RE: slashdot poll
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, M.C. Vernon wrote:
>
> > > Debian's harder to install. One guy mentionned he could install Red Hat in
> > > less than 15 minutes. Hard to have something fully up at that speed with
> > > Debian.
> > >
> > Right. I've recently tried Redhat and SuSE on a separate partition
> > and Debian's installation is still pure stone age. Well, i guess
> > there's still Slackware...
>
> What do people like about RH? Is it worth trying to nick parts of their
> install? I found it a pain - It wouldn't let me just install individual
> packages, though I wonder whether some of the modconf stuff could be left
> out for the initial install.....
>
> > And now imagine the power of Debian combined with an installation
> > routine at least as convenient and user friendly like Redhat's or
> > SuSE's. Debian would be the absolute killer!
> >
> > But oh well, talk is cheap...
>
> How about suggesting some improvements, rather than "I don't like the
> Debian install"?
>
> :)
>
> Matthew
>
>
I was a total newbie to Linux when I started, and I started with Debian.
The Debian install process (for base) is mostly fine; it needs to have
some grammer/spelling corrections made, and it REALLY needs better (ie.
more explantory information for the newbie) documentation in the help
screens (not the man pages, not the "documentation", but on the help
screen within the install). A newbie doesn't understand all the
techno-jargon, and doesn't know if he needs to install the serial driver
and/or the lp driver and/or the cdrom driver, etc, etc. Help screens that
say stuff like "if you have a printer attached to your computer you need
this (the lp) driver" or "if your computer is at home and/or you don't
know what the term "ethernet" means, you probably do not need a NIC
driver" would be very helpful and make the install much easier, without
going the RH way.
Other than better help screens in the existing base install, the help
screens in the pppconfig setup could be improved also.
The only other major weak spot in Debian installs is getting X up and
running. It boggles me that the XF86Setup program can display what looks
to the newbie like a Windows-type environment and that it can say
"Congratulations! It looks like you have a running server", and then as
soon as you type startx you get a bunch of error messages and no X. There
should be a no-fuss method of getting a minimal X system going (ugly VGA
is fine). After that success, then the newbie can learn the ins-and-outs
of getting decent resolution, etc.
To sum up: 1) better help screens in base install, 2) better help screens
in pppconfig, 3) a no-fuss minimal X install that any idiot can get going.
--
Kent West
kent.west@infotech.acu.edu
KC5ENO - Amateur Radio: When all else fails.
Linux - Finally! A real OS for the Intel PC!
"Life is an ongoing classroom." - Capt. James T. Kirk, "Dreadnought"
Reply to: