6.2) been able
to upgrade successfully. Either the scripts failed, or it would hose my
system.

-- 
John__
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
icq: thales @ 17755648

Re: Is Debian the last OS ? (Long reply)

[montefin]

montefin wrote:
> 
> Nathan E Norman wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 11:03:57PM -0400, Adam Scriven wrote:
> >
> > > Linux is a wonderful tool.  We all know it.  But it IS just that, a
> > > tool.  If a distribution, no matter how good it's intentions, can't keep
> > > up, then it will be relegated to the footers of history, and the world 
> > > will
> > > turn around it.
> >
> 
> Snip...Snip...Snip...Here
> 
> >
> > The "unstable" distribution is also well supported; it's just known to
> > be, well, unstable (since it undergoes active development).  This is
> > true in any software project; some just choose to release before
> > complete testing (RedHat).
> >
> 
> 
> On the heels of the above (the very next message, I swear), the
> following from Red Hat appears:
> 
> Announcing...
> 
>  Red Hat Linux "Pinstripe"
>a Beta release
> 
> Red Hat. Inc. presents a beta release of Red Hat Linux for your
> hacking pleasure.  First, the regular drill:
> 
>This is a beta release of Red Hat Linux.  It is not intended for
>mission critical applications.  It's not even intended for
>non-mission critical applications.  Important data should not be
>entrusted to Pinstripe, as it may eat it and make loud belching
>noises.
> 
> ...
> 
> YadaYada...Yada...I noticed the filesystem retrenchments, kernel
> version, etc. But how would you all say this compares with what is
> available in Potato? In Woody?
> 
> ...
> 
> *  What's new in this beta?
> 
>General system improvements:
>  o FHS compliant packaging of files
>/usr/man is now /usr/share/man
>/usr/doc is now /usr/share/doc
>/usr/info is now /usr/share/info
>See http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ for more information
> 
>  o Document roots for Apache and anonymous FTP are removed from
>/home so it may be automounted.
> 
>  o Packages with services are automatically restarted on live
>upgrades
> 
>  o Expanded LDAP integration
> 
>  o Expanded Kerberos integration
> 
>Core system components:
>  o glibc 2.1.91
>  o XFree86 4.0.1, XFree86 4.0.1 runtime environment
>  o XFree86 3.3.6 X servers included for maximum hardware
> compatibility
>  o GNOME 1.2
>  o kernel 2.2.16
>  o GCC 2.96
> 
>Expanded hardware support:
>  o Basic USB support (mouse and keyboards)
>  o Expanded hardware accelerated 3-D support
> 
>System service changes:
>  o inetd replaced by xinetd
>  o BSD lpr replaced by LPRng
> 
>A sampling of package upgrades:
>  o GIMP 1.1.24
>  o Perl 5.6.0
>  o Tcl/Tk 8.3.1
> 
>A sampling of Package additions:
>  o SDL, smpeg
>  o SANE
>  o gphoto
>  o MySQL
>  o AbiWord
>  o dia
>  o ispell has been replaced by aspell
>  o XEmacs
> 
>Next generation development library previews included:
>  o pango: Unicode font rendering
>See http://www.pango.org/
>  o Inti: C++ foundation libraries including GTK+ GUI toolkit classes
> 
> Maybe they've been reading this thread and the one about 'current Red
> Hat user evaluates Debian'.
> 
> By the way, I really want to say congratulations!  The mutual respect
> and intelligent focusing on essentials, not personalities, that has been
> displayed in these two threads is rare. Especially, as these are issues
> close to the raw nerves of why we are all here.
> 
> montefin

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Nate Duehr]

On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 09:50:45AM -0600, Arthur H. Edwards wrote:
> The question was "Why is Debian the last, rather than the first,
> distribution?" To a large degree your response is the answer. People brand
> new to Linux eat kernels, they don't compile them.  So, if you don't want it
> to be the last distribution, perhaps you shouldn't expect them to compile
> their own kernels!  So, as usual, Debian has to know itself. It IS the last
> distribution. It requires more than a newbie level of sophistication. It also
> has large rewards. If Debian decides to change so that it is more accepted by
> a larger audience, it should find a way to make the point releases stable
> with the new kernels, and it should not be so exceptionally pure about
> free/non-free. Regarding kernel updates, there could be two kinds of test
> cycles. For a point release, you keep the same packages you had with the last
> major release and test for stability with the current kernel and the new
> security patches. For the major release, you keep the current Freeze method.
> I would think, perhaps naively, that the point release test cycles could be
> more rapid than the major test cycles.

Hi Arthur, 

A couple of points: 

Debian *does* know itself... read -devel sometime.  The culture is
strong.  Sometimes annoyingly so!  :)

Debian is only "more difficult" for those unwilling to learn.  Linux
is Linux.  Things are in different places across "distributions" and
startup/shutdown scripts are different, but where the rubber hits the
road in the QUALITY of the packages and software installed on a system,
Debian is much better than most Linux systems.  The only better model
out there is probably the OpenBSD one, which has it's own problems.
(This coming from a friend who swears by OpenBSD, I haven't played with
it yet.  I'm not trolling for flames with that comment.)

I have to disagree that Debian should be less "exceptionally pure"
about free/non-free.  The whole point of the Debian project was to
create a free OS/system.  It still is.  The fact that commercial
interests have joined the Linux-bandwagon has no effect on that goal,
and we're not in competition with anyone but ourselves.

Users and developers alike are part of the process.  Don't like how
something works, file a bug, start a discussion on -devel or in private
mail with the developer responsible for the package.  Perhaps they've
already started working on a fix.  Perhaps not.

Tested, stable, working patches always welcome.  :)

-- 
Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

GPG Key fingerprint = DCAF 2B9D CC9B 96FA 7A6D AAF4 2D61 77C5 7ECE C1D2
Public Key available upon request, or at wwwkeys.pgp.net and others.


pgpKaWMeJFCD5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Keith G. Murphy]

Nathan E Norman wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 11:09:28PM -0600, Art Edwards wrote:
> > If I am right, then to keep users, you should try to update kernels in
> > minor releases.
> 
> The kernel is upgraded in point releases when justified (an exploit
> for example).  However, there's no way Debian can release a new major
> kernel revision in a point release and still call it stable (think
> about a "feature freeze" as to why this is the case).
> 
> More to the point, there's no reason a user can't upgrade the kernel
> themselves!
> 
Seconded.  That's a point I made in an above post: it's really really
easy to grab the kernel only from unstable.  And don't let "unstable"
worry you excessively.  Certainly the 2.2. kernel source there is every
bit as good as any release of any other dist.

I also would make the point that *building* the kernel package is really
easy under Debian.  See make-kpkg.

Re: Is Debian the last OS ? (Long reply)

[Keith G. Murphy]

Adam Scriven wrote:
> 
> At 20:53 2000/07/30 -0500, you wrote:
> >On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 10:42:29AM -0400, Adam Scriven wrote:
> > > I'm still very much getting used to Debian, however, and the long time
> > > between releases is stopping my Dad from switching, since he wants to
> > > switch to the most updated release possible if he switches, but even
> > > Potato's just 2.2.16/17.
> >
> >As opposed to what?  An unstable 2.3.x release?  A 2.4.x with known
> >problems?  That's a silly argument to not use a distribution (and always
> >has been).
> >
> >Kernel sources are *always* available at www.kernel.org.
> 
> They are, but he's not advanced enough yet to compile his own kernel.
> He's a very bright guy, and he'll figure it out eventually, but it's a very
> minor hobby for him right now, and he just hasn't gotten there yet.
> 
> But, because of the slow updates, and because it is now 2 releases behind,
> it's difficult to argue the change from RedHat to Debian.  The only stable
> Debian release is Slink, which is 2.0.36.  He has that already with RedHat
> 5.2 (I think that's what he's got, it's definitely 2.0.36).  If he were to
> upgrade to RedHat 6, which has been out for quite a long time, he'd get (I
> believe) 2.2.  The 2.2 kernel has made some great leaps from the 2.0 series
> of kernels that he'd like to use (diald upgrades, to mention just one), but
> the upgrade from 2.0 to 2.2 for RedHat is, AFAIK, rather strange, and
> unadvised by RedHat themselves (last I checked).
> 
> So, for him to go to 2.2, and get the upgrades that he wants, he needs to
> reinstall.  He has no problem with this, and I've recommend Debian, but no
> matter how "stable" the frozen version is, it IS STILL frozen, and not the
> officially released version, so he's not comfortable switching to it.
> So that leaves him with RedHat, since he understands it.
> 
I think your point is well taken.  I would argue:

1) The switch from RedHat to Debian is a reinstall.  Going from RedHat
5.2 to 6 is a reinstall.  One's not a whole lot harder than the other,
as far as I know.

2) If he were *already* a Debian user, the switch to 2.2 would have been
*extremely* easy, without having to upgrade much else besides the kernel
(I know; I've done it).  My recollection is that I just had to grab the
kernel source package from unstable and didn't have to change *anything*
else.

3) Point 2 implies that that will be the situation for future kernels,
so he won't run into this hassle (complete reinstallation) again if he
goes to Debian.  You're really not in the world of OS versions anymore:
you can really mix and match in a way that the Debian package system
with its dependencies makes very safe.

You've probably already told him all this, but thought I'd mention it.

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Arthur H. Edwards]

Nathan E Norman wrote:
On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 11:09:28PM -0600, Art Edwards
wrote:
> If I am right, then to keep users, you should try to update kernels
in
> minor releases.
The kernel is upgraded in point releases when justified (an exploit
for example).  However, there's no way Debian can release a new
major
kernel revision in a point release and still call it stable (think
about a "feature freeze" as to why this is the case).
More to the point, there's no reason a user can't upgrade the kernel
themselves!
--
Nathan Norman "Eschew
Obfuscation"  Network
Engineer
GPG Key ID 1024D/51F98BB7   
http://home.midco.net/~nnorman/
Key fingerprint = C5F4 A147 416C E0BF AB73  8BEF F0C8 255C 51F9
8BB7
  
   Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
The question was "Why is Debian the last, rather than the first, distribution?"
To a large degree your response is the answer. People brand new to Linux
eat kernels, they don't compile them.  So, if you don't want it to
be the last distribution, perhaps you shouldn't expect them to compile
their own kernels!  So, as usual, Debian has to know itself. It IS
the last distribution. It requires more than a newbie level of sophistication.
It also has large rewards. If Debian decides to change so that it is more
accepted by a larger audience, it should find a way to make the point releases
stable with the new kernels, and it should not be so exceptionally pure
about free/non-free. Regarding kernel updates, there could be two kinds
of test cycles. For a point release, you keep the same packages you had
with the last major release and test for stability with the current kernel
and the new security patches. For the major release, you keep the current
Freeze method. I would think, perhaps naively, that the point release test
cycles could be more rapid than the major test cycles.
 
 
-- 
Arthur H. Edwards
AFRL/VSSE
Bldg. 914
3550 Aberdeen Ave SE
KAFB, NM 87117-5776
 

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[David Wright]

Quoting Art Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I definitely came to debian after two other distributions (Red Hat and
> SuSE).

I first tried linux with slackware, but only because it offered
installation with umsdos and I had a 500MB 486 with W3.1.
X wouldn't do much more than crash in 8MB, leaving me with a
garbled screen (the Avance card still does this now, but I know
what to do). But using GNU utilities on a real shell was fantastic
after the DOS versions. After all, my background was VAX and, before
that, IBM 360/370 but with the Cambridge University Phoenix command
language, both very flexible.

> Part of it is that Debian is not seen on many Store shelves. I
> had to seek it out based on reputation. Part of it also is that the
> initial installation is not slick. For me that is now part of its
> attraction. I should explain that, while apt-get is truly slick after
> you have set up your machine, and the ftp-installation is very nice, the
> menu's are relatively low level.

Agreed. I'm connected, or course, so I'm used to ftp rather than
CD distributions. I started Debian (in the days of buzz) because it
was so transparent about what it was doing during installation,
so I could be sure that my other vital (at that time) partitions
were safe.

> Incidentally, the release times have had some significant consequences.
> The High Performance Computing Center where I get my cycles just changed
> a very nice cluster from Debian to Red Hat because the stable release is
> not very friendly to SMP, even though potato is.

Hm, I can cope with potato, and I'm just a one-man amateur band. I'm
not impressed by the HPCC if they can't cope with running frozen.


> While it is true that
> you have had nimor releases, I believe they kept the same kernel (is
> this true?). 
> If I am right, then to keep users, you should try to update kernels in
> minor releases.

I can't see why you should want to couple kernel and distribution
releases any more than is unavoidable (i.e. dependencies). Debian did
a very nice job of supplying sufficient packages for people to move to
2.2 kernels on slink with its old C libraries.

BTW it is hardly notable that Debian is the last (final) distribution
for people in *this* forum as we're a self-selecting group. The people
for whom this is not true will have moved on into other forums...

Cheers,

-- 
Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Tel: +44 1908 653 739  Fax: +44 1908 655 151
Snail:  David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA
Disclaimer:   These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify
official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Nathan E Norman]

On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 11:09:28PM -0600, Art Edwards wrote:
> If I am right, then to keep users, you should try to update kernels in
> minor releases.

The kernel is upgraded in point releases when justified (an exploit
for example).  However, there's no way Debian can release a new major
kernel revision in a point release and still call it stable (think
about a "feature freeze" as to why this is the case).

More to the point, there's no reason a user can't upgrade the kernel
themselves!

-- 
Nathan Norman "Eschew Obfuscation"  Network Engineer
GPG Key ID 1024D/51F98BB7http://home.midco.net/~nnorman/
Key fingerprint = C5F4 A147 416C E0BF AB73  8BEF F0C8 255C 51F9 8BB7


pgpNqU8RhdMiq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is Debian the last OS ? (Long reply)

[Nathan E Norman]

On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 11:03:57PM -0400, Adam Scriven wrote:
> Also, as you mentioned, kernel 2.4 is out now, however many "known 
> problems" it has, it is out.  2.2 has "known problems" as well, it just has 
> less of them.

However, 2.2 in some incarnations has proven useful and stable.  The
evidence thus far indicates that 2.4 is only useful for a desktop
which may crash (and in your case, this may be a point for you).

> Which means that Debian, for all it's good things (and I am using it, and I 
> will continue to use it, because I like it), is SLOW in it's release 
> schedule, and this IS a deterrent for some intelligent people, who are 
> LEARNING Linux.

Why is this a deterrent?  At least the existing behavior is well
documented.  Quick releases don't equal quality releases.  Hang out on
the devel list for a while if you doubt the competence of the people
who are actually *engineering* Debian ...

> I don't find the argument of a slow distribution schedule silly in the 
> least, and to be perfectly honest, I find the attitude rather condescending.

Ah, but that's not what I said!  If you had read what I wrote, I said
it's silly to make decisions regarding a distribution depending on
which *kernel* is included, which is what *you* said.

> Linux is a wonderful tool.  We all know it.  But it IS just that, a 
> tool.  If a distribution, no matter how good it's intentions, can't keep 
> up, then it will be relegated to the footers of history, and the world will 
> turn around it.

Hmm, Debian has been receiving more press, not less.  Perhaps
technical excellence actually is more important that bleeding edge
releases?
 
> I don't want to see this happen with Debian.

It won't.
 
> I apologize for the rant, and I hope I didn't offend anyone too much, but 
> this attitude is one of the things that's personally stopping me from 
> learning more about Linux.

Which attitude is that?  The current "frozen" release is extremely
usable and well supported via written documentation and the mailing
lists.

The "unstable" distribution is also well supported; it's just known to
be, well, unstable (since it undergoes active development).  This is
true in any software project; some just choose to release before
complete testing (RedHat).

> Some of us learn slower, or just differently.  Seeing all the pluses of 
> Debian, including the philosophy behind it (which I happen to agree with), 
> I get frustrated having to tell people, who are less than comfortable with 
> Linux, to use an (IMHO) inferior distribution, merely to get the options 
> that they need.

Someone else already posted why Debian should be the *first*
distribution that a Linux newcomer tries, so I won't go into that
here.

I will say that Debian's technical excellence makes it the superior
distribution, so I don't know which inferior distribution you're
talking about.  If you think Debian is inferior because it doesn't
always have the latest and greatest, then I suggest you learn how to
grab the source and compile.  If you're unwilling to do that, perhaps
Debian (and Linux) isn't for you.  I apologize if *that* sounds elitist,
but, well, it is.  Being elitist is the point of using Linux;
otherwise you can stick with the huddled masses using Microsoft.

Welcome to Linux!  I hope you enjoy your stay.

-- 
Nathan Norman "Eschew Obfuscation"  Network Engineer
GPG Key ID 1024D/51F98BB7http://home.midco.net/~nnorman/
Key fingerprint = C5F4 A147 416C E0BF AB73  8BEF F0C8 255C 51F9 8BB7


pgpRchkbxoWm9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is Debian the last OS ? (Long reply)

[Stephan Hachinger]

Hello!

Adam is right, I think. The other distros have had the glibc 2.1 in their
stable releases much earlier than debian, for example.
So I had to install a potato base system about a half year ago (BTW, it runs
fine although it was not even close to the first test cycle that time).

But it is a very uncomfortable way to download packages over a modem 56k
connection. And these connections (or the slightly faster 64k ISDN ones) are
usual here in Germany. So I use a mix of packages from my Slink CD set which
I bought and some new downloaded packages. However, you cannot tell any
normal simple desktop user that he has to download packages to get a distro
with recent packages. Or that he has to obey that some packages of slink
cause problems when installing a 2.2. kernel. So, many people in Germany (or
lets say, really all of my friends using linux) install SUSE with these
absolutely wonderful yast and sax tools and a bunch of, I must confess, more
actual packages from a CD set.

If I want recent software, I compile it myself, so I always get the newest
versions. But I must say, that a selection of recent deb packages installed
is a more comfortable thing then a selection of self-compiled and installed
source-code packages which I cannot uninstall any more. And so IMHO, this is
a real disadvantage of debian, that it releases major updates not very
often.

So, after this issue, I wanna write how I came to use debian and why I'm
convinced of it. It's my first distribution, and I really liked it from the
beginning. Here in Germany, Debian always gets very bad marks in tests
because the PC magazines write that, although it's very reliable it is so
difficult to use. But I think that's not true. I first got hamm (and later
slink) on two CDs bundled with an introduction to debian and the main tools
("CHIP" PC magazine). And I got it installed quite without problems. The
only thing which I regarded as bad were some really outdated packages in
hamm (see the above issue). Some months later, I helped a friend who had
problems with a SUSE setup. When I wanted to configure something, YAST
crashed, and after this I was absolutely convinced of using debian and not
SUSE because debian tools work reliably. SUSE has not even a tool like
modconf!!!

When I had to install Linux on a SparcStation IPX at school which only had a
floppy drive and a network connection, I was very glad that I could install
the base system using a nice set of boot floppies. I don't think this is
easily possible with RedHat!? This machine which is used as file server has
never crashed for months now.

So far,

Kind Regards,

Stephan Hachinger





- Original Message -
From: "Adam Scriven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Olaf Meeuwissen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: Is Debian the last OS ? (Long reply)


> At 12:48 2000/07/31 +0900, you wrote:
> >Adam Scriven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > So, for him to go to 2.2, and get the upgrades that he wants, he
> > > needs to reinstall.  He has no problem with this, and I've recommend
> > > Debian, but no matter how "stable" the frozen version is, it IS
> > > STILL frozen, and not the officially released version, so he's not
> > > comfortable switching to it.
> >
> >Upgrading from slink to potato is a breeze.  Besides potato is rumored to
> >become stable in August.
>
> That's good news, anyway.
>
> >I've been running and updating potato regularly for about a year without
> >any major trouble.
>
> And I've been running it for 6 months, probably.
> Some minor hiccups, but nothing I couldn't handle.
>
> >I guess the biggest hickup was caused by updating to emacs20-20.7.  It
> >screwed my gnus setup, but installing the seperately packaged gnus
package
> >fixed everything.  Note, these ripples were caused by changes within
> >potato and had nothing to do with upgrading from slink.
>
> I understand, but that's partially my point.  Potato was still changing,
> but to change from 2.0.36 RH to 2.0.36 Debian doesn't make any sense to
> him, since he's got his RH system working just as he wants, and he
> understands it enough to be relatively comfortable with it.
>
> >Has he ever tried a RedHat x.0 release?  From what I heard these are as
> >buggy as, likely even buggier than, Debian's frozen releases.  It is just
> >what an organization is prepared to call an official release.
>
> I don't think he's ever tried a X.0 release, but that's just a question of
> timing.
> Living in rural Ontario there are no computer stores anywhere that carry
> Linux, so he buys stuff when he comes up here to visit me, or if I bring
> stuff down to him.
> As soon as

Re: Is Debian the last OS ? (Long reply)

[Moritz Schulte]

On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 11:03:57PM -0400, Adam Scriven wrote:

> Also, as you mentioned, kernel 2.4 is out now, however many "known 
> problems" it has, it is out.

it is not the final version. it has many problems right now, the
current 2.4-kernels are still beta...

moritz
-- 
/* Moritz Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 * http://hp9001.fh-bielefeld.de/~moritz/
 * PGP-Key available, encrypted Mail is welcome.
 */

Re: Is Debian the last OS ? (Long reply)

[Adam Scriven]

At 12:48 2000/07/31 +0900, you wrote:

Adam Scriven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, for him to go to 2.2, and get the upgrades that he wants, he
> needs to reinstall.  He has no problem with this, and I've recommend
> Debian, but no matter how "stable" the frozen version is, it IS
> STILL frozen, and not the officially released version, so he's not
> comfortable switching to it.

Upgrading from slink to potato is a breeze.  Besides potato is rumored to 
become stable in August.


That's good news, anyway.

I've been running and updating potato regularly for about a year without 
any major trouble.


And I've been running it for 6 months, probably.
Some minor hiccups, but nothing I couldn't handle.

I guess the biggest hickup was caused by updating to emacs20-20.7.  It 
screwed my gnus setup, but installing the seperately packaged gnus package 
fixed everything.  Note, these ripples were caused by changes within 
potato and had nothing to do with upgrading from slink.


I understand, but that's partially my point.  Potato was still changing, 
but to change from 2.0.36 RH to 2.0.36 Debian doesn't make any sense to 
him, since he's got his RH system working just as he wants, and he 
understands it enough to be relatively comfortable with it.


Has he ever tried a RedHat x.0 release?  From what I heard these are as 
buggy as, likely even buggier than, Debian's frozen releases.  It is just 
what an organization is prepared to call an official release.


I don't think he's ever tried a X.0 release, but that's just a question of 
timing.
Living in rural Ontario there are no computer stores anywhere that carry 
Linux, so he buys stuff when he comes up here to visit me, or if I bring 
stuff down to him.
As soon as it's available in stores (or I get my CD burner), I'll bring him 
a copy of the potato CD, but that'll be a stable version of potato (or 
_very_ close too, from a release schedule POV).



> So that leaves him with RedHat, since he understands it.

Sounds like he doesn't want to (or can't) put in some effort.


He puts in as much effort as he can afford, for a hobby.  He uses it for 
checking e-mail, he's looked into getting completely rid of Windows and 
using Linux exclusively (and he would if he could find a couple of 
replacements for windows programs that he likes).
Soon he'll be delving into the wonders of kernel re-compilation, and yes, 
when people get over that hurdle, it's much easier to do certain 
things.  My point was, and continues to be, that Debian, with the slow 
release schedule, has had people avoid it.  They're looking for an 
officially released version, with the options that they need.
He's perfectly happy to stay with 2.0.36.  Diald works, he understands his 
system enough that it does what he wants, but he recognizes that it would 
do more things, and it would do the same things better, if he were to use 
some of the features he's heard about in 2.2, but officially Debian doesn't 
support it yet, even though it's been out for a very long time.


Thanks again!
Adam
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Edward C. Lang]

> "MS" == Mark Suter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

MS> My estimate of 2/5 is based on an understanding of all members,
MS> a fair few of whom don't bring their boxes to the meetings and
MS> treat the meetings as social occasions.

*cough* Are you sure they've not just cottoned on to the fact, that in
Australia at least, apt-get upgrades are _much_ less painfull when you
can use the free (and generally at least 10bT ethernet) link at such
LUGs? ;-)

(Just for the record: I installed rexx (1.2) on my 386SX laptop in late
1996; played with slack for a bit (2.6? or something). Got the infomagic
August '97 set, installed all of those (RH4.2, bo (1.3) and some other
slackware version); Stayed with bo; Installed RH5.0 when it came out,
hated it, and I've used Debian everywhere ever since.)

Regards,

Edward.

-- 

Edward C. Lang   woot on various channels on irc.openprojects.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Normal mail. Most stuff ends up here anyway.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  - Debian mail. Finger this address for keys.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - If you don't know what this is for, don't use it.

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Art Edwards]

I definitely came to debian after two other distributions (Red Hat and
SuSE). Part of it is that Debian is not seen on many Store shelves. I
had to seek it out based on reputation. Part of it also is that the
initial installation is not slick. For me that is now part of its
attraction. I should explain that, while apt-get is truly slick after
you have set up your machine, and the ftp-installation is very nice, the
menu's are relatively low level. In fact, they look alot like the Red
Hat 4.1 installation. As you move to a different installation, Please
keep the old one as an option. If it were not for Debian, I would not
have been able to install linux on my laptop (initial PCMCIA problems
that prevented booting.)

ATC, I should think you would prefer Debian as the last DIST. as opposed
to the first of many.

Incidentally, the release times have had some significant consequences.
The High Performance Computing Center where I get my cycles just changed
a very nice cluster from Debian to Red Hat because the stable release is
not very friendly to SMP, even though potato is. While it is true that
you have had nimor releases, I believe they kept the same kernel (is
this true?). 
If I am right, then to keep users, you should try to update kernels in
minor releases.


-- 
Arthur H. Edwards
712 Valencia Dr. NE
Abq. NM 87108

(505) 256-0834

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Pann McCuaig]

On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 20:53, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 10:42:29AM -0400, Adam Scriven wrote:
> > I'm still very much getting used to Debian, however, and the long time 
> > between releases is stopping my Dad from switching, since he wants to 
> > switch to the most updated release possible if he switches, but even 
> > Potato's just 2.2.16/17.
> 
> As opposed to what?  An unstable 2.3.x release?  A 2.4.x with known
> problems?  That's a silly argument to not use a distribution (and
> always has been).
> 
> Kernel sources are *always* available at www.kernel.org.

Whaddya wanna bet he's comparing to RedHat 6.2 or Mandrake 7.1? Sigh.

Cheers,
 Pann
-- 
geek by nature, Linux by choice L I N U X   .~.
The Choice  /V\
http://www.ourmanpann.com/linux/ of a GNU  /( )\
Generation ^^-^^

Re: Is Debian the last OS ? (Long reply)

[Olaf Meeuwissen]

Adam Scriven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> So, for him to go to 2.2, and get the upgrades that he wants, he
> needs to reinstall.  He has no problem with this, and I've recommend
> Debian, but no matter how "stable" the frozen version is, it IS
> STILL frozen, and not the officially released version, so he's not
> comfortable switching to it.

Upgrading from slink to potato is a breeze.  Besides potato is rumored
to become stable in August.  I've been running and updating potato
regularly for about a year without any major trouble.  I guess the
biggest hickup was caused by updating to emacs20-20.7.  It screwed my
gnus setup, but installing the seperately packaged gnus package fixed
everything.  Note, these ripples were caused by changes within potato
and had nothing to do with upgrading from slink.

Has he ever tried a RedHat x.0 release?  From what I heard these are
as buggy as, likely even buggier than, Debian's frozen releases.  It
is just what an organization is prepared to call an official release.

> So that leaves him with RedHat, since he understands it.

Sounds like he doesn't want to (or can't) put in some effort.

-- 
Olaf Meeuwissen   Epson Kowa Corporation, Research and Development

Re: Is Debian the last OS ? (Long reply)

[Adam Scriven]

At 20:53 2000/07/30 -0500, you wrote:

On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 10:42:29AM -0400, Adam Scriven wrote:
> I'm still very much getting used to Debian, however, and the long time
> between releases is stopping my Dad from switching, since he wants to
> switch to the most updated release possible if he switches, but even
> Potato's just 2.2.16/17.

As opposed to what?  An unstable 2.3.x release?  A 2.4.x with known 
problems?  That's a silly argument to not use a distribution (and always 
has been).


Kernel sources are *always* available at www.kernel.org.


They are, but he's not advanced enough yet to compile his own kernel.
He's a very bright guy, and he'll figure it out eventually, but it's a very 
minor hobby for him right now, and he just hasn't gotten there yet.


But, because of the slow updates, and because it is now 2 releases behind, 
it's difficult to argue the change from RedHat to Debian.  The only stable 
Debian release is Slink, which is 2.0.36.  He has that already with RedHat 
5.2 (I think that's what he's got, it's definitely 2.0.36).  If he were to 
upgrade to RedHat 6, which has been out for quite a long time, he'd get (I 
believe) 2.2.  The 2.2 kernel has made some great leaps from the 2.0 series 
of kernels that he'd like to use (diald upgrades, to mention just one), but 
the upgrade from 2.0 to 2.2 for RedHat is, AFAIK, rather strange, and 
unadvised by RedHat themselves (last I checked).


So, for him to go to 2.2, and get the upgrades that he wants, he needs to 
reinstall.  He has no problem with this, and I've recommend Debian, but no 
matter how "stable" the frozen version is, it IS STILL frozen, and not the 
officially released version, so he's not comfortable switching to it.

So that leaves him with RedHat, since he understands it.

Also, as you mentioned, kernel 2.4 is out now, however many "known 
problems" it has, it is out.  2.2 has "known problems" as well, it just has 
less of them.
Which means that Debian, for all it's good things (and I am using it, and I 
will continue to use it, because I like it), is SLOW in it's release 
schedule, and this IS a deterrent for some intelligent people, who are 
LEARNING Linux.


I don't find the argument of a slow distribution schedule silly in the 
least, and to be perfectly honest, I find the attitude rather condescending.


Linux is a wonderful tool.  We all know it.  But it IS just that, a 
tool.  If a distribution, no matter how good it's intentions, can't keep 
up, then it will be relegated to the footers of history, and the world will 
turn around it.


I don't want to see this happen with Debian.

I apologize for the rant, and I hope I didn't offend anyone too much, but 
this attitude is one of the things that's personally stopping me from 
learning more about Linux.
Some of us learn slower, or just differently.  Seeing all the pluses of 
Debian, including the philosophy behind it (which I happen to agree with), 
I get frustrated having to tell people, who are less than comfortable with 
Linux, to use an (IMHO) inferior distribution, merely to get the options 
that they need.


Thanks for the read.
Adam
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Nathan E Norman]

On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 10:42:29AM -0400, Adam Scriven wrote:
> I'm still very much getting used to Debian, however, and the long time 
> between releases is stopping my Dad from switching, since he wants to 
> switch to the most updated release possible if he switches, but even 
> Potato's just 2.2.16/17.

As opposed to what?  An unstable 2.3.x release?  A 2.4.x with known
problems?  That's a silly argument to not use a distribution (and
always has been).

Kernel sources are *always* available at www.kernel.org.

-- 
Nathan Norman "Eschew Obfuscation"  Network Engineer
GPG Key ID 1024D/51F98BB7http://home.midco.net/~nnorman/
Key fingerprint = C5F4 A147 416C E0BF AB73  8BEF F0C8 255C 51F9 8BB7


pgpPZ0s2YJTsR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Mark Suter]

Patrick,

> when I was last at humbug (about 6 months ago) everyone was using 
> redhat! what happened??
> 
> Did people like Ashley, matt and the like convert some people!?!?

My estimate of 2/5 is based on an understanding of all members,
a fair few of whom don't bring their boxes to the meetings and
treat the meetings as social occasions.

That said, there are certainly more Debian boxes at meetings now.
I have only recently switched over this year after prompting from
the Debian maintainers in the club.

This message is brought to you from my Debian desktop at work
sshing into my Debian box at home.  Both were Redhat installs
six months ago...

Yours sincerely,

-- Mark John Suter  | I know that you  believe  you understand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | what you think I said, but I am not sure
GPG key id F2FEBB36 | you realise that what you  heard  is not
Ph: +61 4 1126 2316 | what I meant.  anonymous


pgpPl4fEwAvBq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Patrick Barr]

when I was last at humbug (about 6 months ago) everyone was using 
redhat! what happened??

Did people like Ashley, matt and the like convert some people!?!?



On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:49:50 Peter Good wrote:
> Being relatively new to Linux (only year and 1/2), my first go at Debian
> was slink. Recommended to me by a friend (an ISP), it seemed the way to
> go. I'd just started Uni, and had a brand new laptop, that for the life
> of me, I couldn't configure X on, so Debian got dumped in favour of
> Redhat, which I stayed with for about 6 months. Then I managed to get a
> P200, and I immediately switched back to Debian and have been using it
> ever since, much easier to use in my opinion.
> 
> Mark Suter wrote:
> > 
> > Folks,
> > 
> > How common is the "Debian last" practice, that is, try other
> > distributions (including non-GNU/Linux) and then come to Debian
> > to stay?
> > 
> > Within Humbug[1], approximately 2/5 of the membership are now
> > Debian users; however, only a few went straight to Debian.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Hey Captain, I just created a black ho-.p!%$. NO CARRIER
> 
> *Peter GoodEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Pete's Internet Services  Sales: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
> 
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < 
/dev/null
> 
> 

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Peter Good]

Being relatively new to Linux (only year and 1/2), my first go at Debian
was slink. Recommended to me by a friend (an ISP), it seemed the way to
go. I'd just started Uni, and had a brand new laptop, that for the life
of me, I couldn't configure X on, so Debian got dumped in favour of
Redhat, which I stayed with for about 6 months. Then I managed to get a
P200, and I immediately switched back to Debian and have been using it
ever since, much easier to use in my opinion.

Mark Suter wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> How common is the "Debian last" practice, that is, try other
> distributions (including non-GNU/Linux) and then come to Debian
> to stay?
> 
> Within Humbug[1], approximately 2/5 of the membership are now
> Debian users; however, only a few went straight to Debian.


-- 
Hey Captain, I just created a black ho-.p!%$. NO CARRIER

*Peter GoodEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Pete's Internet Services  Sales: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Aaron Solochek]

When my friends at school freshmen year all bagered me for using windows, I 
agreed to
let them install linux on my machine.  The first go was slackware, but because 
my
computer was all brand new hardware, there wasn't any support in linux for it.  
So
that didn't go very far.  We then tried "andrew-linux" the CMU hacked up 
redhat,  but
ran into similar problems on that front.  After waiting a little bit, a 
different
friend decided to help me with debian.  Basically, everyone was pushing on me 
the
distro that they themselves used, and in the end, the friend who had the 
ambition to
go build a working kernel for my system in the clusters won out.

I found the interface to dselect very difficult to deal with, I would get 
caught in
these dependancy loops and not know how to get out of them, but this subject 
has been
beaten to death on this list.

Eventually I learned all I needed to know, and am VERY glad that I ended up with
debain.  I have since installed a few red hat systems and caldera once, but 
(and it
may be because of my knowledge of debian) I found those to be a pain.

So, I don't know if that counts as debian-last, because although it was, it had
nothing to do with trying others and not liking them.

I would like to say tough, caldera's installer was so nice compared to debians. 
 I've
done over 50 debian installs, and I still found the caldera one better.  PLUS 
it lets
you play tetris while it copies files over.   Too bad the out of the box 
networking
was screwed up.

-Aaron Solochek
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[John Carline]

Mark Suter wrote:

> Folks,
>
> How common is the "Debian last" practice, that is, try other
> distributions (including non-GNU/Linux) and then come to Debian
> to stay?

 


While the "Debian last" practice is probably the most common way that
users become "Debian" users, it's in my opinion the poorest.

When I decided that I had had enough of  "Gates garbage", I gathered
as much information as I could about the different distributions and
found that the GNU concept was being followed most closely by Debian -
that was enough for me. So I placed an order at CheapBytes - Hamm had
just been released.

Meanwhile I bought a linux book that contained a copy of Caldera and
tried to get that running. A week later my Debian disks arrived
(Caldera was still not running). I stuck the Debian 2.0 CD in my
drive, loaded Hamm (it ran right out of the box - so much for the
"hard to install" myth), and I haven't looked back since.

Since that time I've loaded Red Hat, Caldera, Mandrake and Slakeware
on spare hard drives just to see how well they perform. I found that
none are really any easier than Debian, they just have fewer choices
and packages. I've also watched co-workers pay good money for RedHat
and Mandrake and never get them to run correctly on their system. Try
convincing them that they're easy for first time users.

I guess what I'm saying is that anyone that's advising newbys to start
with other distributions and then switch to Debian are actually doing
them a disservice. If you don't think so just scan the archives of
this list and see how many questions there are like "on my (RedHat,
Mandrake, SuSe etc.) box  worked perfectly. Why doesn't
Debian work right". The answer in virtually every case is that Debian
does *work right*, but the user is trying to use a non-debian
non-GNU method, configuration, or tool.

IMHO if it's not GNU and/or it's not Debian dump it.

*Debian First*

John


--

Powered by the Penguin

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Jens Müller]

- Original Message -
From: "I. Tura" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark Suter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;

Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: Is Debian the last OS ?


>On the other hand... I've never seen any stastics telling what are the
>most used GNU distros. I know that more or less RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake and
>Debian are the most used, but are there more exact stastics? (Damn lies,
>stastics...) Hello Joey if you read me, nice reply you told to that
>Security in Linux reviewer :)

Well, I once tried SuSE for a short time before I changed over to Debian,
and I must say it really sucks.

But I still use Windows for everyday working... I just don't have much time
to experiment with Linux...

Jens

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Tom Pfeifer]

Most newcomers to Linux will (understandably) start with a commercial
distribution that they can find shrink wrapped on the shelves. That
pretty much rules Debian out for them, but those who discover it later
on tend to stick with it.

Completely new to Linux/Unix, I started with Redhat 4.1, and then later
Caldera, and didn't get too far with either one. I got them installed
but was pretty much lost after that when it came to configuring them,
installing software etc.. Finally I stumbled across a couple of posts
about Debian that stirred my interest. I just went to the web site,
started reading, downloaded a few files, and soon had the base system
installed - this was the bo distribution.

Contrary to most, I found Debian to be easier to learn. With the others,
the whole system got installed right up front from the CD. But with
Debian, I installed it piece by piece, package by package because I was
downloading it over a modem. Dealing with it in smaller chunks I found
myself leaning how to configure it, catching on to the package system
etc., and soon was hooked for good.

Tom


Mark Suter wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> How common is the "Debian last" practice, that is, try other
> distributions (including non-GNU/Linux) and then come to Debian
> to stay?
> 
> Within Humbug[1], approximately 2/5 of the membership are now
> Debian users; however, only a few went straight to Debian.
> 
> For me, Debian is the high point in most respects on a long road.
> In my work as a Systems Administrator I have used Solaris, Irix,
> Digital Unix, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and GNU/Linux.  Within GNU/Linux,
> I've used MCC Interim Release, Yggdrasil, Slakware, Redhat and
> Debian.
> 
> I still use all the non-GNU/Linux systems at work and they *do*
> have advantages, e.g. OpenBSD for security and crypto or Solaris
> for some serious 64 processor hardware; however, I believe that
> "Debian last" has allowed me to appreciate how good Debian
> GNU/Linux really is.
> 
> Debian is improving all the time.  Given the nature of the Debian
> distribution, I think that it is inevitable that Debian attract
> more first-time users.
> 
> I believe that Debian will get there without needing to force it
> in that direction.  For example, we Debian does auto-detection,
> it will be done *right* and this will be one step towards the
> "first distro" status.
> 
> In any system that novices can use, the challenge is to scale
> to expert users.  By aiming at the expert/developer end of the
> spectrum, Debian has avoided this very difficult problem.
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> 
> -- Mark John Suter  | I know that you  believe  you understand
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | what you think I said, but I am not sure
> GPG key id F2FEBB36 | you realise that what you  heard  is not
> Ph: +61 4 1126 2316 | what I meant.  anonymous
> 
> [1] http://www.humbug.org.au/
> 
>   
>Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[I. Tura]

At 00.28 31/7/00 +1000, Mark Suter ha escrit:
>Folks,
>
>How common is the "Debian last" practice, that is, try other
>distributions (including non-GNU/Linux) and then come to Debian
>to stay?


My experience can't be the most usual, but well, it's my experience :)

My first GNU/L installation was Debian Hamm in 1998. I had no trouble in
the installation, but I got somewhat confused in dselect and when Debian
ended loading I got much more confused with the prompt. I colud not
distinguish between files and directories and this annoyed me a lot. Apart,
I had some strange problems with W95 A, the excrement I was using by that
times, and everytime I loaded Debian with the floppy, then, W95 did not
loaded. The ext2 partition kept sleeping for months...

Then I used RedHat (not bad, but I had some hardware problems related to
power and I ruined a HDD) and Corel (quite disappointing). I used more
recently Slackware but I remembered Debian, and with more knowledge of the
theme, I started using Debian, which is the OS I want to run and running
now in two machines of my home.

As the only "Linux experts" (lots of laugh) that are in my circle of
friends and relatives are a friend and me, and we are debianists, we always
recommend Debian as the only GNU/L distribution to use and start with.

The main points that I use in defending Debian is:

-Transparency (that overrides "ease of use"). 
-Honesty.
-Robustness.
-Versatility (no 1Gb installations).
-High-tech.
-Non-commercial and progressive.
-Technical support (we! :)  )

The only problem I can find it's if the potential user does not have
fluent English.


I don't talk as sysadmin, but as desktop user.


On the other hand... I've never seen any stastics telling what are the
most used GNU distros. I know that more or less RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake and
Debian are the most used, but are there more exact stastics? (Damn lies,
stastics...) Hello Joey if you read me, nice reply you told to that
Security in Linux reviewer :)




Ignasi



>
>Within Humbug[1], approximately 2/5 of the membership are now
>Debian users; however, only a few went straight to Debian.
>
>For me, Debian is the high point in most respects on a long road.
>In my work as a Systems Administrator I have used Solaris, Irix,
>Digital Unix, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and GNU/Linux.  Within GNU/Linux,
>I've used MCC Interim Release, Yggdrasil, Slakware, Redhat and
>Debian.
>
>I still use all the non-GNU/Linux systems at work and they *do*
>have advantages, e.g. OpenBSD for security and crypto or Solaris
>for some serious 64 processor hardware; however, I believe that
>"Debian last" has allowed me to appreciate how good Debian
>GNU/Linux really is.
>
>Debian is improving all the time.  Given the nature of the Debian
>distribution, I think that it is inevitable that Debian attract
>more first-time users.
>
>I believe that Debian will get there without needing to force it
>in that direction.  For example, we Debian does auto-detection,
>it will be done *right* and this will be one step towards the
>"first distro" status.
>
>In any system that novices can use, the challenge is to scale
>to expert users.  By aiming at the expert/developer end of the
>spectrum, Debian has avoided this very difficult problem.
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>-- Mark John Suter  | I know that you  believe  you understand
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] | what you think I said, but I am not sure
>GPG key id F2FEBB36 | you realise that what you  heard  is not
>Ph: +61 4 1126 2316 | what I meant.  anonymous
>
>[1] http://www.humbug.org.au/
>
>Adjunció convertida:"e:\bústies\seaside\adjunta\Is Debian the last OS "
>

___
Do You Yahoo!?
Achetez, vendez! À votre prix! Sur http://encheres.yahoo.fr

Re: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Adam Scriven]

At 00:28 2000/07/31 +1000, you wrote:
How common is the "Debian last" practice, that is, try other distributions 
(including non-GNU/Linux) and then come to Debian to stay?


I started out as a user on a X-friend's Yggrassil (sp?) system.  Then we 
switched to SlackWare, and that was also my first installed network (2 
486s, running ArcNET, and one attached with PLIP).  I switched to RedHat 
next, and used it for years, got my Dad involved with it too.  I've since 
switched to Debian with the Potato release, mostly because RedHat was 
getting to be WAY too expensive, but also because I'd researched Debian, 
and I liked their philosophy, and their "apt" program and method of updating.


I'm still very much getting used to Debian, however, and the long time 
between releases is stopping my Dad from switching, since he wants to 
switch to the most updated release possible if he switches, but even 
Potato's just 2.2.16/17.


Thanks.
Adam
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

RE: Is Debian the last OS ?

[Pollywog]

I could not get Debian installed beyond the base system three years ago because
it was confusing, so Debian could not be my first Linux.  I went to Caldera
OpenLinux and used that for a year, then I tried Debian again and got it
installed.  I liked Caldera, but Debian is much better for me.  I think Debian
is too confusing for first-time Linux users, especially the installation.

--
Andrew

On 30-Jul-2000 Mark Suter wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> How common is the "Debian last" practice, that is, try other
> distributions (including non-GNU/Linux) and then come to Debian
> to stay?

Is Debian the last OS ?

[Mark Suter]

Folks,

How common is the "Debian last" practice, that is, try other
distributions (including non-GNU/Linux) and then come to Debian
to stay?

Within Humbug[1], approximately 2/5 of the membership are now
Debian users; however, only a few went straight to Debian.

For me, Debian is the high point in most respects on a long road.
In my work as a Systems Administrator I have used Solaris, Irix,
Digital Unix, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and GNU/Linux.  Within GNU/Linux,
I've used MCC Interim Release, Yggdrasil, Slakware, Redhat and
Debian.

I still use all the non-GNU/Linux systems at work and they *do*
have advantages, e.g. OpenBSD for security and crypto or Solaris
for some serious 64 processor hardware; however, I believe that
"Debian last" has allowed me to appreciate how good Debian
GNU/Linux really is.

Debian is improving all the time.  Given the nature of the Debian
distribution, I think that it is inevitable that Debian attract
more first-time users.

I believe that Debian will get there without needing to force it
in that direction.  For example, we Debian does auto-detection,
it will be done *right* and this will be one step towards the
"first distro" status.

In any system that novices can use, the challenge is to scale
to expert users.  By aiming at the expert/developer end of the
spectrum, Debian has avoided this very difficult problem.

Yours sincerely,

-- Mark John Suter  | I know that you  believe  you understand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | what you think I said, but I am not sure
GPG key id F2FEBB36 | you realise that what you  heard  is not
Ph: +61 4 1126 2316 | what I meant.  anonymous

[1] http://www.humbug.org.au/


pgpfPUlKwzVp8.pgp
Description: PGP signature