On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 07:51:07AM -0300, D G Teed wrote:
>
> I agree that the kernel within the installer is something
> needing to be updated more often.
Except that this means that the kernel in the installer needs to be
installable as a default kernel, which means that it must also be
supported by the kernel team and security. There is a lot of work
involved in that.
There was another project by a small group which seemed to get through
this issue, at least for x86. I don't think it is that bad. The Debian releases
that come out almost quarterly could include such an update to the
installer's kernel.
> I regard Debian as serious
> production class server OS, but there are others who weigh
> everything on the installer experience.
I've heard it said that the reason Debian users generally don't care
about the installer is because it is something you only use once :-)
It sounds easy if you have one server. Suppose you have 21 that you
want to migrate from FreeBSD. If it takes a day to find and do a workaround,
versus the usual 30 minutes to complete a direct install, then I think this
is more significant. Anyway, anything that impacts a manager's
perception is something that impacts the possibility of adopting Debian at all.
That is, the difficulty is enough for them to think, or even
decide "forget it, do Redhat". If you want my bosses to conclude
that, then the status quo of sarge's installer is the thing to keep.
Except, that the commercial brand Linuxes suffer from the same problem.
They just tend to update their installers more frequently. Windows XP
has the same problem, only many people never noticed once the installer
was 5 years old, since people get windows preinstalled or get some
customized restore CD from the OEM.
Yep. That's all I'm asking to see happen.
Why are they freaked out by one-developer Linux distros out there? They
don't even have to pay attention to such distros if they don't want to.
The appearance of the multitudes is an immediate indication that just about
anyone can make a distro. If that is the case, then there are obviously
poor ones. It just doesn't make the scene look professional. They associate
that type of outcome with Tu-Cows and that sort of crap-shot of trying
dozens of software until you find one that doesn't suck.
> They don't
> see Debian mentioned in many press announcements, so
> it is difficult to demonstrate how prevalent and robust
> Debian really is.
>
Netcraft is helpful in this respect :-)
Already done. HP's announcement of Debian support is the sort of thing
we need more of. That is visible to such managers without pointing them
to some resource - unknown to them - claiming Debian has some
sort of stats in production.
> Making things work for current hardware is one of the main
> things that will differentiate between a "works for me" type of
> distro, and a "works for everybody" well supported distro.
>
Why? As I said, other distros have the same problem, they just tend to
update more frequently so it is not as visible.