Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #8433 > unrolled thread

Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Stephan Foley <foley12723@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 05:10 +0100
    Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2016-01-16 07:40 +0100
      Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Stephan Foley <foley12723@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 00:30 +0100
    Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy MENGUAL Jean-Philippe <mengualjeanphi@free.fr> - 2016-01-16 13:00 +0100
      Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy MENGUAL Jean-Philippe <mengualjeanphi@free.fr> - 2016-01-17 00:40 +0100
      Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Stephan Foley <foley12723@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 00:40 +0100
    Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-01-16 15:40 +0100
      Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2016-01-16 19:00 +0100
        Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Stephan Foley <foley12723@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 00:20 +0100
          Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-01-18 18:50 +0100
    Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Yaroslav Halchenko <debian@onerussian.com> - 2016-01-18 18:50 +0100
      Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Stephan Foley <foley12723@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 07:20 +0100
        Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Daniel Sousa <daniel@sousa.me> - 2016-01-19 07:40 +0100
          Re: Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Stephan Foley <foley12723@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 03:30 +0100
            Re: Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@fluxbox.org> - 2016-01-23 03:50 +0100
              Re: Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Stephan Foley <foley12723@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 04:10 +0100
            Re: Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2016-02-04 18:10 +0100
              Re: Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Stephan Foley <foley12723@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 03:00 +0100
                Re: Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2016-02-05 10:50 +0100
                  Re: Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Stephan Foley <foley12723@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 00:40 +0100
                Re: Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@gwolf.org> - 2016-02-05 17:20 +0100
                  Re: Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2016-02-05 18:50 +0100
                  Re: Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy Stephan Foley <foley12723@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 00:30 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#8433 — Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy

Hello, I'm trying to characterize Debian and have the following:

    Debian is for the tech savvy sys admin type and the server market

Is this a good characterization or am I off base?

Thanks

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#8434

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Stephan Foley [2016-01-15 22:48:49-05] wrote:

> Hello, I'm trying to characterize Debian and have the following:
>
>     Debian is for the tech savvy sys admin type and the server market
>
> Is this a good characterization or am I off base?

You have the old stereotype of Debian. The reality is different: the
default Debian desktop install gives you a normal easy-to-use end-user
operating system and applications. This has been the case for a long
time but many people still maintain old stereotypes.

Of course, Debian is for servers and technical people too.

-- 
/// Teemu Likonen   - .-..   <https://github.com/tlikonen> //
// PGP: 4E10 55DC 84E9 DFF6 13D7 8557 719D 69D3 2453 9450 ///

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8444

[Teemu Likonen]

> You have the old stereotype of Debian. The reality is different: the
> default Debian desktop install gives you a normal easy-to-use end-user
> operating system and applications. This has been the case for a long
> time but many people still maintain old stereotypes.
>
> Of course, Debian is for servers and technical people too.

Thanks for the reply. I got the stereotype from this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzjOtVL76C8
Open Source Developers' Conf 2014

@ 2:30 - Prime audience:
    official motto - "universal operating system"
    unofficial motto - "the sys admin's distribution for sys admins"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8436

Hello,

I don't know what is this characterization for, but I don't like it very
much. Indeed, it would make more difficult to explain, as I do with
Hypra or free software promotion organizations, that Debian is the best
solution for a universally accessible operating system (and I'm sure it
is). Moreover, it wouldn't be exact, in my opinion.

The main difference between Debian and Ubuntu is that the installer is
less friendly-user, and the firmware are not loaded by default. But I
think Debian is really the Universal Operating System. And it's the
characterization I prefer: saying this, it shows how Debian is for
anybody. But if one is not a technician, it could need help, of course.
But 1st, it matches to the collaborative state of spirit in free
software. 2nd, if paid, it enables to finance free software dev. 3rd,
never forget that any OS, included proprietary ones, would be difficult
to install if not provided in computers. Installing an OS and having all
benefits is not easy for a non-technician, also with Ubuntu.

So really, I wouldn't like such characte!ization if a communication
would be done on it. In my opinion, "the Universal OS" is fine, or "the
multilevels system", or "the system you desire" (as we can use it on
little or powerful machines, for server or end-user desktop, etc. Or "a
base for any usage in free software".

Regards,


Le 16/01/2016 04:48, Stephan Foley a écrit :
> Hello, I'm trying to characterize Debian and have the following:
> 
>     Debian is for the tech savvy sys admin type and the server market
> 
> Is this a good characterization or am I off base?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 

-- 

Jean-Philippe MENGUAL

HYPRA, progressons ensemble

Tél.: 01 84 73 06 61
Mail: contact@hypra.fr

Site Web: http://hypra.fr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8445

Le 17/01/2016 00:31, Stephan Foley a écrit :
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 6:20 AM, MENGUAL Jean-Philippe
> <mengualjeanphi@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> The main difference between Debian and Ubuntu is that the installer is
>> less friendly-user, and the firmware are not loaded by default. But I
>> think Debian is really the Universal Operating System. And it's the
>> characterization I prefer: saying this, it shows how Debian is for
>> anybody. But if one is not a technician, it could need help, of course.
>> But 1st, it matches to the collaborative state of spirit in free
>> software. 2nd, if paid, it enables to finance free software dev. 3rd,
>> never forget that any OS, included proprietary ones, would be difficult
>> to install if not provided in computers. Installing an OS and having all
>> benefits is not easy for a non-technician, also with Ubuntu.
>
> I do respect all the qualities you mentioned about Debian's commitment
> to only free software, although it does make installing more
> difficult.

Right. However, the driver issue exists also on other OS, even modern
(including Windows XP and newer). So this problem, while existing, is
not Debian-specific. That's why I think Debian needs to be considered as
a classical OS, easy to use once installed, some9hat hard to install
like any OS, and more stable in the time and with few risk updates.

Regards,

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8446

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 6:20 AM, MENGUAL Jean-Philippe
<mengualjeanphi@free.fr> wrote:

> The main difference between Debian and Ubuntu is that the installer is
> less friendly-user, and the firmware are not loaded by default. But I
> think Debian is really the Universal Operating System. And it's the
> characterization I prefer: saying this, it shows how Debian is for
> anybody. But if one is not a technician, it could need help, of course.
> But 1st, it matches to the collaborative state of spirit in free
> software. 2nd, if paid, it enables to finance free software dev. 3rd,
> never forget that any OS, included proprietary ones, would be difficult
> to install if not provided in computers. Installing an OS and having all
> benefits is not easy for a non-technician, also with Ubuntu.

I do respect all the qualities you mentioned about Debian's commitment
to only free software, although it does make installing more
difficult. It is also true that all distros can be made to look like
one another with a little work.

Thanks for the reply. It is good to keep in mind that Debian is used
by a lot of non tech savvy people (who may or may not of installed
their system).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8437

On 1/15/16 10:48 PM, Stephan Foley wrote:
> Hello, I'm trying to characterize Debian and have the following:
>
>      Debian is for the tech savvy sys admin type and the server market
>
> Is this a good characterization or am I off base?
>
> Thanks

Used to be.  These days, in the wake of systemd, at least this sys admin 
will never install it again.  The reasons are technical.

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8439

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



On 17/01/2016 1:29 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> 
> On 1/15/16 10:48 PM, Stephan Foley wrote:
>> Hello, I'm trying to characterize Debian and have the following:
>> 
>> Debian is for the tech savvy sys admin type and the server 
>> market
>> 
>> Is this a good characterization or am I off base?
>> 
>> Thanks
> 
> Used to be.  These days, in the wake of systemd, at least this sys 
> admin will never install it again.  The reasons are technical.

Yes, it is certainly limiting my view of Debian to be one that is now
broken and definitely not what Ian Murdock envisioned many years ago.  :
(

A.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF4EAREIAAYFAlaahJAACgkQqBZry7fv4vvLSAD/XagyhyE3hZYw4MC+3SC/Oh0x
mPgfbB56Hci2yjRxGWUA/RiHrnFSLSO/7qyCmJm1vWRuiEvo9Q5JzHCiQA7Os2li
=EFBM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8443

> [Miles Fidelman]
>> Used to be.  These days, in the wake of systemd, at least this sys
>> admin will never install it again.  The reasons are technical.

[Andrew McGlashan]
> Yes, it is certainly limiting my view of Debian to be one that is now
> broken and definitely not what Ian Murdock envisioned many years ago.

I haven't researched the systemd issues but I should look into them.
Thanks for the input, guys.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8450

Stephan Foley writes ("Re: Would you agree - Debian is for the tech savvy"):
> [Andrew McGlashan]
> > Yes, it is certainly limiting my view of Debian to be one that is now
> > broken and definitely not what Ian Murdock envisioned many years ago.
> 
> I haven't researched the systemd issues but I should look into them.

No, you probably shouldn't.  You will find a great deal of heat and
very little light.  You should install with systemd, or without, as
you please.  The wiki has instructions.

Thanks,
Ian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8449

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, Stephan Foley wrote:

> Hello, I'm trying to characterize Debian and have the following:

>     Debian is for the tech savvy sys admin type and the server market

> Is this a good characterization or am I off base?

in my perception it is as good characterization as 

   Keyboard is for writing SPAM and FUD emails

i.e. you can definitely use it for that purpose, but not exclusively or
might even that wouldn't be the primary focus of the subject in the
statement.

-- 
Yaroslav O. Halchenko
Center for Open Neuroscience     http://centerforopenneuroscience.org
Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755
Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834                       Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419
WWW:   http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik        

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8451

Hi Yaroslav and thanks for the reply!

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko

> in my perception it is as good characterization as
>
>    Keyboard is for writing SPAM and FUD emails
>
> i.e. you can definitely use it for that purpose, but not exclusively or
> might even that wouldn't be the primary focus of the subject in the
> statement.

OK...I understand the party line is "Universal Operating System" but I
also know it took me 2-3 months to learn how to install Fluxbox on a
base of Debian after the demise of Crunchbang!

And, I am tech-savvy :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8452

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 19/01/16 06:12, Stephan Foley wrote:
> Hi Yaroslav and thanks for the reply!
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko
>
>> in my perception it is as good characterization as
>>
>>    Keyboard is for writing SPAM and FUD emails
>>
>> i.e. you can definitely use it for that purpose, but not exclusively or
>> might even that wouldn't be the primary focus of the subject in the
>> statement.
> OK...I understand the party line is "Universal Operating System" but I
> also know it took me 2-3 months to learn how to install Fluxbox on a
> base of Debian after the demise of Crunchbang!
>
> And, I am tech-savvy :-)

Why wasn't it enough to run these two commands?
apt-get install xorg
apt-get install fluxbox

The instructions on the wiki metion only this:
https://wiki.debian.org/FluxBox#Installation

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8460

[Yaroslav Halchenko]
 >> And, I am tech-savvy :-)
 >
 > Why wasn't it enough to run these two commands?
 > apt-get install xorg
 > apt-get install fluxbox
 >
 > The instructions on the wiki metion only this:
 > https://wiki.debian.org/FluxBox#Installation

grrrrrrr....


Well, first off, I had to figure out the best display manager. Then, 
install Fluxbox and you got some ugly styling! Then, I had to figure out 
how to config all the gtk stuff and fonts, etc. Then, of course, no 
sound. And how about auto mounting external drives, etc, etc! Or even 
just artwork for grub and lightdm.

Now I can install the whole thing in about 10 minutes, but it was quite 
a chore to do it the first time...coming from a system like Crunchbang 
which was configured with style and grace, I realized how much work when 
into that.

On the other hand, Fluxbox really is just a windows manager and it needs 
a ton of helper packages...nothing like Gnome or KDE.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8462

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Replying with my fluxbox hat on, and perhaps Debian too.

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 09:07:10PM -0500, Stephan Foley wrote:
> > Why wasn't it enough to run these two commands?
> > apt-get install xorg
> > apt-get install fluxbox

Yeah, Fluxbox is still not that out of the box. It's always required a
lot of fiddling to set up. Fluxbox has a lot of ups, but it also has
some downs (it requires manual configuration and is very minimal)

> grrrrrrr....
  ^^^^^^^^ And this is why I don't tell people to "just" install Fluxbox.

> Well, first off, I had to figure out the best display manager. Then, install
> Fluxbox and you got some ugly styling! Then, I had to figure out how to
> config all the gtk stuff and fonts, etc. Then, of course, no sound. And how
> about auto mounting external drives, etc, etc! Or even just artwork for grub
> and lightdm.
> 
> Now I can install the whole thing in about 10 minutes, but it was quite a
> chore to do it the first time...coming from a system like Crunchbang which
> was configured with style and grace, I realized how much work when into
> that.

Well, patches to add some defaults in an external package is super
welcome :)

> On the other hand, Fluxbox really is just a windows manager and it needs a
> ton of helper packages...nothing like Gnome or KDE.

That's right.

Cheers,
  Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8463

Hi Paul and thanks for the reply.

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@fluxbox.org> wrote:
> Replying with my fluxbox hat on, and perhaps Debian too.
>
> Well, patches to add some defaults in an external package is super
> welcome :)

I did put up a Fluxbox spec off of DebianDesktop:

https://wiki.debian.org/DebianDesktop/FluxboxSpec

and sent an email to the debian-desktop list. For a few weeks, I was
trying to work with some developers interested in Debian pure blends,
but I have given up working with them.

>> On the other hand, Fluxbox really is just a windows manager and it needs a
>> ton of helper packages...nothing like Gnome or KDE.
>
> That's right.

Maybe one loves it so much because it makes you work so hard :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8479

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 09:07:10PM -0500, Stephan Foley wrote:
> [Yaroslav Halchenko]
> >> And, I am tech-savvy :-)
> >
> > Why wasn't it enough to run these two commands?
> > apt-get install xorg
> > apt-get install fluxbox
> >
> > The instructions on the wiki metion only this:
> > https://wiki.debian.org/FluxBox#Installation
> 
> grrrrrrr....
> 
> 
> Well, first off, I had to figure out the best display manager. Then, install
> Fluxbox and you got some ugly styling! Then, I had to figure out how to
> config all the gtk stuff and fonts, etc. Then, of course, no sound. And how
> about auto mounting external drives, etc, etc! Or even just artwork for grub
> and lightdm.

It is fair to say that Debian supports:
- Non-technical desktop users who want to use one of:
  - Gnome
  - KDE
  - Mate
  - Cinnamon
  - XFCE
  - LXDE
- non-technical users who want to run a web, print, or SSH server;
- Technical users who want to use anything else

since these are the "tasks" that are included in the installer, and
which produce a full selection of packages.

FluxBox is not one of those. If you want to use a user interface that
isn't one of the standard environments, it's certainly possible to do so
within Debian, but it *will* indeed require a lot more effort.

However, going from there to saying that "Debian is only for the tech
savvy sys admin type and the server market" is taking a bit of a leap
that I'm not sure is a fair one. We do support less tech savvy people,
just not with such highly customized environments.

-- 
It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer

  -- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8480

Hi Wouter and thanks for the reply.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> wrote:
> It is fair to say that Debian supports:
> - Non-technical desktop users who want to use one of:
>   - Gnome
>   - KDE
>   - Mate
>   - Cinnamon
>   - XFCE
>   - LXDE
> - non-technical users who want to run a web, print, or SSH server;
> - Technical users who want to use anything else
>
> since these are the "tasks" that are included in the installer, and
> which produce a full selection of packages.
>
> FluxBox is not one of those. If you want to use a user interface that
> isn't one of the standard environments, it's certainly possible to do so
> within Debian, but it *will* indeed require a lot more effort.
>
> However, going from there to saying that "Debian is only for the tech
> savvy sys admin type and the server market" is taking a bit of a leap
> that I'm not sure is a fair one. We do support less tech savvy people,
> just not with such highly customized environments.

Very true, I agree with all of your points. Going back to my original
purpose of posting this question, I wanted to do a sort of "sales
pitch" to encourage Debian to offer Fluxbox as a task in the
installer. I actually wrote up a spec which you can find here:

https://wiki.debian.org/DebianDesktop/FluxboxSpec

I had just watched a video about Debian development and the speaker
said the official motto might be the universal operating system, but
the unofficial motto is the sys admin distro for sys admins.

So, I thought this might be a good angle for my pitch...hey, Debian is
for the technically savvy, so why not offer a technically savvy
windows manager in addition to the others. As for the others (Gnome,
KDE, etc), I might add that they are mostly just aping the Windows
paradigm, but that might be my chauvinist Fluxbox attitude :-)

As for what I think, having used Debian for many years, I think Debian
is for the server market and also a major "feeder" for all the
downstream distros. I think that's where Debian derives power and
fills its niche very well.

Thanks again for the reply. Also...let's get Fluxbox in the
installer's tasks list! All those server admins deserve an easy
install :-)

Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8481

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 08:37:52PM -0500, Stephan Foley wrote:
> Very true, I agree with all of your points. Going back to my original
> purpose of posting this question, I wanted to do a sort of "sales
> pitch" to encourage Debian to offer Fluxbox as a task in the
> installer. I actually wrote up a spec which you can find here:

Well, since Debian is a volunteer-driven distribution, a sales pitch doesn't
really help all that much.

The best way to get anything done in Debian is to do it yourself. If you
want to encourage Debian to have Fluxbox as an easy-to-select option for
a desktop install, I encourage you to talk to the tasksel maintainers
and the debian-boot mailinglist to see what the needed bits would be,
and try to get them available.

Thanks for your enthousiasm, at the very least :-)

-- 
It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer

  -- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8489

Hi Wouter,

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> wrote:
> The best way to get anything done in Debian is to do it yourself. If you
> want to encourage Debian to have Fluxbox as an easy-to-select option for
> a desktop install, I encourage you to talk to the tasksel maintainers
> and the debian-boot mailinglist to see what the needed bits would be,
> and try to get them available.

Great information, thank you! I did send an email to the
debian-desktop list last month, but I'll try the debian-boot list and
track down the tasksel maintainers.

Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web