Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Saturday 01 April 2017 21:23:21 Cindy-Sue Causey wrote: > On 4/1/17, cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 03:33:08PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >> In all this talk of Debian being the universal operating system, and > >> helping > >> newbies ... > > > > I'm not sure those two concepts are related. My understanding of Debian > > being the universal operating system is that it can run on as many > > hardware platforms as possible, not that it is universally accessible by > > all and sundry, although I guess if that also occurs then it's an added > > bonus. :) > > They *are* working on Debian *usability*... VERY actively: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-accessibility/ > > :) > > Cindy :) Accessibility generally means for disabled people, not newbies. It is a different thing. Lisi
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On 4/1/17, cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 03:33:08PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: >> >> In all this talk of Debian being the universal operating system, and >> helping >> newbies ... > > I'm not sure those two concepts are related. My understanding of Debian > being the universal operating system is that it can run on as many > hardware platforms as possible, not that it is universally accessible by > all and sundry, although I guess if that also occurs then it's an added > bonus. :) They *are* working on Debian *usability*... VERY actively: https://lists.debian.org/debian-accessibility/ :) Cindy :) -- Cindy-Sue Causey Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA * runs with duct tape *
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Saturday 01 April 2017 18:59:48 cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 03:33:08PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > In all this talk of Debian being the universal operating system, and > > helping newbies ... > > I'm not sure those two concepts are related. My understanding of Debian > being the universal operating system is that it can run on as many > hardware platforms as possible, not that it is universally accessible by > all and sundry, although I guess if that also occurs then it's an added > bonus. :) I agree with you. But I was being told that that view is elitist, in a world in which elite is a very pejorative word. Lisi
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 03:33:08PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > In all this talk of Debian being the universal operating system, and helping > newbies ... I'm not sure those two concepts are related. My understanding of Debian being the universal operating system is that it can run on as many hardware platforms as possible, not that it is universally accessible by all and sundry, although I guess if that also occurs then it's an added bonus. :) -- The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. -- Malcolm X
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 09:10:16AM +, Darac Marjal wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 06:03:12PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >On Tuesday 21 March 2017 17:15:32 Catherine Gramze wrote: > >>Sent from my iPad > > > >Note it is sent from an iPad! Open Source all the way! > > > >Incidentally, why did we need to know that? > > These sorts of signatures are usually used on mobile devices for a number of > reasons: > > - Typing on a mobile tends to be less comfortable, or at least slower, than > typing on a full-size keyboard. This lends to shorter, less detailed > replies. The signature acts as a warning that "I'm not being brusque, I just > don't have the capacity to state my case more loquaciously." > > - Many mobile clients seem to restrict what you can put in a signature. You > generally can't use formatting (as company branding might require), you > often can't even use multiple lines. And if you want to read your signature > from a pipe (so as to include a witty "fortune")? Good luck! IOW, it's an excuse for the following hard to read badly formatted text. -- The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. -- Malcolm X
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Friday 24 March 2017 18:25:30 Joe wrote: > On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:18:31 + > > Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Friday 24 March 2017 12:06:58 Joe wrote: > > > I've mentioned recently that I once did a non-expert netinstall, in > > > the days when I used static addresses and no DHCP, and was miffed > > > to find I had no network interfaces at the end of the process. > > > > Until fairly recently I have always had static IPs and chosen to use > > static IPs. I have always been able to tell the installer so, and > > have ended up with a properly configured network and a well-written > > network interfaces file. > > a) Is this with a not-expert installation? I used to chose "expert" long enough to chose a non-default DE, when that was how one had to do it, but it then went back to the "automatic" installation unless one went backwards at any stage. (One chose expert install, chose a DE, clicked "install", the installer took over.) Perhaps choosing a different DE affected how the installer ran. I could never see why not wanting Gnome counted as expert and always thought that a lot of non-experts who didn't want Gnome, must have got landed with it, for fear of asking for an expert install, even briefly. > and > b) Even though you did not use it, was a DHCP server running in the > network? Yes. > I've no idea if it is true today, but when this incident happened, the > combination of non-expert and no DHCP server detected resulted in no > network drivers being loaded, even though the network had been used > during installation. > > When I reported it as a bug I was told it was not, it was a feature. > Presumably only experts understand network configuration. I've always > used expert mode before and since, but on that occasion it was some kind > of temporary installation and I thought that non-expert ought to take > care of it. I am sure that something similar came up recently with the Live CD. I am obviously lucky that it didn't happen! Maybe it was to do with which driver(s) were needed. Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Fri 24 Mar 2017 at 18:46:43 (-0400), Catherine Gramze wrote:
>
> > On Mar 24, 2017, at 6:05 PM, David Wright wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri 24 Mar 2017 at 15:44:15 (-0400), Catherine Gramze wrote:
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >>> On Mar 24, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>>
> >>> but that went away years ago. At the end of the single installer run,
> >>> it should be finished. Do you mean "reboots into the newly installed
> >>> system" instead, maybe?
> >>>
> >> Yes, it boots into that bare bones system before it has you select a
> >> mirror.
> >
> > Here's the netinst installation menu after Advanced/Expert options
> > have been chosen. The asterisks are mine, and show what's probably
> > the most typical path from start to finish (in order).
> > At which step is the reboot?
> >
> Between "Install the base system" and "Configure package manager." It boots
> to the installed base system after ejecting the netinst cd/dvd. You can miss
> it if you are not watching.
I think you must be running a different installer. Or are you saying
that the installation kernel can reboot without disturbing the
processes that are running?
I've just installed a machine with 260046848 Jan 16 05:01
debian-8.7.1-amd64-netinst.iso
whose SHA512 is
534795785d2706e64e3a4dff9648fd0302a1272c668a99a81ba3a984695986ac814d8193c5335bd13dce0592fc470eebe9fc4a6c9991f87a6686329a667ac30d
You've already seen its menu. Here are some process lists taken during
installation. Obviously I used the ssh installation method with a
fully configured NIC; therefore you can see _two_ ssh daemons, one
(4927) running the installation itself, and one (4998) running the
shell with which I ran ps.
It's quite clear that these two processes are running from start to
finish with no rebooting. A staggering number of processes run in
the meantime. BTW I left in the Task Selection menu as it first
appears, for reference.
Sorry the post is so long…
-- Set up users and passwords prompt (first command with ssh):
BusyBox v1.22.1 (Debian 1:1.22.0-9+deb8u1) built-in shell (ash)
Enter 'help' for a list of built-in commands.
~ # ps
PID USER VSZ STAT COMMAND
1 root 4072 S/bin/busybox init
…
194 root 48848 Sdebconf -o d-i /usr/bin/main-menu
200 root 10220 S/usr/bin/main-menu
4884 root 19608 S/usr/sbin/sshd
4927 root 23820 Ssshd: installer@pts/1
4928 root 4540 S{debian-installe} /bin/sh /sbin/debian-installer /bi
4936 root 49992 Sdebconf -o d-i /bin/network-console-menu
4942 root 10684 Smain-menu
4996 root 0 SW [kworker/0:2]
4997 root 0 SW [kworker/0:0]
4998 root 23820 Rsshd: installer@pts/2
4999 root 4540 S{debian-installe} /bin/sh /sbin/debian-installer /bi
5007 root 49860 Sdebconf -o d-i /bin/network-console-menu
5013 root 6460 Sudpkg --configure --force-configure di-utils-shell
5014 root 4544 S{di-utils-shell.} /bin/sh /var/lib/dpkg/info/di-util
5015 root 4544 S{start-shell} /bin/sh /bin/start-shell di-utils-shel
5016 root 4540 Ssh -c /bin/sh
5017 root 4544 S/bin/sh
5018 root 4544 Rps
~ #
-- Kernel version prompt:
…
194 root 48848 Sdebconf -o d-i /usr/bin/main-menu
200 root 10220 S/usr/bin/main-menu
4884 root 19608 S/usr/sbin/sshd
4927 root 23820 Ssshd: installer@pts/1
4928 root 4540 S{debian-installe} /bin/sh /sbin/debian-installer /bi
4936 root 53380 Sdebconf -o d-i /bin/network-console-menu
4942 root 10688 Smain-menu
4998 root 23820 Rsshd: installer@pts/2
4999 root 4540 S{debian-installe} /bin/sh /sbin/debian-installer /bi
5007 root 49860 Sdebconf -o d-i /bin/network-console-menu
5013 root 6460 Sudpkg --configure --force-configure di-utils-shell
5014 root 4544 S{di-utils-shell.} /bin/sh /var/lib/dpkg/info/di-util
5015 root 4544 S{start-shell} /bin/sh /bin/start-shell di-utils-shel
5016 root 4540 Ssh -c /bin/sh
5017 root 4544 S/bin/sh
…
9355 root 6460 Sudpkg --configure --force-configure bootstrap-base
9356 root 4544 S{bootstrap-base.} /bin/sh /var/lib/dpkg/info/bootstr
16890 root 0 SW [kauditd]
25120 root 0 SW [kworker/u8:1]
26303 root 4544 Rps
~ #
-- Configure the package manager prompt:
…
200 root 10220 S/usr/bin/main-menu
448 root 4544 Rps
4884 root 19608 S/usr/sbin/sshd
4927 root 23820 Ssshd: installer@pts/1
4928 root 4540 S{debian-installe} /bin/sh /sbin/debian-installer /bi
4936 root 53480 Sdebconf -o d-i /bin/network-console-menu
4942 root 10684 Smain-menu
4998 root 23820 Rsshd: installer@pts/2
4999 root 4540 S{debian-installe} /bin/sh /sbin/debian-installer /bi
5007 root 49860 Sdebconf -o d-i /bin/network-console-menu
5013 root 6460 Sudpkg --c
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Catherine Gramze wrote: > On Mar 24, 2017, at 6:05 PM, David Wright wrote: >> Here's the netinst installation menu after Advanced/Expert options >> have been chosen. The asterisks are mine, and show what's probably >> the most typical path from start to finish (in order). >> At which step is the reboot? >> >Between "Install the base system" and "Configure package manager." It >boots to the installed base system after ejecting the netinst >cd/dvd. You can miss it if you are not watching. There are really no reboots at that point in the installer! The installer runs through multiple steps directly in order: ... Partition disks Install the base system Configure the package manager Select and install software ... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com < liw> everything I know about UK hotels I learned from "Fawlty Towers"
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
> On Mar 24, 2017, at 6:05 PM, David Wright wrote: > >> On Fri 24 Mar 2017 at 15:44:15 (-0400), Catherine Gramze wrote: >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On Mar 24, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: >>> >>> but that went away years ago. At the end of the single installer run, >>> it should be finished. Do you mean "reboots into the newly installed >>> system" instead, maybe? >>> >> Yes, it boots into that bare bones system before it has you select a mirror. > > Here's the netinst installation menu after Advanced/Expert options > have been chosen. The asterisks are mine, and show what's probably > the most typical path from start to finish (in order). > At which step is the reboot? > Between "Install the base system" and "Configure package manager." It boots to the installed base system after ejecting the netinst cd/dvd. You can miss it if you are not watching. Cathy
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Fri 24 Mar 2017 at 15:44:15 (-0400), Catherine Gramze wrote: > Sent from my iPad > > > On Mar 24, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > > but that went away years ago. At the end of the single installer run, > > it should be finished. Do you mean "reboots into the newly installed > > system" instead, maybe? > > > Yes, it boots into that bare bones system before it has you select a mirror. Here's the netinst installation menu after Advanced/Expert options have been chosen. The asterisks are mine, and show what's probably the most typical path from start to finish (in order). At which step is the reboot? ┌─┤ [?] Debian installer main menu ├─┐ ││ │ Choose the next step in the install process: │ ││ │ * Choose language │ │ * Configure the keyboard │ │ * Detect and mount CD-ROM │ │ * Load installer components from CD│ │ * Detect network hardware │ │ * Configure the network│ │ * Set up users and passwords │ │ * Configure the clock │ │ * Detect disks │ │ * Partition disks │ │ * Install the base system │ │ * Configure the package manager│ │ * Select and install software │ │ * Install the GRUB boot loader on a hard disk │ │ Install the LILO boot loader on a hard disk │ │ Continue without boot loader │ │ * Finish the installation │ │ Change debconf priority │ │ Check the CD-ROM(s) integrity│ │ Save debug logs │ │ Execute a shell │ │ Eject a CD from the drive│ │ Abort the installation │ ││ └┘ Cheers, David.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Sent from my iPad > On Mar 24, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > but that went away years ago. At the end of the single installer run, > it should be finished. Do you mean "reboots into the newly installed > system" instead, maybe? > Yes, it boots into that bare bones system before it has you select a mirror. Cathy
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Fri 24 Mar 2017 at 18:23:26 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Catherine Gramze wrote:
> >
> >The point of free software is not to cater to your personal
> >preferences, or mine, but to make that software accessible and useful
> >to the greatest number of people. The netinst installer doesn't do
> >that when it allows a very broken installation to result. There will
> >inevitably be "arbitrary" decisions involved in a project like this,
> >like not including the non-free firmware in the installer, and the
> >switch to systemd.
>
> To be honest, I think we have a mostly reasonable setup right
> now. I've just tested the stretch RC2 netinst in a VM without
> networking. It did give a prominent warning from the netcfg step:
>
> No network interfaces were found. The installation system was unable to find
> a network device.
> You may need to load a specific module for your network card, if you
> have one. For this, go back to the network hardware detection step.
If the interfaces exist but are not connected (cable or wireless) the
message is different. Basically, no DHCP protocol on the network or slow
DHCP server or hardware not working. A user who proceeds after either
message either knows what they are doing or is being perverse. Or is
just in it for the laughs. Either way, it doesn't matter; there is no
connectivity.
> *If* you continue the installer past that warning, you will still get
> prompted about network mirrors (which is not all that clever,
> admittedly!) before tasksel. You can choose (again, with a warning) to
> not use a mirror and *then* you'll get the option to just install the
> base system ("standard").
There is no prompting for network mirrors. After installing the base
system you have "Configure the package manager". The installer doesn't
offer any mirrors because it knows it is pointless. In fact, it says "No
network mirror was selected". The only thing you can get out of this is
a line in sources.list for security updates.
After that you get the option to "Select and install software". Relating
it to the "base system" is misleading and confusing. Skip this step
(install standard system utilities or not) andthe machine will still be
functional.
> I don't have ready access right now to a machine *with* network
> devices, but only those that need firmware. What exact messages do you
> get there?
>
> As a separate point, there are *unofficial* netinst images including
> the non-free firmware packages, and we've been making those for a
> while. I'm tempted to add a version of DVD#1 including the firmware
> too, starting with stretch.
I've always found giving in to temptation very satisfying. In this case
we would have some parity between netinst and DVD#1. Go for it!
--
Brian.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On 2017-03-24, Catherine Gramze wrote: > > > > > Sent from my iPad >> On Mar 24, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Curt wrote: >> >> I'd just wish you'd wrap your lines in accordance to rule number 87 of the >> "Debian Etiquette Guidelines," by I.M. Sikothis. > > Thank you for mentioning this. I was not aware that my iPad does not wrap > lines appropriately for everybody. I am using hard returns to wrap this to fit > your display. Let me know if this creates odd wrapping issues for other > people. > There is unfortunately no way to manually adjust the automatic line wrap. Wonderfully reactive and readable. Thanks. > Cathy > -- "It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdom on the far side of the hedge; or it might be the glory of speed; no one knew." --Mrs. Ramsay, speculating on why her little daughter might be dashing about, in "To the Lighthouse," by Virginia Woolf.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Sent from my iPad > On Mar 24, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Curt wrote: > > I'd just wish you'd wrap your lines in accordance to rule number 87 of the > "Debian Etiquette Guidelines," by I.M. Sikothis. Thank you for mentioning this. I was not aware that my iPad does not wrap lines appropriately for everybody. I am using hard returns to wrap this to fit your display. Let me know if this creates odd wrapping issues for other people. There is unfortunately no way to manually adjust the automatic line wrap. Cathy
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Catherine Gramze wrote:> >> On Mar 23, 2017, at 9:22 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> Catherine, I'm curious - when was the last time you installed Debian >> using d-i? I've now seen you several times write (like above) about >> "backing out of the installer after the reboot". Are you talking about >> a second stage of d-i after it's installed the base system? >> >My last Debian netinst installation was January 11, 2017. > >Very early in the installation the installer looks for a network card >to configure. If you have a NIC that will not function without >non-free firmware this step fails, and the installer says it failed, >but the installer still allows you to continue with the installation, >installing all the base system files. OK, yes. >Then it tells you the base system is installed, and it needs to >reboot. It ejects the media and reboots into the installer. You can >choose to quit at this point by choosing "back"rather than "continue" >possibly more than once being needed. That is what I mean by "backing >out" to deliberately get a base system install only. So, yes, I am >talking about the second stage after it has installed the base >system. Ummm, this is the bit where I don't see what you're seeing: "reboots into the installer". And I've been developing and testing d-i for a number of years. We *used* to have the two-reboot setup: 1. boot the installer from media to do basic setup 2. boot into that new basic system to continue selecting and installing new packages but that went away years ago. At the end of the single installer run, it should be finished. Do you mean "reboots into the newly installed system" instead, maybe? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com < liw> everything I know about UK hotels I learned from "Fawlty Towers"
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:18:31 + Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 24 March 2017 12:06:58 Joe wrote: > > I've mentioned recently that I once did a non-expert netinstall, in > > the days when I used static addresses and no DHCP, and was miffed > > to find I had no network interfaces at the end of the process. > > Until fairly recently I have always had static IPs and chosen to use > static IPs. I have always been able to tell the installer so, and > have ended up with a properly configured network and a well-written > network interfaces file. a) Is this with a not-expert installation? and b) Even though you did not use it, was a DHCP server running in the network? I've no idea if it is true today, but when this incident happened, the combination of non-expert and no DHCP server detected resulted in no network drivers being loaded, even though the network had been used during installation. When I reported it as a bug I was told it was not, it was a feature. Presumably only experts understand network configuration. I've always used expert mode before and since, but on that occasion it was some kind of temporary installation and I thought that non-expert ought to take care of it. -- Joe
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Catherine Gramze wrote:
>
>The point of free software is not to cater to your personal
>preferences, or mine, but to make that software accessible and useful
>to the greatest number of people. The netinst installer doesn't do
>that when it allows a very broken installation to result. There will
>inevitably be "arbitrary" decisions involved in a project like this,
>like not including the non-free firmware in the installer, and the
>switch to systemd.
To be honest, I think we have a mostly reasonable setup right
now. I've just tested the stretch RC2 netinst in a VM without
networking. It did give a prominent warning from the netcfg step:
No network interfaces were found. The installation system was unable to find
a network device.
You may need to load a specific module for your network card, if you
have one. For this, go back to the network hardware detection step.
*If* you continue the installer past that warning, you will still get
prompted about network mirrors (which is not all that clever,
admittedly!) before tasksel. You can choose (again, with a warning) to
not use a mirror and *then* you'll get the option to just install the
base system ("standard").
I don't have ready access right now to a machine *with* network
devices, but only those that need firmware. What exact messages do you
get there?
As a separate point, there are *unofficial* netinst images including
the non-free firmware packages, and we've been making those for a
while. I'm tempted to add a version of DVD#1 including the firmware
too, starting with stretch.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
< liw> everything I know about UK hotels I learned from "Fawlty Towers"
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On 2017-03-23, Catherine Gramze wrote: > > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:03 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> Please calm down, why the aggression? :-( > > Lisi is incensed with my suggestion that the netinst installer should refuse > to continue if no network c Cathy I'd just wish you'd wrap your lines in accordance to rule number 87 of the "Debian Etiquette Guidelines," by I.M. Sikothis. -- "It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdom on the far side of the hedge; or it might be the glory of speed; no one knew." --Mrs. Ramsay, speculating on why her little daughter might be dashing about, in "To the Lighthouse," by Virginia Woolf.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On 2017-03-24, Andy Smith wrote: > > It can be useful to note the names of people who can't seem to > prevent themselves from writing argumentative and massively > off-topic responses over and over again. It's a relatively small but > vocal list. Right. Let's write the names down and communicate them to the proper authorities. I just hope I'm offered a final cigarette and a blindfold. > Cheers, > Andy > -- "It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdom on the far side of the hedge; or it might be the glory of speed; no one knew." --Mrs. Ramsay, speculating on why her little daughter might be dashing about, in "To the Lighthouse," by Virginia Woolf.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Hi Jonathan, On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:16:16AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 06:29:35AM +, Andy Smith wrote: > > It can be useful to note the names of people who can't seem to > > prevent themselves from writing argumentative and massively > > off-topic responses over and over again. It's a relatively small but > > vocal list. > > Yes... but, > > a) the whole list is small and vocal, unfortunately > b) killfiling on an individual basis (which I do) does not improve the > quality > of the list for others (nor Debian's reputation) I completely agree. This small group of people are ruining it for everyone and it's not something that can be fixed on a mailing list that doesn't commit to ruthless banning of off-topic postings. :( It's a pity that the Debian Shapado instance at https://ask.debian.net didn't take off more than it did (and now seems to be completely broken). That does at least allow Stack Overflow-style scoring of answers to keep things mostly on-topic. There is also the Debian tag on Stack Overflow, though that is of course hosted on non-free software. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/debian Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Friday 24 March 2017 12:06:58 Joe wrote: > I've mentioned recently that I once did a non-expert netinstall, in the > days when I used static addresses and no DHCP, and was miffed to find I > had no network interfaces at the end of the process. Until fairly recently I have always had static IPs and chosen to use static IPs. I have always been able to tell the installer so, and have ended up with a properly configured network and a well-written network interfaces file. I now use DHCP with addresses fixed in the router via MAC address, so this doesn't arise. Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Friday 24 March 2017 12:06:58 Joe wrote: > the user > should be notified and asked whether to continue. The user *is* notified and asked whether to continue. The user is not *prevented* from continuing, should he or she be perverse enough to wish to do so. Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Friday 24 March 2017 12:07:59 Richard Owlett wrote: > It might be just the ticket for some > of my minimalist experiments. ;-) It would. The other minimalist install media have mostly gone by the board. I have just checked, and amazingly LNX-BBC (Linux Bootable Business Card) and DSL (Damn Small Linux) seem still to be alive and kicking. And to need a CD or a USB stick. Not all old computers will boot from a USB stick, Richard. Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Thu 23 Mar 2017 at 22:23:42 -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 9:22 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > > Catherine, I'm curious - when was the last time you installed Debian > > using d-i? I've now seen you several times write (like above) about > > "backing out of the installer after the reboot". Are you talking about > > a second stage of d-i after it's installed the base system? > > > My last Debian netinst installation was January 11, 2017. > > Very early in the installation the installer looks for a network card > to configure. If you have a NIC that will not function without > non-free firmware this step fails, and the installer says it failed, > but the installer still allows you to continue with the installation, > installing all the base system files. Prior to configuring the network you will have been informed about missing firmware. If you do not supply it and choose to move on, the network configuration is (in my experience with USB WiFi adapters) most likely to fail. Anyway, you are told the firmware is needed so the choice to continue or not is yours. If a working network is important to you, you would stop and do something to rectify the situation. If it is not important or you intend to sort it out after the first boot or you want to chance your arm, you carry on. The probable outcome is that a network mirror cannot be chosen and only files supplied by the image can be installed. Your concern is inexperienced newcomers and your argument is, I believe, for d-i to issue a fatal error and not allow any further steps to be taken on the road to installation. That's in spite of an earlier message about firmware being required. This seems superfluous and over the top. Note also that network configuration can fail for reasons other than missing firmware. > Then it tells you the base system is installed, and it needs to > reboot. It ejects the media and reboots into the installer. You can I have *never* seen d-i of itself requesting a reboot after the base system is installed when the network is not set up. Are we using the same installer? > choose to quit at this point by choosing "back"rather than "continue" > possibly more than once being needed. That is what I mean by "backing > out" to deliberately get a base system install only. So, yes, I am > talking about the second stage after it has installed the base system. It moves on to configuring the package manager and installing software. The installer knows there is no network so the only choice of software is "standard system utilities". By now the newcomer might begin to twig that not having the network wasn't the best of stategies. > If some beginner continued on past the reboot without a configured NIC > they are given a list of mirrors, but will be unable to select and > connect to one successfully. The installation fails at this point, > being unable to continue, stuck in an infinite loop of failed mirror > selection. They have a Debian base system installation now, their old > OS overwritten, and no network capability to get the information they > need to fix the problem. And that assumes they are even capable of > working with the command line to to fix it - and most beginners are > not. No mirror list is offered; the installer knows better than to do that when there is no network. Are we using the same installer? > My argument is that the failure to configure a NIC in the first stage > of the installer should be a fatal, show-stopping error with > appropriate messaging to the user that no NIC is configured and > non-free firmware is required. This would prevent many failed > installations, while not preventing advanced users from quitting the > installer after the base system is installed. A fatal error is a fatal error. No one can move past it. Don't misunderstand me. There is a messiness to the firmware situation but it is not solved by preventing d-i doing its job. The install might not be exactly what some wanted but it is not a failure. The system will be fully functioning and open to enhancement. A triumph for the installer you might say. ;) -- Brian.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On 03/24/2017 07:07 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 03/23/2017 05:18 PM, Catherine Gramze wrote:
[ *SNIP* ]
A complete Debian dvd set does NOT solve the unrecognized network
problem; only the unofficial iso downloads that include the non-free
firmware do. The same issue was present the last time I used a
complete 12 dvd set, which was years ago. We need to do all we can,
within the limits of the Debian commitment to FOSS, to make Debian
easier to install, not harder. If anybody must be inconvenienced,
make it theusers best equipped to work around it.
I suspect that statement is factually incorrect.
I've been using *ONLY* multi-DVD sets to install Debian [since Squeeze].
Who would want to install something the size of Debian via dial-up?
My machines had recognized hardware, but nothing to connect to.
Also my latest Jessie was on a new {to me ;} Lenovo T510. Its WiFi chip
set is not supported and I'm give the option to obtain the non-free
driver required or to proceed without. By analogy I would assume the
same logic is in the network discovery process. Especially since I can
opt out of the network discovery process by pressing "Enter" a half
dozen times which then asks I wish to proceed without network access.
I may download the netinst *image* [ CD v. DVD is specious, only way
to do it is a netinst flash drive ;]. It might be just the ticket for
some of my minimalist experiments.
I just downloaded the netinst image and placed on a flash drive.
I ran it with my internet access disabled by unplugging it to simulate
no suitable NIC. I saw no problem with how the lack of a functional
internet connection was handled.
Some small text only might make it feel more newbie friendly.
1. Add a link on debian.org in the box with the link to download
netinst. Have it lead to a short page describing the netinst pkg.
2. Modify the text displayed when the lack of internet connection is
found to explicitly state that proceeding will give a system with
command line interface and no a GUI.
That installer does produce a system very suitable for my minimalist
experiments. When I order my next multi-DVD set, I'll add it to the order.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On 03/23/2017 05:18 PM, Catherine Gramze wrote:
[ *SNIP* ]
A complete Debian dvd set does NOT solve the unrecognized network
problem; only the unofficial iso downloads that include the non-free
firmware do. The same issue was present the last time I used a
complete 12 dvd set, which was years ago. We need to do all we can,
within the limits of the Debian commitment to FOSS, to make Debian
easier to install, not harder. If anybody must be inconvenienced,
make it theusers best equipped to work around it.
I suspect that statement is factually incorrect.
I've been using *ONLY* multi-DVD sets to install Debian [since Squeeze].
Who would want to install something the size of Debian via dial-up?
My machines had recognized hardware, but nothing to connect to.
Also my latest Jessie was on a new {to me ;} Lenovo T510. Its WiFi chip
set is not supported and I'm give the option to obtain the non-free
driver required or to proceed without. By analogy I would assume the
same logic is in the network discovery process. Especially since I can
opt out of the network discovery process by pressing "Enter" a half
dozen times which then asks I wish to proceed without network access.
I may download the netinst *image* [ CD v. DVD is specious, only way to
do it is a netinst flash drive ;]. It might be just the ticket for some
of my minimalist experiments.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 10:29:09 + Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 24 March 2017 10:20:46 Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:07:22AM +0100, Mart van de Wege wrote: > > > I disagree. Sometimes there is no disagreement, someone is just > > > plain wrong. Catherine has been given the use cases that disprove > > > her thesis, and has been contradicting herself. > > > > Catherine's *suggestion* has been shot down for causing problems > > for some use-cases; but the problem she wants to address still > > exists and is still in need of a solution. I see very little > > interest here in people actually addressing the problem (except > > Catherine); just a lot of "Get off my lawn"-style posts, and a > > propensity of people to misprepresent *their* opinion with that of > > the project as a whole. > > > if they insist on not wanting to be educated > > > > Interestingly that's exactly how I'd characterize most of the > > responses *to* Catherine; deaf ears to the problem, due to > > dissatisafaction with a proposed solution. > > > > > at a certain point you must simply wash > > > your hands of them. It's not nice, but it *is* constructive. > > > > "Washing your hands" is deleting the thread and moving on; it's not > > posting aggressive, toxic messages. > > What we have *all* been losing sight of in this thread is that none > of us can do anything about it anyway. An installer proposal needs > making to the installer developers. > And before that happens, there needs to be some sort of consensus as to what might constitute an improvement, which a group of Debian users might reasonably be expected to discuss. Politely. I would have thought that where an installation is expected to end up without a network connection, particularly a netinstall, the user should be notified and asked whether to continue. I've mentioned recently that I once did a non-expert netinstall, in the days when I used static addresses and no DHCP, and was miffed to find I had no network interfaces at the end of the process. I wasn't a complete beginner, I had more than one computer available, and it wasn't that hard to fix, but I was still annoyed not to have been warned about this behaviour, which was completely undesirable but deliberate, beforehand. Not quite the same situation, but similar. -- Joe
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Friday 24 March 2017 10:20:46 Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:07:22AM +0100, Mart van de Wege wrote: > > I disagree. Sometimes there is no disagreement, someone is just plain > > wrong. Catherine has been given the use cases that disprove her thesis, > > and has been contradicting herself. > > Catherine's *suggestion* has been shot down for causing problems for some > use-cases; but the problem she wants to address still exists and is still > in need of a solution. I see very little interest here in people actually > addressing the problem (except Catherine); just a lot of "Get off my > lawn"-style posts, and a propensity of people to misprepresent *their* > opinion with that of the project as a whole. > > > if they insist on not wanting to be educated > > Interestingly that's exactly how I'd characterize most of the responses > *to* Catherine; deaf ears to the problem, due to dissatisafaction with a > proposed solution. > > > at a certain point you must simply wash > > your hands of them. It's not nice, but it *is* constructive. > > "Washing your hands" is deleting the thread and moving on; it's not posting > aggressive, toxic messages. What we have *all* been losing sight of in this thread is that none of us can do anything about it anyway. An installer proposal needs making to the installer developers. Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 02:33:00PM -0400, songbird wrote: > Catherine Gramze wrote: > ... > > When you burn the netinst iso to a dvd, because you can't buy blank cds > > anymore in any local stores, you have a netinst dvd. I can't remember the > > last time I saw a cd in the wild. > > i just saw piles of them available at Best Buy. > > plus i'd be very surprised if you could not find > them available on-line. have you actually looked? ...this is getting further and further from any sort of point, all in the name of being "correct on the Internet". *Why bother* buying CD-rs if you don't need them? -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ ⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:07:22AM +0100, Mart van de Wege wrote: > I disagree. Sometimes there is no disagreement, someone is just plain > wrong. Catherine has been given the use cases that disprove her thesis, > and has been contradicting herself. Catherine's *suggestion* has been shot down for causing problems for some use-cases; but the problem she wants to address still exists and is still in need of a solution. I see very little interest here in people actually addressing the problem (except Catherine); just a lot of "Get off my lawn"-style posts, and a propensity of people to misprepresent *their* opinion with that of the project as a whole. > if they insist on not wanting to be educated Interestingly that's exactly how I'd characterize most of the responses *to* Catherine; deaf ears to the problem, due to dissatisafaction with a proposed solution. > at a certain point you must simply wash > your hands of them. It's not nice, but it *is* constructive. "Washing your hands" is deleting the thread and moving on; it's not posting aggressive, toxic messages. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ ⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 06:29:35AM +, Andy Smith wrote: > It can be useful to note the names of people who can't seem to > prevent themselves from writing argumentative and massively > off-topic responses over and over again. It's a relatively small but > vocal list. Yes... but, a) the whole list is small and vocal, unfortunately b) killfiling on an individual basis (which I do) does not improve the quality of the list for others (nor Debian's reputation) -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ ⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On 24-03-17, Catherine Gramze wrote: > > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 9:20 PM, David Wright wrote: > > > > It's not really polite to call this "expert" (only in the sense > > described by the Advanced options in the installer) rabid, and what > > I do with the installer ridiculous. > > > > I don't wish to accept arbitrary impositions on what I can do with > > free software. That's the rationale behind its existence: freedom. > > Nor do I wish to be told what I ought to be spending my money on, > > just to conform with your, ahem, suggestions. > > The point of free software is not to cater to your personal preferences, or > mine, but to make that software accessible and useful to the greatest number > of people. The netinst installer doesn't do that when it allows a very broken > installation to result. There will inevitably be "arbitrary" decisions > involved in a project like this, like not including the non-free firmware in > the installer, and the switch to systemd. > > If you don't have a spare network card to use temporarily for a netinst and > don't want to spend $15 on a USB NIC then download and use a different > installer, like the first dvd of the complete set. It's free! > > You still have not mentioned any actual use case for this hypothetical base > system box with no network capability. What is the practical daily function > of this box? You just keep insisting that you have such a use, and that using > a different installer to get it is unacceptable as an option. Why is it so > unacceptable? Because changing the netinst installer it might make it easier > for new users to Debian? > > Cathy While I do agree that Debian should be made more newbie friendly, I do not think that it will do much good towards that goal to change net installer. Debian has solid documentation. Not as good as some, like for example Arch and FreeBSD, but it is solid one. Trouble for newbie is to find some things that it will make their lives with Debian easier. One of those things is firmware needed for installation. Newbie with net installer that has firmware on it is in much better position than newbie who has net installer that will fail to do installation if it can not set up networking. Some better hints for newbies on front page of site, like special welcome link for newbies which kind of says "Welcome newcomers, click here please for important things you want and need to know". And there, some kind of FAQ list with further links should exits.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Hello, On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:25:20PM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:16:54PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > This thread is a great example of why I really despise debian-user > > sometimes. > > There's no reason to be so hostile, you simply disagree with each other. > > This > > list is too toxic a lot of the time. Please either post friendly and > > constructively or not at all. > > A pity indeed. Sometimes threads become "rotten": this seems to be an example > of that. I try to just ignore those. It can be useful to note the names of people who can't seem to prevent themselves from writing argumentative and massively off-topic responses over and over again. It's a relatively small but vocal list. Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
> On Mar 23, 2017, at 9:20 PM, David Wright wrote: > > It's not really polite to call this "expert" (only in the sense > described by the Advanced options in the installer) rabid, and what > I do with the installer ridiculous. > > I don't wish to accept arbitrary impositions on what I can do with > free software. That's the rationale behind its existence: freedom. > Nor do I wish to be told what I ought to be spending my money on, > just to conform with your, ahem, suggestions. The point of free software is not to cater to your personal preferences, or mine, but to make that software accessible and useful to the greatest number of people. The netinst installer doesn't do that when it allows a very broken installation to result. There will inevitably be "arbitrary" decisions involved in a project like this, like not including the non-free firmware in the installer, and the switch to systemd. If you don't have a spare network card to use temporarily for a netinst and don't want to spend $15 on a USB NIC then download and use a different installer, like the first dvd of the complete set. It's free! You still have not mentioned any actual use case for this hypothetical base system box with no network capability. What is the practical daily function of this box? You just keep insisting that you have such a use, and that using a different installer to get it is unacceptable as an option. Why is it so unacceptable? Because changing the netinst installer it might make it easier for new users to Debian? Cathy
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
> On Mar 23, 2017, at 9:22 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > Catherine, I'm curious - when was the last time you installed Debian > using d-i? I've now seen you several times write (like above) about > "backing out of the installer after the reboot". Are you talking about > a second stage of d-i after it's installed the base system? > My last Debian netinst installation was January 11, 2017. Very early in the installation the installer looks for a network card to configure. If you have a NIC that will not function without non-free firmware this step fails, and the installer says it failed, but the installer still allows you to continue with the installation, installing all the base system files. Then it tells you the base system is installed, and it needs to reboot. It ejects the media and reboots into the installer. You can choose to quit at this point by choosing "back"rather than "continue" possibly more than once being needed. That is what I mean by "backing out" to deliberately get a base system install only. So, yes, I am talking about the second stage after it has installed the base system. If some beginner continued on past the reboot without a configured NIC they are given a list of mirrors, but will be unable to select and connect to one successfully. The installation fails at this point, being unable to continue, stuck in an infinite loop of failed mirror selection. They have a Debian base system installation now, their old OS overwritten, and no network capability to get the information they need to fix the problem. And that assumes they are even capable of working with the command line to to fix it - and most beginners are not. My argument is that the failure to configure a NIC in the first stage of the installer should be a fatal, show-stopping error with appropriate messaging to the user that no NIC is configured and non-free firmware is required. This would prevent many failed installations, while not preventing advanced users from quitting the installer after the base system is installed. Cathy
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Thu 23 Mar 2017 at 20:15:34 (-0400), Catherine Gramze wrote: > It was you who started maligning me, accusing me of making false claims (but > not being able to present one) and generally harassing me for disagreeing > with you. I have only responded politely, explaining my opinion and why I > hold it, while you and others used various improbable scenarios to tell me it > would make it impossible for Debian experts to install the way they want to. > Because having to have a functioning network card for a netinst is apparently > too great an imposition, depriving an expert of his inalienable right to set > up a box with a base system only, not ever connected to the Internet at any > time, for - what, exactly? What is the use case for this box that precludes > both a temporary Internet connection or using a different installation method? It's not really polite to call this "expert" (only in the sense described by the Advanced options in the installer) rabid, and what I do with the installer ridiculous. I don't wish to accept arbitrary impositions on what I can do with free software. That's the rationale behind its existence: freedom. Nor do I wish to be told what I ought to be spending my money on, just to conform with your, ahem, suggestions. You appear unable to accept that other people may have use cases that make no sense to you, calling them "improbable scenarios". This use case probably didn't make a lot of sense to some people at that time: > I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and > professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. ... > It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never > will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(. BTW I have to include the funniest bit: > Simply, I'd say that porting is impossible. Cheers, David.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Catherine Gramze wrote: > >I am suggesting, not "demanding" that the netinst installer refuse to >continue when it is not going to be able to successfully complete the >installation due to no network connection. This does not prevent >anybody from backing out of the installer after the reboot to get a >base system only should they so desire. It simply helps the new user >get what they want, a working system with a graphical desktop. Catherine, I'm curious - when was the last time you installed Debian using d-i? I've now seen you several times write (like above) about "backing out of the installer after the reboot". Are you talking about a second stage of d-i after it's installed the base system? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com < liw> everything I know about UK hotels I learned from "Fawlty Towers"
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
> On Mar 23, 2017, at 7:38 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > Anyone who reads this knows that the net-install disc cannot include non-free > firmware and that there could be a problem with connecting to the net. No, they don't. They know it can't can't contain non-free software, but not that their network card might not work. That is not the least bit obvious to a Linux beginner. I am not arguing for non-free software to be included on the netinst disc. I am arguing for not letting beginners screw themselves by continuing the installation when a network card is not recognized and configured. It is completely illogical that the installer allows it, as a network connection is required to complete the installation correctly. > > I am not making a false claim. What you said about me and about what I think > and believe is incorrect in practically every detail. Stop maligning me and > then insisting that you know better than I do what I believe. > > As for my being free to disagree, then let me disagree and leave me alone now. You have stated your elitist opinion of Debian being for experts and the various Debian derivatives being for non-experts in this very thread and at least one other, the old thread about documentation/man pages. You have also just admitted being incensed by my suggestion about the netinst installer. I have not represented you as having any opinion other than these two, so how have I misrepresented you? It was you who started maligning me, accusing me of making false claims (but not being able to present one) and generally harassing me for disagreeing with you. I have only responded politely, explaining my opinion and why I hold it, while you and others used various improbable scenarios to tell me it would make it impossible for Debian experts to install the way they want to. Because having to have a functioning network card for a netinst is apparently too great an imposition, depriving an expert of his inalienable right to set up a box with a base system only, not ever connected to the Internet at any time, for - what, exactly? What is the use case for this box that precludes both a temporary Internet connection or using a different installation method? Cathy
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Thursday 23 March 2017 22:54:13 Catherine Gramze wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 6:44 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > On Thursday 23 March 2017 22:18:53 Catherine Gramze wrote: > >>> Mar 23, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Lisi Reisz >>> > >>> This is of course incorrect. But I doubt that I could refute it > >>> without appearing aggressive again. :-( > >> > >> What part of what I said is incorrect? > > > > Practically all of it. > > If any part of it was actually incorrect, you could and would have pointed > it out. > > You just disagree with my opinion, on the basis of what *you* want Debian > to be, as opposed to the stated principles of Debian. The stated principles of Debian? "Debian will remain 100% free. We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is free in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines. *We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to these guidelines.*" (my stars) https://www.debian.org/social_contract Anyone who reads this knows that the net-install disc cannot include non-free firmware and that there could be a problem with connecting to the net. > You are perfectly > free to disagree, but do not make a false claim that what I say is > incorrect when it is not. I am not making a false claim. What you said about me and about what I think and believe is incorrect in practically every detail. Stop maligning me and then insisting that you know better than I do what I believe. As for my being free to disagree, then let me disagree and leave me alone now. Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
> On Mar 23, 2017, at 6:44 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Thursday 23 March 2017 22:18:53 Catherine Gramze wrote: >>> Mar 23, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Lisi Reisz >> >>> This is of course incorrect. But I doubt that I could refute it without >>> appearing aggressive again. :-( >> >> What part of what I said is incorrect? > > Practically all of it. If any part of it was actually incorrect, you could and would have pointed it out. You just disagree with my opinion, on the basis of what *you* want Debian to be, as opposed to the stated principles of Debian. You are perfectly free to disagree, but do not make a false claim that what I say is incorrect when it is not. The netinst installer acts in an illogical way that can and does result in unintended base system only installations. My opinion is that this can and should be fixed.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Thursday 23 March 2017 22:18:53 Catherine Gramze wrote: > > Mar 23, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Lisi Reisz > > > This is of course incorrect. But I doubt that I could refute it without > > appearing aggressive again. :-( > > What part of what I said is incorrect? Practically all of it. Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
> Mar 23, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Lisi Reisz > This is of course incorrect. But I doubt that I could refute it without > appearing aggressive again. :-( What part of what I said is incorrect? > It does indeed incense me that Catherine should demand that the net > installer, > which I and many use all the time, should refuse to do something because > Catherine doesn't want it to do it. I am suggesting, not "demanding" that the netinst installer refuse to continue when it is not going to be able to successfully complete the installation due to no network connection. This does not prevent anybody from backing out of the installer after the reboot to get a base system only should they so desire. It simply helps the new user get what they want, a working system with a graphical desktop. > > There are loads of Debian DVDs that do most - all?? I don't use the DVDs - > of > what Catherine wants. And I think that the Live CDs could helpfully be easy > for newbies, but if we haven't got the developer time, we haven't got the > developer time. > A complete Debian dvd set does NOT solve the unrecognized network problem; only the unofficial iso downloads that include the non-free firmware do. The same issue was present the last time I used a complete 12 dvd set, which was years ago. We need to do all we can, within the limits of the Debian commitment to FOSS, to make Debian easier to install, not harder. If anybody must be inconvenienced, make it the users best equipped to work around it. And we don't have enough developer time to get a working live cd version? The solution is obviously, then, to make Debian as inaccessible as possible. That's the way to get more developers.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Thu 23 Mar 2017 at 11:07:22 +0100, Mart van de Wege wrote: > Jonathan Dowland writes: > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:06:46AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 08:52:46PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote: > >> > Do you prefer that people move on to other distros after a base system > >> > only > >> > installation because the Debian installer let them inadvertently get > >> > there? > >> > >> If they're like you, yes. Good riddance. > > > > This thread is a great example of why I really despise debian-user > > sometimes. > > There's no reason to be so hostile, you simply disagree with each other. > > This > > list is too toxic a lot of the time. Please either post friendly and > > constructively or not at all. > > I disagree. Sometimes there is no disagreement, someone is just plain > wrong. Catherine has been given the use cases that disprove her thesis, > and has been contradicting herself. > > Continuing to be nice in some misguided attempt at false balance *does* > *not* *help*. If someone is wrong, they should be told; if they insist > on not wanting to be educated, at a certain point you must simply wash > your hands of them. It's not nice, but it *is* constructive. "Wrong" is wrong. Sometimes a rubust reply is required. This is not in itself being hostile. The seeds of hostilty have probably been sown earlier with the publishing of ill thought out ideas and information. > "Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore" > - Cicero This man has been banned from debian.roman.equestris for having a malign and toxic influence. Do you really think you should be puffing him? -- Brian.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On 03/23/2017 09:48 AM, Catherine Gramze wrote: On Mar 23, 2017, at 12:38 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: Catherine Gramze wrote: On Mar 20, 2017, at 10:02 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: Particularly where you have encountered it where it takes you past the point of no retreat before you discover that you need a network driver, so that you have wiped your old install and cannot continue to install your new one. How about the last time I installed Debian using a netinst dvd? Sorry, what? There's no such animal as a netinst dvd... The netinst is a minimal-ish (small) CD-sized image that just contains the installer and the (very limited) base system. The DVDs we make are much more complete. When you burn the netinst iso to a dvd, because you can't buy blank cds anymore in any local stores, you have a netinst dvd. I can't remember the last time I saw a cd in the wild. Walmart sells them. Until recently (like maybe 6 months) they still sold blank VHS tapes. Best regards, Fred
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
My reply went initially in error to Catherine privately because she had sent a copy to me privately. I wish people would stick to teh CoC and not cc people. On Thursday 23 March 2017 18:20:39 Catherine Gramze wrote: > Sent from my iPad > > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:03 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > > Please calm down, why the aggression? :-( > > Lisi is incensed with my suggestion that the netinst installer should > refuse to continue if no network card is recognized and configured. She > sincerely believes Debian is, and should be, only for expert users. My > suggestion in no way detracts from the ability of an expert to perform the > type of installation they want, while eliminating a major source of > "failed" installations where beginners end up with a base system only > installed. > > They presume some large number of expert users want to use netinst to get a > base system only server installation with no network capability. I find it > ludicrous; what about the server packages they need and security updates? > No, it is really about keeping it harder than it needs to be to begin using > Debian, preferring that those inferior, inexpert people use Mint or Ubuntu, > as Lisi has admitted she wants. > > > Cathy This is of course incorrect. But I doubt that I could refute it without appearing aggressive again. :-( It does indeed incense me that Catherine should demand that the net installer, which I and many use all the time, should refuse to do something because Catherine doesn't want it to do it. There are loads of Debian DVDs that do most - all?? I don't use the DVDs - of what Catherine wants. And I think that the Live CDs could helpfully be easy for newbies, but if we haven't got the developer time, we haven't got the developer time. Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Catherine Gramze wrote: ... > When you burn the netinst iso to a dvd, because you can't buy blank cds > anymore in any local stores, you have a netinst dvd. I can't remember the > last time I saw a cd in the wild. i just saw piles of them available at Best Buy. plus i'd be very surprised if you could not find them available on-line. have you actually looked? songbird
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Sent from my iPad > On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:03 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > Please calm down, why the aggression? :-( Lisi is incensed with my suggestion that the netinst installer should refuse to continue if no network card is recognized and configured. She sincerely believes Debian is, and should be, only for expert users. My suggestion in no way detracts from the ability of an expert to perform the type of installation they want, while eliminating a major source of "failed" installations where beginners end up with a base system only installed. They presume some large number of expert users want to use netinst to get a base system only server installation with no network capability. I find it ludicrous; what about the server packages they need and security updates? No, it is really about keeping it harder than it needs to be to begin using Debian, preferring that those inferior, inexpert people use Mint or Ubuntu, as Lisi has admitted she wants. Cathy
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Thursday 23 March 2017 18:03:35 Steve McIntyre wrote: > Please calm down, why the aggression? :-( Sorry. Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Lisi Reisz wrote: >On Thursday 23 March 2017 16:48:56 Catherine Gramze wrote: >> >> When you burn the netinst iso to a dvd, because you can't buy blank cds >> anymore in any local stores, you have a netinst dvd. I can't remember the >> last time I saw a cd in the wild. > >No, you do not. You have a net install cd image burnt onto a DVD because you >didn't /couldn't be bothered to look for CDs. > >How about: >https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_3_8?url=search-alias%3Dcomputers&field-keywords=blank+cd+discs&sprefix=blank+CD%2Caps%2C178&crid=29MZRSVI13I1H >Or: >https://www.tesco.com/direct/search-results/results.page?catId=4294967294&searchquery=blank+CD&SrchId=4294967294 >Or: >https://www.wilko.com/search?q=blank+CD > >I assure you that Wilko is very wild!! And for me, very local. It depends on where you are, and what's convenient. Hell, I've written CDs to DVD-R media more than once in recent years as it's been easiest. Blank DVD media can often be cheaper these days, too. >Just occasionally, Catherine, try to admit that you may not know everything. >In particular, that Steve knows more than you do. Please calm down, why the aggression? :-( -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com < liw> everything I know about UK hotels I learned from "Fawlty Towers"
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Catherine Gramze wrote: >> On Mar 23, 2017, at 12:38 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> Sorry, what? There's no such animal as a netinst dvd... The netinst is >> a minimal-ish (small) CD-sized image that just contains the installer >> and the (very limited) base system. The DVDs we make are much more >> complete. > >When you burn the netinst iso to a dvd, because you can't buy blank >cds anymore in any local stores, you have a netinst dvd. I can't >remember the last time I saw a cd in the wild. Ah, thanks for explaining what you meant. I was a little confused. :-) -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com < liw> everything I know about UK hotels I learned from "Fawlty Towers"
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Thursday 23 March 2017 16:48:56 Catherine Gramze wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 12:38 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > > Catherine Gramze wrote: > >>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 10:02 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >>> > >>> Particularly where you have encountered it where it takes you past the > >>> point of no retreat before you discover that you need a network driver, > >>> so that you have wiped your old install and cannot continue to install > >>> your new one. > >> > >> How about the last time I installed Debian using a netinst dvd? > > > > Sorry, what? There's no such animal as a netinst dvd... The netinst is > > a minimal-ish (small) CD-sized image that just contains the installer > > and the (very limited) base system. The DVDs we make are much more > > complete. > > When you burn the netinst iso to a dvd, because you can't buy blank cds > anymore in any local stores, you have a netinst dvd. I can't remember the > last time I saw a cd in the wild. No, you do not. You have a net install cd image burnt onto a DVD because you didn't /couldn't be bothered to look for CDs. How about: https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_3_8?url=search-alias%3Dcomputers&field-keywords=blank+cd+discs&sprefix=blank+CD%2Caps%2C178&crid=29MZRSVI13I1H Or: https://www.tesco.com/direct/search-results/results.page?catId=4294967294&searchquery=blank+CD&SrchId=4294967294 Or: https://www.wilko.com/search?q=blank+CD I assure you that Wilko is very wild!! And for me, very local. Just occasionally, Catherine, try to admit that you may not know everything. In particular, that Steve knows more than you do. Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
> On Mar 23, 2017, at 12:38 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > Catherine Gramze wrote: >>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 10:02 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: >>> >>> Particularly where you have encountered it where it takes you past the >>> point >>> of no retreat before you discover that you need a network driver, so that >>> you >>> have wiped your old install and cannot continue to install your new one. >>> >> How about the last time I installed Debian using a netinst dvd? > > Sorry, what? There's no such animal as a netinst dvd... The netinst is > a minimal-ish (small) CD-sized image that just contains the installer > and the (very limited) base system. The DVDs we make are much more > complete. When you burn the netinst iso to a dvd, because you can't buy blank cds anymore in any local stores, you have a netinst dvd. I can't remember the last time I saw a cd in the wild.
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Lisi Reisz wrote: >On Wednesday 22 March 2017 17:26:56 Richard Owlett wrote: >> >> I had a "Live 8.6 MATE" DVD next to me. >> I had a minor glitch and a possibly significant problem. >> The minor glitch was when launching the installer it needed a password. >> Having seen that problem reported before, entering "live" got it going. >> >Interesting. I wonder whether that would apply to all the mainstream Live >CDs, or just the Mate one? I think they may be very individual. I know the >Trinity unofficial one was, until it became the Devuan one anyway. But it >installed OK, ran well both live and installed, and told you what password to >use in the accompanying documentation. There have been significant issues with running the installer from a live system in the past, and unfortunately a lack of volunteer time to fix the manifold bugs found. I'd still very much recommend using a d-i (netinst/DVD/whatever) image for installation in preference - you're much less likely to hit random edge cases that way. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com < liw> everything I know about UK hotels I learned from "Fawlty Towers"
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Catherine Gramze wrote: >> On Mar 20, 2017, at 10:02 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: >> >> Particularly where you have encountered it where it takes you past the point >> of no retreat before you discover that you need a network driver, so that >> you >> have wiped your old install and cannot continue to install your new one. >> >How about the last time I installed Debian using a netinst dvd? Sorry, what? There's no such animal as a netinst dvd... The netinst is a minimal-ish (small) CD-sized image that just contains the installer and the (very limited) base system. The DVDs we make are much more complete. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com < liw> everything I know about UK hotels I learned from "Fawlty Towers"
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
rhia...@mac.com wrote: >> >> If run from Jessie's DVD 1 of 13, if Desktop is selected but >> without a specific D.E. selected, you get Gnome. >> >You only get Gnome if you have first selected a mirror. Ummm, I've done this lots of times - DVD 1 should give you Gnome without needing any external package sources. >The hard part is determining whether the firmware is needed to >function, or to allow enhanced function. I get a firmware notice for >my network card, but it works without it, albeit more slowly than >with it. It's very difficult to know. There can be lots of variations on the hardware that's shipped. Some variants need firmware, some don't; some will be faster with firmware added as it will turn on hardware acceleration features. And some crappy vendors give no way at all for software to know which variant you have. :-/ -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com < liw> everything I know about UK hotels I learned from "Fawlty Towers"
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Thursday 23 March 2017 11:50:33 Joe wrote: > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:07:22 +0100 > > Mart van de Wege wrote: > > Jonathan Dowland writes: > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:06:46AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 08:52:46PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote: > > >> > Do you prefer that people move on to other distros after a base > > >> > system only installation because the Debian installer let them > > >> > inadvertently get there? > > >> > > >> If they're like you, yes. Good riddance. > > > > > > This thread is a great example of why I really despise debian-user > > > sometimes. There's no reason to be so hostile, you simply disagree > > > with each other. This list is too toxic a lot of the time. Please > > > either post friendly and constructively or not at all. > > > > I disagree. Sometimes there is no disagreement, someone is just plain > > wrong. Catherine has been given the use cases that disprove her > > thesis, and has been contradicting herself. > > > > Continuing to be nice in some misguided attempt at false balance > > *does* *not* *help*. If someone is wrong, they should be told; if > > they insist on not wanting to be educated, at a certain point you > > must simply wash your hands of them. It's not nice, but it *is* > > constructive. > > > > "Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore" > > - Cicero > > But it can be done politely, and with dignity, and sometimes is. 'Good > riddance' is not, by any possible standard, polite. Cuiusvis hominis est errare. Greg is human too, and had been becoming more and more exasperated. I can think of one or two of the highest value (IMHO) people on this list who are sometimes very impolite. As I said to the victim of one of them (and I too have been the "victim"), if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Catherine *had* been told politely, repeatedly, but had not been willing to "hear". Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:07:22 +0100 Mart van de Wege wrote: > Jonathan Dowland writes: > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:06:46AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 08:52:46PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote: > >> > Do you prefer that people move on to other distros after a base > >> > system only installation because the Debian installer let them > >> > inadvertently get there? > >> > >> If they're like you, yes. Good riddance. > > > > This thread is a great example of why I really despise debian-user > > sometimes. There's no reason to be so hostile, you simply disagree > > with each other. This list is too toxic a lot of the time. Please > > either post friendly and constructively or not at all. > > I disagree. Sometimes there is no disagreement, someone is just plain > wrong. Catherine has been given the use cases that disprove her > thesis, and has been contradicting herself. > > Continuing to be nice in some misguided attempt at false balance > *does* *not* *help*. If someone is wrong, they should be told; if > they insist on not wanting to be educated, at a certain point you > must simply wash your hands of them. It's not nice, but it *is* > constructive. > > "Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore" > - Cicero But it can be done politely, and with dignity, and sometimes is. 'Good riddance' is not, by any possible standard, polite. -- Joe
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Jonathan Dowland writes: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:06:46AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 08:52:46PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote: >> > Do you prefer that people move on to other distros after a base system only >> > installation because the Debian installer let them inadvertently get there? >> >> If they're like you, yes. Good riddance. > > This thread is a great example of why I really despise debian-user sometimes. > There's no reason to be so hostile, you simply disagree with each other. This > list is too toxic a lot of the time. Please either post friendly and > constructively or not at all. I disagree. Sometimes there is no disagreement, someone is just plain wrong. Catherine has been given the use cases that disprove her thesis, and has been contradicting herself. Continuing to be nice in some misguided attempt at false balance *does* *not* *help*. If someone is wrong, they should be told; if they insist on not wanting to be educated, at a certain point you must simply wash your hands of them. It's not nice, but it *is* constructive. "Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore" - Cicero Mart -- "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes." --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Wednesday 22 March 2017 17:26:56 Richard Owlett wrote: > On 03/22/2017 10:33 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Wednesday 22 March 2017 14:53:24 Richard Owlett wrote: > >> On 03/22/2017 09:28 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >>> On Wednesday 22 March 2017 14:05:28 Richard Owlett wrote: > The results of the 6 installs I intended to run: > [the only variable being which DE related boxes checked] > [space used reported by gparted] > 1. None > CLI installed taking ~.92 GB > 2. Only top entry checked (asking for unspecified desktop) > Gnome installed taking ~3.59 GB > 3. Top entry *and* Gnome checked > Gnome installed taking ~3.59 GB > 4. Top entry *and* MATE checked > MATE installed taking ~2.65 GB > 5. Gnome only checked > Gnome installed taking ~3.59 GB > 6. MATE only checked > MATE installed taking ~2.65 GB > Tests 1-6 were run were run from a flash drive copy of DVD1. > >>> > >>> Thanks, Richard. And are you able to confirm that, by default, the top > >>> entry is checked, and you have to uncheck it to achieve option 1? > >> > >> That is correct. > >> > >> HOWEVER that line of thought is why I included my 1st paragraph on the > >> "educational" problems encountered. > >> > >> My "educational" failure was in attempting to create a preseed.cfg file > >> so the tests would require minimal hands on attention. I wanted the > >> tasksel screen to appear. I did not succeed. Instead the installer went > >> on its merry way installing Gnome in ~3.67 (not the ~3.59 GB of other > >> runs). > >> > >> I've never used netinst and don't know if my failed preseed.cfg might > >> resemble it. > > > > Thank you. I prefer facts to alternative facts or guesses! I must play > > around with net install when I have got both time and a suitable > > platform! > > > > In all this talk of Debian being the universal operating system, and > > helping newbies, no mention has been made of the Live CD installation > > method, which I should have though was ideal for those who want their > > hands held. That perception may be false, but is why I barely go near > > it! I use Knoppix when I want a Live CD and the net install disk when I > > want to install Debian. > > I had a "Live 8.6 MATE" DVD next to me. > I had a minor glitch and a possibly significant problem. > The minor glitch was when launching the installer it needed a password. > Having seen that problem reported before, entering "live" got it going. > > The possibly significant problem was inability to install grub. > I say "possibly significant" because my test machine and installation > routines have a few oddities. > > I manually partitioned *AND* defeated using a swap partition as it would > have changed the UUID of my swap partition thus messing up my exiting > installs (have 3 active at the moment). > > Not installing grub was no problem for me as I don't install it anyway, > choosing to run update-grub under control of the install on /dev/sda1. Interesting. I wonder whether that would apply to all the mainstream Live CDs, or just the Mate one? I think they may be very individual. I know the Trinity unofficial one was, until it became the Devuan one anyway. But it installed OK, ran well both live and installed, and told you what password to use in the accompanying documentation. Now that I think one could criticise, since it should actually run. If Martin Wimpress ever actually turns up to a meeting, instead of saying that he is hoping to come, I shall tell him so!! Thanks again. Lisi
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On 03/22/2017 10:33 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Wednesday 22 March 2017 14:53:24 Richard Owlett wrote: On 03/22/2017 09:28 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Wednesday 22 March 2017 14:05:28 Richard Owlett wrote: The results of the 6 installs I intended to run: [the only variable being which DE related boxes checked] [space used reported by gparted] 1. None CLI installed taking ~.92 GB 2. Only top entry checked (asking for unspecified desktop) Gnome installed taking ~3.59 GB 3. Top entry *and* Gnome checked Gnome installed taking ~3.59 GB 4. Top entry *and* MATE checked MATE installed taking ~2.65 GB 5. Gnome only checked Gnome installed taking ~3.59 GB 6. MATE only checked MATE installed taking ~2.65 GB Tests 1-6 were run were run from a flash drive copy of DVD1. Thanks, Richard. And are you able to confirm that, by default, the top entry is checked, and you have to uncheck it to achieve option 1? That is correct. HOWEVER that line of thought is why I included my 1st paragraph on the "educational" problems encountered. My "educational" failure was in attempting to create a preseed.cfg file so the tests would require minimal hands on attention. I wanted the tasksel screen to appear. I did not succeed. Instead the installer went on its merry way installing Gnome in ~3.67 (not the ~3.59 GB of other runs). I've never used netinst and don't know if my failed preseed.cfg might resemble it. Thank you. I prefer facts to alternative facts or guesses! I must play around with net install when I have got both time and a suitable platform! In all this talk of Debian being the universal operating system, and helping newbies, no mention has been made of the Live CD installation method, which I should have though was ideal for those who want their hands held. That perception may be false, but is why I barely go near it! I use Knoppix when I want a Live CD and the net install disk when I want to install Debian. I had a "Live 8.6 MATE" DVD next to me. I had a minor glitch and a possibly significant problem. The minor glitch was when launching the installer it needed a password. Having seen that problem reported before, entering "live" got it going. The possibly significant problem was inability to install grub. I say "possibly significant" because my test machine and installation routines have a few oddities. I manually partitioned *AND* defeated using a swap partition as it would have changed the UUID of my swap partition thus messing up my exiting installs (have 3 active at the moment). Not installing grub was no problem for me as I don't install it anyway, choosing to run update-grub under control of the install on /dev/sda1.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Tue 21 Mar 2017 at 20:52:46 (-0400), Catherine Gramze wrote: > Sent from my iPad > > > On Mar 21, 2017, at 7:20 PM, David Wright wrote: > > > >> On Tue 21 Mar 2017 at 15:44:18 (-0400), Catherine Gramze wrote: > >> > >> The installer allows you to continue the installation without a configured > >> network card, and it shouldn't. > > > > Please explain how this statement doesn't take away the option of > > continuing the installation without a configured network card. > > You are perfectly free to remove that $15 USB NIC after you reach the > installation point you want. …which contradicts your statement "Please explain how you think my suggestion takes away any installation options, because it doesn't. You can still do any type of installation you want." > The point of Debian is not elitist snobbery, but universal access. So now it's elitist snobbery to disobey your order to buy a $5 NIC? I think you should contemplate the words "universal access". > What is wrong with a simple change that would make it clear to the beginner > that they can't do what they want to do, and need to do some reading? As I said, there's nothing wrong IMO with a change to make the d-i warn that selecting certain options will have certain consequences, just like the example I gave of swap. Just no refusals, right? > This rabid insistence on being able to use the netinst installer without a > network is ridiculous. Of course I'm insistent that one is able to install without a network and using the netinst installer. I've done it. It didn't seem ridiculous at the time. The results were spelled out in the other subthread, in reply to your Tue 21 Mar 2017 at 10:33:29 (-0400) post. All you're demonstrating here is your lack of ingenuity, and a desire to prevent others from exercising theirs. Cheers, David.
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Wednesday 22 March 2017 14:53:24 Richard Owlett wrote: > On 03/22/2017 09:28 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Wednesday 22 March 2017 14:05:28 Richard Owlett wrote: > >> The results of the 6 installs I intended to run: > >> [the only variable being which DE related boxes checked] > >> [space used reported by gparted] > >>1. None > >> CLI installed taking ~.92 GB > >>2. Only top entry checked (asking for unspecified desktop) > >> Gnome installed taking ~3.59 GB > >>3. Top entry *and* Gnome checked > >> Gnome installed taking ~3.59 GB > >>4. Top entry *and* MATE checked > >> MATE installed taking ~2.65 GB > >>5. Gnome only checked > >> Gnome installed taking ~3.59 GB > >>6. MATE only checked > >> MATE installed taking ~2.65 GB > >> Tests 1-6 were run were run from a flash drive copy of DVD1. > > > > Thanks, Richard. And are you able to confirm that, by default, the top > > entry is checked, and you have to uncheck it to achieve option 1? > > That is correct. > > HOWEVER that line of thought is why I included my 1st paragraph on the > "educational" problems encountered. > > My "educational" failure was in attempting to create a preseed.cfg file > so the tests would require minimal hands on attention. I wanted the > tasksel screen to appear. I did not succeed. Instead the installer went > on its merry way installing Gnome in ~3.67 (not the ~3.59 GB of other > runs). > > I've never used netinst and don't know if my failed preseed.cfg might > resemble it. Thank you. I prefer facts to alternative facts or guesses! I must play around with net install when I have got both time and a suitable platform! In all this talk of Debian being the universal operating system, and helping newbies, no mention has been made of the Live CD installation method, which I should have though was ideal for those who want their hands held. That perception may be false, but is why I barely go near it! I use Knoppix when I want a Live CD and the net install disk when I want to install Debian. Lisi
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On 03/22/2017 09:28 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Wednesday 22 March 2017 14:05:28 Richard Owlett wrote: The results of the 6 installs I intended to run: [the only variable being which DE related boxes checked] [space used reported by gparted] 1. None CLI installed taking ~.92 GB 2. Only top entry checked (asking for unspecified desktop) Gnome installed taking ~3.59 GB 3. Top entry *and* Gnome checked Gnome installed taking ~3.59 GB 4. Top entry *and* MATE checked MATE installed taking ~2.65 GB 5. Gnome only checked Gnome installed taking ~3.59 GB 6. MATE only checked MATE installed taking ~2.65 GB Tests 1-6 were run were run from a flash drive copy of DVD1. Thanks, Richard. And are you able to confirm that, by default, the top entry is checked, and you have to uncheck it to achieve option 1? That is correct. HOWEVER that line of thought is why I included my 1st paragraph on the "educational" problems encountered. My "educational" failure was in attempting to create a preseed.cfg file so the tests would require minimal hands on attention. I wanted the tasksel screen to appear. I did not succeed. Instead the installer went on its merry way installing Gnome in ~3.67 (not the ~3.59 GB of other runs). I've never used netinst and don't know if my failed preseed.cfg might resemble it.
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Wednesday 22 March 2017 14:05:28 Richard Owlett wrote: > The results of the 6 installs I intended to run: > [the only variable being which DE related boxes checked] > [space used reported by gparted] > 1. None > CLI installed taking ~.92 GB > 2. Only top entry checked (asking for unspecified desktop) > Gnome installed taking ~3.59 GB > 3. Top entry *and* Gnome checked > Gnome installed taking ~3.59 GB > 4. Top entry *and* MATE checked > MATE installed taking ~2.65 GB > 5. Gnome only checked > Gnome installed taking ~3.59 GB > 6. MATE only checked > MATE installed taking ~2.65 GB > Tests 1-6 were run were run from a flash drive copy of DVD1. Thanks, Richard. And are you able to confirm that, by default, the top entry is checked, and you have to uncheck it to achieve option 1? Lisi
[TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On 03/21/2017 05:30 AM, Richard Owlett wrote: On 03/20/2017 09:05 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Tuesday 21 March 2017 00:38:36 Richard Owlett wrote: With the installer from DVD 1 of 13 the first option in taskel is for choosing to have a desktop - the default is yes. Thanks, Richard! This is as I expected - the default is to have a desktop. I must find a machine on which I can safely do some net install test installs. I should be getting one next month. But again, the default certainly used to be to have a desktop. I sometimes don't want oen - but land up with one if I go to sleep. :-/ Lisi It will take longer to do the test installs than I originally estimated. To gather some related data I find interesting will take at least 6 unique installs. That means tweaking 6 preseed.cfg files in order to: a. be doing something else while the machine chugs along. b. be able to document exactly what was done. Actually it took 9 installs due to "educational" failures :} The results of the 6 installs I intended to run: [the only variable being which DE related boxes checked] [space used reported by gparted] 1. None CLI installed taking ~.92 GB 2. Only top entry checked (asking for unspecified desktop) Gnome installed taking ~3.59 GB 3. Top entry *and* Gnome checked Gnome installed taking ~3.59 GB 4. Top entry *and* MATE checked MATE installed taking ~2.65 GB 5. Gnome only checked Gnome installed taking ~3.59 GB 6. MATE only checked MATE installed taking ~2.65 GB Tests 1-6 were run were run from a flash drive copy of DVD1. My "educational" failure was in attempting to create a preseed.cfg file so the tests would require minimal hands on attention. I wanted the tasksel screen to appear. I did not succeed. Instead the installer went on its merry way installing Gnome in ~3.67 (not the ~3.59 GB of other runs). Two additional installs were run to check an anomaly in the Gnome installs. To minimize typing during the tests, I had chosen to allow root to login and did not specify any other user. MATE had no problem with this. Gnome refused to allow "root" be specified as a login ID. I did 2 test installs from the original DVD, one with and one without specifying a login other than "root". In neither case could I login as "root" in-spite of having explicitly specified during install that login as root was permitted. Also I picked up a new toy yesterday, a 240 GB Portable SSD. That will allow me to use my dedicated WindowsXP Laptop as a server. I'll put the contents of DVD 1 on the SSD and run netinstall on my Linux hardware. Who knows how long it will take as I have no idea of how many "learning experiences" take place when running a server for the first time ;/ It will take a while to get to that test.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:16:54PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:06:46AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 08:52:46PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote: > > > Do you prefer that people move on to other distros after a base system > > > only > > > installation because the Debian installer let them inadvertently get > > > there? > > > > If they're like you, yes. Good riddance. > > This thread is a great example of why I really despise debian-user sometimes. > There's no reason to be so hostile, you simply disagree with each other. This > list is too toxic a lot of the time. Please either post friendly and > constructively or not at all. A pity indeed. Sometimes threads become "rotten": this seems to be an example of that. I try to just ignore those. Regards - -- t -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAljSbTAACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZccQCdHp5FSYvIaPZ2MiITPmAnJv6x hxoAn1Yc8LN1IoVdXFC2sKKvAtUHN3D0 =vfkS -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:06:46AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 08:52:46PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote: > > Do you prefer that people move on to other distros after a base system only > > installation because the Debian installer let them inadvertently get there? > > If they're like you, yes. Good riddance. This thread is a great example of why I really despise debian-user sometimes. There's no reason to be so hostile, you simply disagree with each other. This list is too toxic a lot of the time. Please either post friendly and constructively or not at all. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ ⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 08:52:46PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote: > Do you prefer that people move on to other distros after a base system only > installation because the Debian installer let them inadvertently get there? If they're like you, yes. Good riddance.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 06:03:12PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Tuesday 21 March 2017 17:15:32 Catherine Gramze wrote: Sent from my iPad Note it is sent from an iPad! Open Source all the way! Incidentally, why did we need to know that? These sorts of signatures are usually used on mobile devices for a number of reasons: - Typing on a mobile tends to be less comfortable, or at least slower, than typing on a full-size keyboard. This lends to shorter, less detailed replies. The signature acts as a warning that "I'm not being brusque, I just don't have the capacity to state my case more loquaciously." - Many mobile clients seem to restrict what you can put in a signature. You generally can't use formatting (as company branding might require), you often can't even use multiple lines. And if you want to read your signature from a pipe (so as to include a witty "fortune")? Good luck! Lisi -- For more information, please reread. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On 2017-03-21 at 20:52, Catherine Gramze wrote: >> On Mar 21, 2017, at 7:20 PM, David Wright >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue 21 Mar 2017 at 15:44:18 (-0400), Catherine Gramze wrote: >>> >>> The installer allows you to continue the installation without a >>> configured network card, and it shouldn't. >> >> Please explain how this statement doesn't take away the option of >> continuing the installation without a configured network card. > > You are perfectly free to remove that $15 USB NIC after you reach the > installation point you want. And don't even pretend that most people > don't already have a spare NIC of some kind floating around their > living space. Most people certainly don't. _I_ don't, and I'm an IT professional who does occasional programming and packaging work in my spare time, and builds and installs my own computers from scratch. To the best of my awareness, every single network device in this highly technically literate household household (a good dozen active-use computers, including the laptops, but not counting the servers) is motherboard-integrated. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Sent from my iPad > On Mar 21, 2017, at 7:20 PM, David Wright wrote: > >> On Tue 21 Mar 2017 at 15:44:18 (-0400), Catherine Gramze wrote: >> >> The installer allows you to continue the installation without a configured >> network card, and it shouldn't. > > Please explain how this statement doesn't take away the option of > continuing the installation without a configured network card. You are perfectly free to remove that $15 USB NIC after you reach the installation point you want. And don't even pretend that most people don't already have a spare NIC of some kind floating around their living space. Do you prefer that people move on to other distros after a base system only installation because the Debian installer let them inadvertently get there? When Debian is desperate for more involved people, who all start out as simple beginners? The point of Debian is not elitist snobbery, but universal access. What is wrong with a simple change that would make it clear to the beginner that they can't do what they want to do, and need to do some reading? It doesn't stop advanved users from using a different installation medium, or from using a temporarily installed NIC if they choose to use the netinst. This rabid insistence on being able to use the netinst installer without a network is ridiculous.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Tue 21 Mar 2017 at 15:44:18 (-0400), Catherine Gramze wrote: > Sent from my iPad > > > On Mar 21, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 02:44:42PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote: > >>> On Mar 21, 2017, at 2:12 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote: > >>> > >>> wrong > >> > >> Then use a different installer! > > > > No. Stop telling other people what to do. Stop trying to take away > > OPTIONS from other people. > > > > I will continue to use the netinst because that's what works for me. > > Why the hell would I want to download a whole DVD image? > > Please explain how you think my suggestion takes away any installation > options, because it doesn't. You can still do any type of installation you > want. On Mon 20 Mar 2017 at 22:58:50 (-0400), Catherine Gramze wrote: > [...] > The installer allows you to continue the installation without a configured > network card, and it shouldn't. Please explain how this statement doesn't take away the option of continuing the installation without a configured network card. Cheers, David.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Sent from my iPad > On Mar 21, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 02:44:42PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote: >>> On Mar 21, 2017, at 2:12 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote: >>> >>> wrong >> >> Then use a different installer! > > No. Stop telling other people what to do. Stop trying to take away > OPTIONS from other people. > > I will continue to use the netinst because that's what works for me. > Why the hell would I want to download a whole DVD image? Please explain how you think my suggestion takes away any installation options, because it doesn't. You can still do any type of installation you want.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Tuesday 21 March 2017 18:38:44 Catherine Gramze wrote: > And I specified it was the netinst about 8 posts ago, immediately in > response to you asking. And I have repeatedly since then mentioned netinst. > You might try reading what I say instead of skimming it for things to > object to. The one who doesn't read what anyone else says, and who thinks that only she is allowed to dictate, is you. Though self-knowledge being every human's weak point, I'll accept pot and kettle, so long as you do too and stop telling everyone else what to do. Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Sent from my iPad > On Mar 21, 2017, at 2:12 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > That doesn't mean the installer should refuse to work. There is > absolutely nothing wrong with doing a minimal install using a netinst > image to get a working Debian system. Maybe you want to do the first > part of the install on this machine in one location where there's no > network, and then carry the machine to another location to finish it up. You can't do that. The network card is recognized and configured very early in the installation, and you can't carry the machine to another location without either aborting the installation or finishing up the base installation. That pesky power plug, you know. > Maybe your network is temporarily slow or unreliable because your kids > are streaming YouTube, so you'll do the first part of the install now, > then wait a few hours to do the rest. That assumes a working network card, so is irrelevant to your objection to requiring one. > Maybe ALL YOU WANT is a minimal > system, and you have no intention of networking it, ever. Maybe you > have some other goals that I can't even guess. There's no reason for > the installer to REFUSE TO LET YOU DO THIS. You are asking for Debian > to take away functionality for NO REASON. This suggestion in no way prevents you from doing a base installation only if that is what you want. It simply ensures that people who don't want just a base installation don't end up with it.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 02:44:42PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2017, at 2:12 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > wrong > > Then use a different installer! No. Stop telling other people what to do. Stop trying to take away OPTIONS from other people. I will continue to use the netinst because that's what works for me. Why the hell would I want to download a whole DVD image? If you want to download 7 different install images and match the image to the machine you're installing on, fine. Have fun with that. I won't tell you what to do.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:15:32PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote: > But a netinst dvd or usb stick is not the best tool for that. The very name > lets you know that a network is going to be needed. Netinst is not the only > installer, you know. The name does indeed imply that a network will be required, even if that's not necessarily true. The problem is a mismatch between the name and function of that installer. It's a very real problem due to the confusion it causes. I'm just not sure yet what best to do about it. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ ⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Sent from my iPad > On Mar 21, 2017, at 2:12 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > wrong Then use a different installer! The netinst dvd leaves you with what would be considered a crippled system by most people. Requiring a functioning network card removes that possibility for the noob while still allowing an expert to simply back out of the installer when the computer reboots to get their desired base install. It is no harder than presently for an expert, and would serve to fix a lot of "failed" installations.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Sent from my iPad > On Mar 21, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >> On Tuesday 21 March 2017 17:15:32 Catherine Gramze wrote: >> Sent from my iPad >> On Mar 21, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 02:55:07PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 21 March 2017 14:33:29 Catherine Gramze wrote: > Refusing to continue an installation that will inevitably be a failure > is how it should act. Rot. It will not "inevitably be a failure". It can be a very good way out of some problems. >>> >>> Agreed. Some people may want to install Debian on a computer that >>> doesn't have a network interface *at all*. They should be able to do so. >>> They *are* able to do so. >> >> Of course they should. But a netinst dvd or usb stick is not the best tool >> for that. The very name lets you know that a network is going to be needed. >> Netinst is not the only installer, you know. > > Yes, we do know. You seem not to do so. I specifically asked which > installer > you had used and were talking about. > And I specified it was the netinst about 8 posts ago, immediately in response to you asking. And I have repeatedly since then mentioned netinst. You might try reading what I say instead of skimming it for things to object to.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 06:03:12PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 21 March 2017 17:15:32 Catherine Gramze wrote: > > Sent from my iPad > > Note it is sent from an iPad! Open Source all the way! > > Incidentally, why did we need to know that? It's about as relevant to this list as your reply (and mine). We're now as bad as each other. Hopefully the matter can rest. -- Jonathan Dowland Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:15:32PM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote: > Of course they should. But a netinst dvd or usb stick is not the best tool > for that. The very name lets you know that a network is going to be needed. > Netinst is not the only installer, you know. That doesn't mean the installer should refuse to work. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing a minimal install using a netinst image to get a working Debian system. Maybe you want to do the first part of the install on this machine in one location where there's no network, and then carry the machine to another location to finish it up. Maybe your network is temporarily slow or unreliable because your kids are streaming YouTube, so you'll do the first part of the install now, then wait a few hours to do the rest. Maybe ALL YOU WANT is a minimal system, and you have no intention of networking it, ever. Maybe you have some other goals that I can't even guess. There's no reason for the installer to REFUSE TO LET YOU DO THIS. You are asking for Debian to take away functionality for NO REASON.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Tuesday 21 March 2017 17:15:32 Catherine Gramze wrote: > Sent from my iPad Note it is sent from an iPad! Open Source all the way! Incidentally, why did we need to know that? Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Tuesday 21 March 2017 17:15:32 Catherine Gramze wrote: > Sent from my iPad > > > On Mar 21, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 02:55:07PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >>> On Tuesday 21 March 2017 14:33:29 Catherine Gramze wrote: > >>> Refusing to continue an installation that will inevitably be a failure > >>> is how it should act. > >> > >> Rot. It will not "inevitably be a failure". It can be a very good way > >> out of some problems. > > > > Agreed. Some people may want to install Debian on a computer that > > doesn't have a network interface *at all*. They should be able to do so. > > They *are* able to do so. > > Of course they should. But a netinst dvd or usb stick is not the best tool > for that. The very name lets you know that a network is going to be needed. > Netinst is not the only installer, you know. Yes, we do know. You seem not to do so. I specifically asked which installer you had used and were talking about. Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Sent from my iPad > On Mar 21, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 02:55:07PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: >>> On Tuesday 21 March 2017 14:33:29 Catherine Gramze wrote: >>> Refusing to continue an installation that will inevitably be a failure is >>> how it should act. >> >> Rot. It will not "inevitably be a failure". It can be a very good way out >> of >> some problems. > > Agreed. Some people may want to install Debian on a computer that > doesn't have a network interface *at all*. They should be able to do so. > They *are* able to do so. Of course they should. But a netinst dvd or usb stick is not the best tool for that. The very name lets you know that a network is going to be needed. Netinst is not the only installer, you know.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Tue 21 Mar 2017 at 10:33:29 (-0400), Catherine Gramze wrote: > Sent from my iPad > > > On Mar 21, 2017, at 6:31 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > >> On Tuesday 21 March 2017 02:58:50 Catherine Gramze wrote: > >> The installer allows you to continue the installation without a configured > >> network card, and it shouldn't. > > > > Of course it should *allow* you to do so. And it does warn you. Not allow > > you indeed! > > > No, it should not. Refusing to continue an installation that will inevitably > be a failure is how it should act. You have a very strange view of why people run linux on computers. Why should it be a failure? You obviously lack experience of using computers in an ingenious manner, thinking outside the box as they say, and seem to want to force your limited view onto other people. > Refusing to continue would not keep anybody from a simple base install if > that is what they want; they can have a compatible network card attached, > even a cheap USB one, and back out of the installation after the reboot. Feel free to suggest improvements to the debian-installer to make its outcomes more useful, but not by proscribing the actions that others want to take. You might have the d-i warn people about their choices, rather in the way that you are warned if you don't configure a swap partition, but it should be possible to ignore such warnings. > Having to have a configured network card is not a burdensome requirement. Who are you to say so? Please keep this person away from the Debian development team. This attitude is the thin end of a wedge. > Even server installations are going to want to continue past the reboot > point, and choose what kind of server the system will be, install the > appropriate packages, and get security updates. You don't have to have a network card to do any of that, or to have a useful system. I ran a system at home for years which recorded programmes off air automatically, and which I used for digitising my vinyl collection. It used USB storage and, before that, ZIP and JAZ drives (I had a scsi period). I also used to read this list and other emails, at home without a network connection, all done with said drives and a python program juggling .procmailrc and versioned inboxes. Cheers, David.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 02:55:07PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 21 March 2017 14:33:29 Catherine Gramze wrote: > > Refusing to continue an installation that will inevitably be a failure is > > how it should act. > > Rot. It will not "inevitably be a failure". It can be a very good way out > of > some problems. Agreed. Some people may want to install Debian on a computer that doesn't have a network interface *at all*. They should be able to do so. They *are* able to do so. You know what I would change? I would have the installer put a default set of deb and deb-src lines into sources.list, but commented out, when this happens, instead of leaving sources.list basically unconfigured and requiring the user to research what SHOULD have been put there (and usually getting it wrong).
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Tuesday 21 March 2017 14:33:29 Catherine Gramze wrote: > Refusing to continue an installation that will inevitably be a failure is > how it should act. Rot. It will not "inevitably be a failure". It can be a very good way out of some problems. Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Tuesday 21 March 2017 11:59:39 Greg Wooledge wrote: > Sure, if you *don't change the default selection*, you probably get > GNOME. Is that what you meant by "don't actually select anything"? > Just accepting whatever the default is, without reading or changing > what's on the screen? Exactly that is what is under discussion! To avoid a desktop you have to make a conscious decision and unselect it. Otherwise, if you just accept, accept, accept, your way through an installation you don't understand, you end up with a desktop. Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
Sent from my iPad > On Mar 21, 2017, at 6:31 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >> On Tuesday 21 March 2017 02:58:50 Catherine Gramze wrote: >> The installer allows you to continue the installation without a configured >> network card, and it shouldn't. > > Of course it should *allow* you to do so. And it does warn you. Not allow > you indeed! > No, it should not. Refusing to continue an installation that will inevitably be a failure is how it should act. Refusing to continue would not keep anybody from a simple base install if that is what they want; they can have a compatible network card attached, even a cheap USB one, and back out of the installation after the reboot. Having to have a configured network card is not a burdensome requirement. Even server installations are going to want to continue past the reboot point, and choose what kind of server the system will be, install the appropriate packages, and get security updates.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:48:51PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > The question is what you get by default if you don't actually select > anything - desktop or no desktop. I got Gnome, so got a desktop. The last Debian install I have done was for jessie (netinst). Like every recent version of Debian before that, it runs tasksel near the end. Inside the tasksel dialog, a desktop environment is selected by default. If you UNSELECT that (press space to remove the checkmark or X or whatever the indicator is), you get Debian without a desktop environment. At that point you can keep it X-less for a server, or install xorg and fvwm and rxvt-unicode, or GNOME, or whatever you like. Sure, if you *don't change the default selection*, you probably get GNOME. Is that what you meant by "don't actually select anything"? Just accepting whatever the default is, without reading or changing what's on the screen?
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On 2017-03-21, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 21 March 2017 00:38:36 Richard Owlett wrote: >> With the installer from DVD 1 of 13 the first option in taskel is for >> choosing to have a desktop - the default is yes. > > Thanks, Richard! This is as I expected - the default is to have a > desktop. I must find a machine on which I can safely do some net > install test installs. I should be getting one next month. But > again, the default certainly used to be to have a desktop. I > sometimes don't want oen - but land up with one if I go to sleep. :-/ > Lisi > > Consider using preseeding[1] if you find yourself installing frequently. For example, you can preselect a standard installation only (no desktop), or an xfce-desktop installation, and so on. 1: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/Preseed -- Liam
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Tuesday 21 March 2017 02:58:50 Catherine Gramze wrote: > The installer allows you to continue the installation without a configured > network card, and it shouldn't. Of course it should *allow* you to do so. And it does warn you. Not allow you indeed! People open viruses, help telephone scammers to rob them of their life savings etc. There is a limit to how far the nanny "state" should protect people from themselves. This precise point - that it decides what you must do, rather than let you decide, is what I personally dislike about Ubuntu. People do utterly idiotic things, and in the free world they have to be allowed to do so. Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On 03/20/2017 09:05 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Tuesday 21 March 2017 00:38:36 Richard Owlett wrote: With the installer from DVD 1 of 13 the first option in taskel is for choosing to have a desktop - the default is yes. Thanks, Richard! This is as I expected - the default is to have a desktop. I must find a machine on which I can safely do some net install test installs. I should be getting one next month. But again, the default certainly used to be to have a desktop. I sometimes don't want oen - but land up with one if I go to sleep. :-/ Lisi It will take longer to do the test installs than I originally estimated. To gather some related data I find interesting will take at least 6 unique installs. That means tweaking 6 preseed.cfg files in order to: a. be doing something else while the machine chugs along. b. be able to document exactly what was done. Also I picked up a new toy yesterday, a 240 GB Portable SSD. That will allow me to use my dedicated WindowsXP Laptop as a server. I'll put the contents of DVD 1 on the SSD and run netinstall on my Linux hardware. Who knows how long it will take as I have no idea of how many "learning experiences" take place when running a server for the first time ;/
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
> On Mar 20, 2017, at 10:02 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Tuesday 21 March 2017 00:19:52 Catherine Gramze wrote: >>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 7:51 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote >> > What I was asking is where you yourself have encountered it recently, not in > what circumstances you believe it to be true. > > Particularly where you have encountered it where it takes you past the point > of no retreat before you discover that you need a network driver, so that you > have wiped your old install and cannot continue to install your new one. > How about the last time I installed Debian using a netinst dvd? The installer allows you to continue the installation without a configured network card, and it shouldn't. If you choose to continue past that point, Debian will cheerfully let you complete the base installation. I did it just to be sure the installation would work/that the dvd was good before I dragged the full setup into the living room within reach of my only available ethernet cable. (The wireless NIC I had hoped to use was not recognized) So then the computer reboots to the mirror selection, and you can't select a mirror with no Internet, so you don't get the default Gnome graphical desktop. If you don't understand from the outset that you will need a working Internet connection for a full installation, and your network card is not supported without firmware, you end up in an infinite loop of trying to choose a mirror and failing until you back out of the installer and reboot to the blank screen of base install only. I realize that the very name "net install" should provide all the info necessary, but beginners are often not terribly aware of things like drivers being needed, and the result of not having one.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Tuesday 21 March 2017 00:38:36 Richard Owlett wrote: > With the installer from DVD 1 of 13 the first option in taskel is for > choosing to have a desktop - the default is yes. Thanks, Richard! This is as I expected - the default is to have a desktop. I must find a machine on which I can safely do some net install test installs. I should be getting one next month. But again, the default certainly used to be to have a desktop. I sometimes don't want oen - but land up with one if I go to sleep. :-/ Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Tuesday 21 March 2017 00:19:52 Catherine Gramze wrote: > > On Mar 20, 2017, at 7:51 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > That sounds as though it is the message that is at fault, not the > > installer or installation method. It should perhaps mention that you > > have to carry on to get a desktop. Is this in the set of DVDs? > > > > Lisi > > I have not done a dvd installation in many years, but IIRC it is true for > the dvds and absolutely true for the netinst. The message about the base > system being installed is the same. What I was asking is where you yourself have encountered it recently, not in what circumstances you believe it to be true. Particularly where you have encountered it where it takes you past the point of no retreat before you discover that you need a network driver, so that you have wiped your old install and cannot continue to install your new one. Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On 03/20/2017 06:48 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Monday 20 March 2017 20:29:31 Richard Owlett wrote: On 03/20/2017 03:06 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Monday 20 March 2017 09:46:45 Jonathan Dowland wrote: I don't have an installation image locally to test this as I write, but your messages indicate that the graphical desktop options are by default not selected in the installer, regardless of which installation medium (netinst, CD, DVD) is being used. If they simply defaulted to on, but could be disabled as normal, would that not address the "noob" issue without frustrating those who know they don't want a desktop environment? Last time my attention wavered when I was doing a net-install I landed up with Gnome. I would expect that the net installation still defaults to a Gnome desktop. I will try to test this in the near future. Lisi If run from Jessie's DVD 1 of 13, if Desktop is selected but without a specific D.E. selected, you get Gnome. The question is what you get by default if you don't actually select anything - desktop or no desktop. I got Gnome, so got a desktop. Lisi With the installer from DVD 1 of 13 the first option in taskel is for choosing to have a desktop - the default is yes. I'll be able to do a couple of test installs in the morning. Later.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
> On Mar 20, 2017, at 7:51 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > That sounds as though it is the message that is at fault, not the installer > or > installation method. It should perhaps mention that you have to carry on to > get a desktop. Is this in the set of DVDs? > > Lisi > I have not done a dvd installation in many years, but IIRC it is true for the dvds and absolutely true for the netinst. The message about the base system being installed is the same.
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Monday 20 March 2017 20:54:29 Catherine Gramze wrote: > the misleading message that your base installation is complete and the > system will now reboot to Linux. You can't blame some beginners for > believing the installation is complete! That sounds as though it is the message that is at fault, not the installer or installation method. It should perhaps mention that you have to carry on to get a desktop. Is this in the set of DVDs? Lisi
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Monday 20 March 2017 20:29:31 Richard Owlett wrote: > On 03/20/2017 03:06 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Monday 20 March 2017 09:46:45 Jonathan Dowland wrote: > >> I don't have an installation image locally to test this as I write, but > >> your messages indicate that the graphical desktop options are by default > >> not selected in the installer, regardless of which installation medium > >> (netinst, CD, DVD) is being used. If they simply defaulted to on, but > >> could be disabled as normal, would that not address the "noob" issue > >> without frustrating those who know they don't want a desktop > >> environment? > > > > Last time my attention wavered when I was doing a net-install I landed up > > with Gnome. I would expect that the net installation still defaults to a > > Gnome desktop. I will try to test this in the near future. > > > > Lisi > > If run from Jessie's DVD 1 of 13, if Desktop is selected but without a > specific D.E. selected, you get Gnome. The question is what you get by default if you don't actually select anything - desktop or no desktop. I got Gnome, so got a desktop. Lisi
