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 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-21 20:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tnxkl-7xz-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179114 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-21 16:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tntqq-4H9-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179083 |
Sent from my iPad > On Mar 21, 2017, at 6:31 AM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-21 17:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tnv8T-5UV-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179108 |
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 <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 17:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <todWj-4QN-35@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179076 |
Catherine Gramze wrote: >> On Mar 20, 2017, at 10:02 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> 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. steve@einval.com < liw> everything I know about UK hotels I learned from "Fawlty Towers"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 18:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <toepk-5id-39@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179201 |
> On Mar 23, 2017, at 12:38 PM, Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> wrote: > > Catherine Gramze wrote: >>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 10:02 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 18:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <toeSm-5uK-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179203 |
On Thursday 23 March 2017 16:48:56 Catherine Gramze wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 12:38 PM, Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> wrote: > > > > Catherine Gramze wrote: > >>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 10:02 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 19:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <toflo-5WV-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179204 |
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. steve@einval.com < liw> everything I know about UK hotels I learned from "Fawlty Towers"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 19:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tofOp-6a9-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179206 |
On Thursday 23 March 2017 18:03:35 Steve McIntyre wrote: > Please calm down, why the aggression? :-( Sorry. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 19:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tofOp-6a9-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179206 |
Sent from my iPad > On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:03 PM, Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 19:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tofY5-6kc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179208 |
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 <steve@einval.com> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 23:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tojyG-sG-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179209 |
> Mar 23, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com wrote: > > 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. </sarcasm>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 23:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tojIl-wf-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179221 |
On Thursday 23 March 2017 22:18:53 Catherine Gramze wrote: > > Mar 23, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com wrote: > > > > 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-24 00:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tokbn-14j-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179222 |
> On Mar 23, 2017, at 6:44 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday 23 March 2017 22:18:53 Catherine Gramze wrote: >>> Mar 23, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-24 00:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tokuJ-1bN-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179223 |
On Thursday 23 March 2017 22:54:13 Catherine Gramze wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 6:44 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thursday 23 March 2017 22:18:53 Catherine Gramze wrote: > >>> Mar 23, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com wrote: > >>> > >>> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-24 01:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tolqO-1P5-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179224 |
> On Mar 23, 2017, at 7:38 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-24 02:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tomdb-2rZ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179225 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-24 05:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <top1n-4qf-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179228 |
> On Mar 23, 2017, at 9:20 PM, David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-24 08:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <tos8V-6GD-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179232 |
On 24-03-17, Catherine Gramze wrote: > > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 9:20 PM, David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-24 19:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <toC8k-5sk-83@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179232 |
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. steve@einval.com
< liw> everything I know about UK hotels I learned from "Fawlty Towers"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-24 20:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit) |
| Message-ID | <toDnH-6fP-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #179269 |
On Fri 24 Mar 2017 at 18:23:26 +0000, 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web