Re: Can't install networking.
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 at 00:46 GMT, Mark Healey penned:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:59:31 -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
>>I understand that you're getting frustrated with the install process,
>>but really, the install is something you'll do once for this system.
>>If the installation process is such a turn-off for you and you're not
>>interested in learning anything about how the system works, then maybe
>>you *should* be using RedHat.
> I am interrested in learning how it works but it has to be working for
> that to happen. The fact is that the installation routine and
> documentation just plain suck. It doesn't help that the books
> available are ancient.
No, it is not a fact that the installation routine and documentation
just plain suck -- it is merely your opinion. I personally have been
very happy with the debian installer and the support I've found.
Which books have you tried?
More pertinently, what part of the general advice given to you several
posts ago frustrated the bejeezus out of you? Was it the recommendation
to use `uname -a` to find your kernel version? The fact that you have
to care about kernel versions at all? The deal about the modules?
I do not believe that you have to be a hacker to install debian. I do
believe that at least a basic understanding of how kernels, modules, etc
work can greatly facilitate the installation process as well as
Since you're comparing Debian to RedHat, I'm going to compare both of
them to MS Windows. I have had network cards that worked perfectly in
both Debian and RedHat fail in Windows. I have had Windows fail to find
drivers twice in a row, only to find them (for the same damn card!)
several times later.
It all comes down to specific hardware configuration. Every system has
some hardware that it won't be prepared to use right out of the box.
>>Perhaps you mentioned this earlier, but why are you interested in
>>trying Debian specifically?
> I tried to install Pydance and ran into mass dependecy problems. I'd
> try to rpm something and it would report missing dependencies. I'd
> try to rpm the dependency and would be told that it already installed.
> I was told that Debian is much bettter at handling these things.
I do believe that the debian package manager is the best out there --
that's exactly why I run Debian. The reason I don't run RedHat is
probably the exact reason you liked it -- several years ago, I found
that the RedHat tools were making it very difficult to manually edit
configuration files. The whole setup was designed for the GUI admin.
RedHat is easy to install, but hard to maintain and keep secure. Debian
may require more effort to install, but it is much easier to keep it
going and to keep it secure. For me, the extra effort in the beginning
has paid off in spades. It's possible that you find a different balance
PLEASE don't CC me. Please. Pretty please with sugar on top.
Whatever it takes, just don't CC me! I'm already subscribed!!