Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #178929 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Adrian O'Dell <crimsonmane@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-16 16:30 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-03-21 16:00 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 118 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Suggested edit Adrian O'Dell <crimsonmane@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 16:30 +0100
Re: Suggested edit Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-16 17:10 +0100
Re: Suggested edit Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-17 15:30 +0100
Re: Suggested edit Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-17 16:40 +0100
Re: Suggested edit Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 17:10 +0100
Re: Suggested edit Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 18:00 +0100
Re: Suggested edit Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-03-17 18:40 +0100
Re: Suggested edit Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-17 18:50 +0100
Re: Suggested edit Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 19:00 +0100
Re: Suggested edit Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-20 11:00 +0100
Re: Suggested edit Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-17 18:10 +0100
Re: Suggested edit Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-03-17 18:50 +0100
installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-20 10:50 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 21:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-03-20 21:40 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-20 22:20 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 01:00 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-21 01:40 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 03:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-21 04:20 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 11:40 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 16:00 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-03-21 16:20 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-21 18:40 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 19:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-21 19:50 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2017-03-22 10:20 +0100
Re: cell phone .sigs (was: installer defaults for desktops) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2017-03-22 10:50 +0100
Re: cell phone .sigs (was: installer defaults for desktops) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-03-22 11:20 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2017-04-01 18:50 +0200
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 19:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-21 20:00 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 21:00 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-03-21 19:20 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-21 20:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-03-21 20:20 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-21 21:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-03-22 00:30 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-22 02:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-03-22 04:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-03-22 13:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-22 13:20 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-03-22 13:30 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2017-03-24 07:30 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-24 11:20 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2017-03-24 17:30 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2017-03-24 18:40 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 11:30 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-03-23 13:00 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 13:40 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-03-23 22:00 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 11:30 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-03-24 13:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 16:20 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 16:20 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-03-24 19:30 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 10:20 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-24 11:30 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-03-22 17:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-21 20:20 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-21 20:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-21 16:00 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-03-21 17:50 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-03-23 17:40 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-23 18:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 18:40 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-03-23 19:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 19:40 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-23 19:40 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 19:50 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-23 23:40 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 23:50 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-24 00:20 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 00:40 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-24 01:40 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-03-24 02:30 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-24 05:30 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 08:50 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-03-24 19:30 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-03-24 20:50 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-03-24 02:30 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-24 03:40 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-03-24 15:50 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-03-24 19:40 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-24 21:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-03-24 23:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-25 00:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-03-25 02:50 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-03-25 03:50 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-03-24 13:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-03-24 15:00 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 16:00 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2017-03-24 19:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-03-24 20:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2017-03-24 20:40 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-03-23 19:00 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2017-03-23 19:50 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-24 11:30 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Fred <fred@blakemfg.com> - 2017-03-23 20:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-03-23 17:40 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 00:50 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-03-21 01:40 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 03:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-03-21 11:40 +0100
[TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-03-22 15:10 +0100
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 15:30 +0100
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-03-22 16:00 +0100
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 16:40 +0100
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-03-22 18:30 +0100
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 18:50 +0100
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2017-03-23 17:50 +0100
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2017-04-01 20:10 +0200
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 20:50 +0200
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 22:30 +0200
Re: [TEST RUNS] Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 23:10 +0200
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 12:10 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-03-21 13:00 +0100
Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 16:00 +0100
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Adrian O'Dell <crimsonmane@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-16 16:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Suggested edit |
| Message-ID | <tlFvJ-gv-55@gated-at.bofh.it> |
debian-8.7.1-amd64-CD-1.iso The reason I bring this up is because people in support groups and forums as about why they didn't get a desktop environment, even when they use that specific CD. On 03/16/2017 09:35 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > [ Note Reply-To: set ] > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 06:50:47AM -0500, Adrian O'Dell wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I think your download page should clarify that the user should select YES to >> the Mirrors question or else no graphical desktop environment can be >> installed, thus leaving the user with a console-only system. The installer >> has a box to install a graphical environment and common system tools, so the >> user is confused why no graphical environment is installed despite the box >> being selected. However if one selects YES to the Mirrors question then of >> course the available desktop environments appear along with this setting. >> >> An alternate solution might be to put the notice in the Installer itself. >> >> Naturally this affects the CD builds. > Which CD did you use for your installation? >
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-16 17:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tlG8p-LZ-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #178929 |
> debian-8.7.1-amd64-CD-1.iso > > The reason I bring this up is because people in support groups and forums as about why they didn't get a desktop environment, even when they use that specific CD. That "feature" is not limited to the cd version. It is also in the netinst version and the dvd versions. It would be nice if people intuitively understood that the "base system" was not going to meet their expectations of a minimal install, which includes a desktop environment, but noobs don't understand that. Equally nice would be an "advanced installation" option to only do a base system installation. Making the selection of a mirror and desktop environment an unskippable part of the installation, unless you chose that advanced "base system" would be very user friendly, particularly for noobs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 15:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tm13b-7Il-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #178930 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:43:05AM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote: > That "feature" is not limited to the cd version. It is also in the netinst > version and the dvd versions. It would be nice if people intuitively > understood that the "base system" was not going to meet their expectations of > a minimal install, which includes a desktop environment, but noobs don't > understand that. Equally nice would be an "advanced installation" option to > only do a base system installation. Making the selection of a mirror and > desktop environment an unskippable part of the installation, unless you chose > that advanced "base system" would be very user friendly, particularly for > noobs. That would presume that the majority of users of the installer wanted to install a desktop environment. This is not necessarily true even for beginners, on say, server machines. -- Jonathan Dowland Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 16:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tm28W-76-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #178955 |
> On Mar 17, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote: > > That would presume that the majority of users of the installer wanted to > install a desktop environment. This is not necessarily true even for beginners, > on say, server machines. Beginners are installing server systems as their first experience with Linux? I think not. Most people don't ever touch a server in their entire life. The closest they get to a server is a thin client. Any sane server administrator is going to set up a test system first, and probably on a desktop so they can easily mess around with it while they learn about the tools it offers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 17:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tm2BX-FF-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #178958 |
On Friday 17 March 2017 15:18:57 Catherine Gramze wrote: > > On Mar 17, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote: > > > > That would presume that the majority of users of the installer wanted to > > install a desktop environment. This is not necessarily true even for > > beginners, on say, server machines. > > Beginners are installing server systems as their first experience with > Linux? I think not. Most people don't ever touch a server in their entire > life. The closest they get to a server is a thin client. Any sane server > administrator is going to set up a test system first, and probably on a > desktop so they can easily mess around with it while they learn about the > tools it offers. In general, Debian is not recommended for total newbies who are unassisted for precisely this sort of reason. There are plenty of dumbed down Debian derivatives for those that want them. Please don't let's dumb Debian down any further. Base install means base install. The net install disk by default installs Gnome (I have on occasion gone to sleep and failed to prevent it). Some WANT a base install and should be able to have it easily. You are describing Ubuntu or Mint. Ubuntu and Mint exist. The mentioned problem in finding things definitely exists, especially when it comes to check sums, especially for those of us who are partially sighted. The developers, bless them, are aware and are working on it. That is great, and good enough for me. But if you want a dumbed down newbie distro, use a dumbed down newbie distro. If Debian is too Geekish, leave it to the Geeks. Meanwhile, Brian, not all of us are blessed with 35 year old brains and 20/20 vision. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 18:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tm3on-Yu-37@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #178960 |
On Friday 17 March 2017 16:45:31 Catherine Gramze wrote: > It is more important to not intimidate the beginner. Not, it isn't. Debian is for experts, or would-be experts, or those who will never be experts but like to pretend. I am so sad that Debian is becoming more and more Ubuntu-ised. For those who want and like Ubuntu, Ubuntu exists. > We were all a beginner > once. Yes, we were. And we either managed, had help (I had a lot AND used Libranet (an easier true derivative - used Debian sources, but pinned) or used a derivative. We neither expect nor demand that Windows be installable by all and sundry, from scratch, on an empty machine. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 18:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tm414-1ya-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #178962 |
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:57:19 +0000 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday 17 March 2017 16:45:31 Catherine Gramze wrote: > > It is more important to not intimidate the beginner. > > Not, it isn't. Debian is for experts, or would-be experts, or those > who will never be experts but like to pretend. > > I am so sad that Debian is becoming more and more Ubuntu-ised. For > those who want and like Ubuntu, Ubuntu exists. > > > We were all a beginner > > once. > > Yes, we were. And we either managed, had help (I had a lot AND used > Libranet (an easier true derivative - used Debian sources, but > pinned) or used a derivative. > > We neither expect nor demand that Windows be installable by all and > sundry, from scratch, on an empty machine. > Actually, these days, it's a pretty trivial job. You basically give it a user name, a computer name and a timezone. I've done a few 7 Pro installations in the last year or two. I don't know how easy a Debian non-expert CD/DVD installation is, the last time I tried that, I ended up without networking. Not just without it configured, without an eth0 at all. I did report it as a bug, but apparently it was a feature. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 18:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tm4aK-1BY-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #178962 |
Sent from my iPad > On Mar 17, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote: > > Not, it isn't. Debian is for experts, or would-be experts, or those who will > never be experts but like to pretend. > I strongly disagree. The point of a genuinely free and open operating system is accessibility at all levels. Debian is more difficult than some other systems not because it is meant for experts, but because of the dedication to the core concepts of FOSS. Or, why the non-free repository is not included in a standard installation source list. > > Yes, we were. And we either managed, had help (I had a lot AND used Libranet > (an easier true derivative - used Debian sources, but pinned) or used a > derivative. > You used Libranet, too? Are you still in touch with Tal? That was my favorite distro EVER. The only real help I ever got was in the Libranet beta testing group, for that last release that never made it because John was so ill. > We neither expect nor demand that Windows be installable by all and sundry, > from scratch, on an empty machine. We don't? It's a lot more idiot proof than Debian. Cathy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 19:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tm4kp-1GF-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #178966 |
On Friday 17 March 2017 17:24:53 Catherine Gramze wrote: > You used Libranet, too? Are you still in touch with Tal? That was my > favorite distro EVER. The only real help I ever got was in the Libranet > beta testing group, for that last release that never made it because John > was so ill. I still mourn it and no, though I was in touch with Daniel for some time. Oh it did make it, briefly - I bought it!! John died almost immediately after it was released, and Tal withdrew it while he decided what to do. I always felt that he chose to kill it, but could have given it to the community if he didn't want it. But, I have a PAID FOR copy of Libranet 3. Somewhere. I loved, loved, loved it. Nothing else can touch it - not even Debian itself!! And it had a logo to die for. ;-) Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-20 11:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tn2gy-2R9-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #178962 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 04:57:19PM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 17 March 2017 16:45:31 Catherine Gramze wrote: > > It is more important to not intimidate the beginner. > > Not, it isn't. Debian is for experts, or would-be experts, or those who will > never be experts but like to pretend. That may be your view, but it's not necessarily a view shared by everyone who contributes to the Debian project. For what it's worth, I disagree that Debian is only for experts. I think it is perceived as only being for experts because we've failed in some ways to make it accessible to non-experts. A popular tag line for the project used to be "the universal operating system", after all. It's worth looking at the platforms for the two prospective Debian Leader candidates: this is a hot topic. https://www.debian.org/vote/2017/platforms/mehdi https://www.debian.org/vote/2017/platforms/lamby (I piped those two lines through "sort -R"; there's no preference implied by their order in this email). I happen to agree with Catherine that we can do something to improve the situation for beginners. I don't think this has to be at the expense of experts. > I am so sad that Debian is becoming more and more Ubuntu-ised. For those who > want and like Ubuntu, Ubuntu exists. Ubuntu is very popular on the desktop, that is true, but it's also incredibly popular in the server space too, where you might be arguing Debian belongs, if it's for "experts only". Ubuntu's ease of use has not meant it is relegated to beginners only. It's also the most popular distribution of Linux in use on the Cloud. Why isn't Debian winning in that space? Ubuntu couldn't succeed without Debian, to this day it is still built on the hard work of Debian developers. Although these days there's quite a lot of stuff in Ubuntu that isn't or won't be in Debian (Mir, Unity, LXD, etc.) so the difference is larger than it once was. Having said that, when you use terms like "Ubuntu-ised" it's difficult to have a proper debate. Please consider specifically spelling out the changes that you think are being made to Debian (or have been made), that shouldn't, if you want to discuss them. > > We were all a beginner once. > > Yes, we were. And we either managed, had help (I had a lot AND used Libranet > (an easier true derivative - used Debian sources, but pinned) or used a > derivative. WE did, yes. But many others have not. For Debian to continue to succeed we need more people to contribute to its development: that means more users, and that means more potential users not giving up. It's hard to be sure exactly how many Debian users there are, but if you look at indicators like frequent contributors to this mailing list, or frequent contributors to the wiki, etc., it's a pretty small pool of people relative to some other communities. > We neither expect nor demand that Windows be installable by all and sundry, > from scratch, on an empty machine. I don't understand what you mean here; is Windows a mistake, or are you making a comparison of Windows to Debian, or to Ubuntu? Your intent is lost to me. -- Jonathan Dowland Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 18:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tm3on-Yu-39@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #178960 |
Sent from my iPad > On Mar 17, 2017, at 12:04 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote: > > There are plenty of dumbed down Debian derivatives for those that want them. > Please don't let's dumb Debian down any further. Base install means base > install. The net install disk by default installs Gnome (I have on occasion > gone to sleep and failed to prevent it). Some WANT a base install and should > be able to have it easily. You are describing Ubuntu or Mint. Ubuntu and > Mint exist. No, Lisi, I don't mean like Mint or Ubuntu. My point was only that beginners can accidentally do a base install only, not knowing what a base install is, and that knowing what they did to cause it and fixing it is not something a beginner can easily do. My very first Linux installation was in 1993, a Slackware disc that came free in Wired or PCMagazine. It installed successfully, and there I was looking at a blank screen. I knew 2 things instantly: that the installation was a success, and that I had no idea what command might invoke a graphic interface, if one existed. Or what any Linux command might be. I gave up on Linux for a few years, until 1999 and my horrific Red Hat 6.0 experience. I moved on to Debian in mere months, switching to the derivatives when Debian did not support my hardware. (Which was regularly) But I clearly remember that first Linux experience and that disheartening blank screen. I agree it is important to be able to get a base install if you want one, but you can do that manually simply by backing out of the installation script after the reboot. It is more important to not intimidate the beginner. We were all a beginner once.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 18:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tm4aL-1BY-41@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #178958 |
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:18:57 -0400 Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> wrote: > > On Mar 17, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> > > wrote: > > > > That would presume that the majority of users of the installer > > wanted to install a desktop environment. This is not necessarily > > true even for beginners, on say, server machines. > > Beginners are installing server systems as their first experience > with Linux? I think not. Most people don't ever touch a server in > their entire life. You might be surprised. I was given a Red Hat 5.2 disc to play with, and I bought a Linux magazine. It contained an article about compiling kernels, so I tried it. It was much later that I found this was considered an advanced task. I tried a Debian, possibly Potato, I'm not sure. I certainly didn't get it working, and I can remember an entire screenful of mouse configuration options, none of which turned out to be correct. I went to one of the early Mandrakes, did a couple of LFS builds, and didn't go back to Debian until Sarge, which became my home server... my current server is a direct descendent of this installation. My LFS was pure command-line, I was bored enough by the compilation business that I never did try a GUI, and in those days the Linux desktop was more a curiosity than a tool. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-20 10:50 +0100 |
| Subject | installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tn26S-2MC-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #178958 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:18:57AM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote: > Cc: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> Please do not mail me directly, I am subscribed to the list. I put this prominently in my email signature. I also set Mail-Followup-To (MFT[1]) accordingly. Consider switching to a mailer that supports MFT (I personally recomment mutt). Also, please read over the Debian Mailing Lists Code of Conduct[2], specifically the bullet point "When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be copied." [1] https://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html [2] https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct > > On Mar 17, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote: > Beginners are installing server systems as their first experience with Linux? > I think not. I didn't say 'first experience', but even so, perhaps. Although my first experiences are possibly too old to be relevant nowadays, they were with Red Hat, Debian etc. on PCs to use as personal web servers. With the excitement around IoT, small embedded devices, things like the Arduino, Pi and mashups of the two, I think it's very plausible that people who are new to Linux may be using things that are not classical PCs with proper displays. > Any sane server administrator is going to set up a test system first, and > probably on a desktop so they can easily mess around with it while they learn > about the tools it offers. Sane sysadmins will set up test systems, true, but they will not deviate dramatically from the configuration of the prod server in doing so, or the test is less useful. Installing a large amount of software in a test system that won't be present in a production environment is very likely to cause deployment issues. A graphical desktop stack is a large amount of software. If we get back to your initial suggestion for a moment: > It would be nice if people intuitively understood that the "base system" was > not going to meet their expectations of a minimal install, which includes a > desktop environment, but noobs don't understand that. I agree with this. There is a problem here to be solved. Perhaps we can consider renaming or rewording 'base system'. > Equally nice would be an "advanced installation" option to only do a base > system installation. Making the selection of a mirror and desktop > environment an unskippable part of the installation, unless you chose that > advanced "base system" would be very user friendly, particularly for noobs. The suggestion here is what I disagree with because it will frustrate people who don't want a full desktop. However there might be some middle ground that improves the situation. 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? Although your message suggests the behaviour is not different between netinst/CD/DVD, I can understand if some believe that we should not default "on" any selection which is not satisfied by the installation media in use. In which case improving our documentation on the websites around where the images are obtained is worth exploring. -- Jonathan Dowland Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-20 21:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tnbMR-1ns-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179035 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-20 21:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tncfT-1A9-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179051 |
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. HTH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-20 22:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tncSC-22N-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179053 |
> On Mar 20, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> 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. >> > > 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. But the mirror selection comes after 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! If you don't know what a mirror is for, and that the base installation is not what you want, it is entirely too easy to back out of the installer at that point thinking you are not missing anything. If your network card is not recognized and configured, you can't even choose a mirror and therefore get stuck at this point, not knowing you only need a firmware package, and lacking a means to download that firmware package if you know. Mint and Ubuntu solve that issue by including the firmware. I understand and agree with the decision to not include it, but there ought to be a way to let people know at the very start of an installation that a firmware package is going to be needed, so they can stop the installation before they have rendered their previous system, and the ability to acquire that firmware package, inoperative. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-21 01:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tnfnr-3z0-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179058 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-21 01:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tng0a-45Z-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179067 |
> On Mar 20, 2017, at 7:51 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-21 03:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tnhpg-58q-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179069 |
On Tuesday 21 March 2017 00:19:52 Catherine Gramze wrote: > > On Mar 20, 2017, at 7:51 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-21 04:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tniuZ-5UB-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179072 |
> On Mar 20, 2017, at 10:02 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday 21 March 2017 00:19:52 Catherine Gramze wrote: >>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 7:51 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web