RE: The future of Debian install??
Woah folks.. I actually think you guys are saying some of the same
things, but not quite expressing it the same ways.
In my original post, I was just thinking how it would be nice to have
the option of having some things done automatically rather than do it
all by hand. I understand it's very important to the debian community
for the deb newbie to learn the install and understand the system that
they are setting up, but for those of us who have installed debian many
many times it would be nice to select an option that does a few things
automatically. Once you understand a process, there is no point in
repeating it just for repitition's sake. Why do we script tasks? Same
reason.
Anyway.. That's the only point I was trying to make.
-Mike
_____________________________
Michael D. Marziani
Systems Administrator
-----Original Message-----
From: Francisco M. Marzoa Alonso [mailto:fmmarzoa@gmx.net]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 5:07 AM
To: Oki DZ
Cc: Michael Marziani; debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: The future of Debian install??
On Friday 08 March 2002 06:55, Oki DZ wrote:
> Francisco M. Marzoa Alonso wrote:
>
> The install part on RH is better than what's in Debian, even today;
> especially when it goes to X. I never said that fresh install in
> Debian was easier. On Debian, it is a _lot_ easier when installing
> individual package; in my case, using apt-get.
Yes, apt-get is a great tool, but we wasn't talking about it.
> > Keep on mind that everyone can configure this distribution; its not
> > a matter of brain, its a matter of TIME, and there's a lot of people
> > that needs a computer to do things very different that spent time
> > configuring the SO, specially if they're not computer technicians;
> > they do NOT NEED to know
>
> Well, I believe that given the same task, if somebody can do it
> faster, then there's something in the brain.
An elitist... well, if you can configure X from scratch faster than the
computer itself, then you should think about go to the Guinness show.
Computers are done to make our lifes easy and to let us avoid repetitive
tasks. I'm not psychologist, but I think making repetitive things faster
is
not a manner of evaluate inteligence (or is it?). A monkey can do that
kind
of things faster than an human if it is trained.
> > nothing about the underlaying technology as, in example, a JAVA
> > programmer DO NOT NEED to know nothing about x86 assembler or an x86
> > assembler programmer DO NOT NEED to know the machine codes of each
> > mnemonic.
>
> I believe that on installing a fresh Debian system, X is the barrier
> that you have to overcome; if in fact you needed to run X.
>
> BTW, in the homepage, it is stated that the friendly UI is the shell;
> even for beginners. In http://packages.debian.org/unstable:
> Shells
> Command shells. Friendly user interfaces for beginners.
There was an old expresion that looks like "Unix is user friendly, but
it
choose its friends carefully".
> So, regarding X on Debian, X is extra; something that you have to deal
> with to pass the beginner stage.
This is not reasonable indeed. Imagine that a graphic designer needs to
use
its system to develop images; yes, it can write a jpeg byte by byte with
the
help of 'dd bs=1 if=/dev/stdin >> mygraph.jpg' (vi is for awful users,
echo
sucks! gimp? what's gimp?) a calculator (moreover, without it!!!!) a lot
of
paper and more patiente. Despite the fact that fractals are for
mathematician, not for graphic desingers, then it could think "well...
why
I'm using a computer?".
You don't need to know how a turbo works or a direct inyection diesel
engine
does to be an excellent driver.
Is the computer that must cover the requeriments of the user, and not
the
other way.
> It's a bit different with other Linux
> systems; on others, you'd get into X (pretty automatically) and then
> go to the command shells when they are ready. On Debian, you go to the
> shell first; at least to learn what "ls" is. Later, when you need
> something fancy (like others), you have to install X (pretty manually,
> espescially on XF86Config).
>
> I believe that the Debian approach is better, in terms of learning;
[...]
> Thing is, I believe that people wouldn't go manual if they could do it
> automatically.
[...]
Integrist? Well, If you want to learn how X works, then learn how X
works, if
you want to practise some kind of religion, then do it, but let the rest
of
people decide by themselves what they need/want to learn.
> > Finally, I'll like to know everything about every field, but none
> > lives forever.
>
> None lives forever... but to know everything, actually all you need to
> do is to go in silence; in all there is silence, and in silence there
> is all.
Erm... did you see Kung-Fu reciently? know everything in a life is, of
course
impossible, but still to know "a lot" everyone needs time, in all there
is
time, and time is short as hell. (Gamma Ray)
> > If Debian has have a better (call it "easier" or "faster" or so...)
> > setup system, I've had migrate to it from years ago.
>
> You flamed on things that I didn't say. All I say was: Debian is
> better compared to RH on installing packages.
We must stand for different threads. At the beggining of my one you was
insinuating that Debian was better "cause a Red Hat user don't knows
nothing
about X".
And yes, apt-get rules... so?...
BTW, don't know in RH, but at least in SuSE rpm says the package
dependeces
you need to complet, not the individual files. This is not as cool as
apt-get
but not as bad as you paint it neither.
Have a good one,
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: