...making Linux just a little more fun!
Neil Youngman [ny at youngman.org.uk]
Sun, 1 Oct 2006 19:49:09 +0100
Well I've had enough of the creeping bit rot in my Mepis installation and I want to be rid of Mepis. I'm trying to go back to a plain vanilla Debian installation. I've also recently upgraded my system with a SATA conroller and a 200GB hard disk, onto which I tried to install Debian with the Debian 3.1 net installer.
The default install hung, so I went for the "expert" install and got an installation on the SATA disk. It's definitely there, I can see it, but I can't boot from it.
It's on /dev/sda5, and grub loads the kernel up, but the kernel panics because as far as it's concerned /dev/sda5 doesn't exist. I can only assume that the kernel it has installed doesn't have the right module (SiI3112) installed for the SATA controller.
Is there a way to check what modules are built into this kernel?
Is there a simple way around this?
Is it best just to build my own kernel to replace the one that has been installed?
Neil Youngman
Thomas Adam [thomas.adam22 at gmail.com]
Sun, 1 Oct 2006 19:56:48 +0100
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 19:49:09 +0100 Neil Youngman <ny at youngman.org.uk> wrote:
> The default install hung, so I went for the "expert" install and got > an installation on the SATA disk. It's definitely there, I can see > it, but I can't boot from it.
Yes -- you'd need a 2.6 kernel at least, I'd have said. This is what the "expert" install allows for.
> It's on /dev/sda5, and grub loads the kernel up, but the kernel > panics because as far as it's concerned /dev/sda5 doesn't exist. I > can only assume that the kernel it has installed doesn't have the > right module (SiI3112) installed for the SATA controller.
That's an initrd issue then -- since this must have the SATA controller in it.
> Is there a way to check what modules are built into this kernel?
Yes -- have a look at the config file for the kernel in /boot
> Is there a simple way around this? > > Is it best just to build my own kernel to replace the one that has > been installed?
I would have said it was, yes.
-- Thomas Adam
-- "If I were a witch's hat, sitting on her head like a paraffin stove, I'd fly away and be a bat." -- Incredible String Band.
Kapil Hari Paranjape [kapil at imsc.res.in]
Mon, 2 Oct 2006 09:28:15 +0530
Hello,
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006, Neil Youngman wrote:
> Well I've had enough of the creeping bit rot in my Mepis installation and I > want to be rid of Mepis. I'm trying to go back to a plain vanilla Debian > installation. I've also recently upgraded my system with a SATA conroller and > a 200GB hard disk, onto which I tried to install Debian with the Debian 3.1 > net installer.
You missed a golden opportunity to upgrade your Mepis without
installing again 
In principle, any of the following would
have worked:
(a) apt with the appropriate new sources.list (b) (c)debootstrap.Both of these would have been "fun" ... the I-spent-a-week-doing-the-upgrade-but-I-learned-something kind of fun.
> The default install hung, so I went for the "expert" install and got an > installation on the SATA disk. It's definitely there, I can see it, but I > can't boot from it.
You need to install a 2.6 kernel. Use expert26 to boot the install again (or use rescue26) and get it to install the 2.6 kernel image.
> Is there a way to check what modules are built into this kernel?
Debian "stock" kernels rarely have any modules built in nowadays. All hardware support is loaded using modules that sit in the initrd.img.
> Is it best just to build my own kernel to replace the one that has been > installed?
I would say "No". Given the modular nature of the current Debian kernel package it is usually not necessary to re-build it. However, in the interests of seeing both sides here is the list of pros and cons.
Pros: 1. You get to make your computer do some hard work as soon as it is set up. 2. You can build in exactly the drivers you need and skip all the business of auto-loading modules. 3. Disabling module loading in the kernel (as opposed to via the proc interface) may be stronger security. 4. You can work without "udev". (The new kernels in Debian depend on "initramfs-tools" which in turn depends on "udev"). 5. If you have really unusual hardware this may be necessary.Some explanation of (4). The angle is the metaphoric distance between Debian and Gentoo. (Note that it is not 90 just 45Cons: 1. You tie your kernel down to your specific system (think hardware upgrades). 2. You might not be able to use a number of external module packages like "unionfs", "squashfs", "reiserfs4",.... You will have to build these for your kernel yourself. 3. Some of the settings for kernel related packages like "uswsusp", "acpid", "hibernate" assume that you have certain features compiled in. You may not know in advance which features you want. 4. It kind of goes at 45 degrees to Debian philosophy.
)
In Debian you can re-build any package you want. You can even setup your own "buildd" to re-build the system the way it is done for the Debian archive packages (use the "sbuild" package). However, you don't actually do this unless it is necessary.
The reasons are many but an important one is "community". Part of being a community supported distribution is that you trust your co-developers to: '' (a) have built a good package if they have affixed their signature to it. (b) have made decisions regarding that build that would be useful to everyone. (c) have given you just the right amount of configurability so that you can fine tune. '' Having said that there are of course "edge cases" when recompiling with alternate configurations may be necessary. The packages "kernel-package", "module-assistant", "debnest", "pbuilder", "sbuild" and so on are there to help you in this case.
Hope this helps,
Kapil. --
Benjamin A. Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
Mon, 2 Oct 2006 00:38:30 -0400
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:28:15AM +0530, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006, Neil Youngman wrote: > > > Is it best just to build my own kernel to replace the one that has been > > installed? > > I would say "No". Given the modular nature of the current Debian > kernel package it is usually not necessary to re-build it. However, in > the interests of seeing both sides here is the list of pros and cons. > > Pros: > 1. You get to make your computer do some hard work as soon > as it is set up. > 2. You can build in exactly the drivers you need and skip > all the business of auto-loading modules.
...but having to recompile the kernel for every single piece of hardware you add quickly leads to taking a long walk off a short pier.
> 3. Disabling module loading in the kernel (as opposed to > via the proc interface) may be stronger security.
...in much the same way as, say, embedding your computer in a ton of concrete. That is, it becomes nearly as (un)usable.
> Cons: > 1. You tie your kernel down to your specific system (think > hardware upgrades). > 2. You might not be able to use a number of external module > packages like "unionfs", "squashfs", "reiserfs4",.... You > will have to build these for your kernel yourself. > 3. Some of the settings for kernel related packages like > "uswsusp", "acpid", "hibernate" assume that you have > certain features compiled in. You may not know in advance > which features you want.
In fact, you can't do a number of those things without modules - as I learned a while ago, when I was first experimenting with ACPI and ALSA. Neither of these would work properly when compiled into the kernel - not that there was an obvious way to tell. Actually, Kapil, if I recall correctly, I think it was you who clued me into the solution with ALSA; I probably would have kept banging my head against it for quite a while longer otherwise.
* Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://LinuxGazette.NET *
Neil Youngman [ny at youngman.org.uk]
Mon, 2 Oct 2006 09:05:35 +0100
On or around Monday 02 October 2006 04:58, Kapil Hari Paranjape reorganised a bunch of electrons to form the message:
> Hello, > > On Sun, 01 Oct 2006, Neil Youngman wrote: > > Well I've had enough of the creeping bit rot in my Mepis installation and > > I want to be rid of Mepis. I'm trying to go back to a plain vanilla > > Debian installation. I've also recently upgraded my system with a SATA > > conroller and a 200GB hard disk, onto which I tried to install Debian > > with the Debian 3.1 net installer. > > You missed a golden opportunity to upgrade your Mepis without > installing again
I have an 8 month old baby. A week doing the upgrade might be fun, but I'm really not prepared to take that amount of time.
> > The default install hung, so I went for the "expert" install and got an > > installation on the SATA disk. It's definitely there, I can see it, but I > > can't boot from it. > > You need to install a 2.6 kernel. Use expert26 to boot the install > again (or use rescue26) and get it to install the 2.6 kernel image.
It is a 2.6 kernel that's installed (2.6.8)
> > Is there a way to check what modules are built into this kernel? > > Debian "stock" kernels rarely have any modules built in nowadays. > All hardware support is loaded using modules that sit in the initrd.img. > > > Is it best just to build my own kernel to replace the one that has been > > installed? > > I would say "No". Given the modular nature of the current Debian > kernel package it is usually not necessary to re-build it. However, in > the interests of seeing both sides here is the list of pros and cons.
It might not be necessary, but it is a relatively quick and simple way of making sure that it has the right module loaded. If it still doesn't see the SATA disk, it tells me that my initial assumption is wrong and I need to look elsewhere for the problem.
Debugging an initrd.img to see why it's not recognising the disk might be informative, but, at this time, I'd prefer a solution that doesn't require me to learn the ins and out of initrd images.
Neil
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Mon, 2 Oct 2006 01:34:14 -0700
Quoting Neil Youngman (ny at youngman.org.uk):
[You tried to install a Debian 3.1 "sarge" netinst for SiI3112 support.]
> The default install hung, so I went for the "expert" install and got an > installation on the SATA disk. It's definitely there, I can see it, but I > can't boot from it.[...]
> Is there a simple way around this?
Yes. At the boot prompt, instead of the default boot stanza, pick the 2.6 kernel one, which is still non-default as of the "sarge" release. (Hit Tab to see what's available.)
There is some support for Silicon Image 3112 in 2.4 kernels, depending on specific version, but other commentators are correct that 2.6 coverage is a lot better. The guy I shave has spent the last several years documenting this situation: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Hardware/sata.html
-- Cheers, A mosquito cried out in pain: The cause of his sorrow Rick Moen "A chemist has poisoned my brain!" Was para-dichloro rick at linuxmafia.com Diphenyltrichloroethane.
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Mon, 2 Oct 2006 01:39:58 -0700
Quoting Neil Youngman (ny at youngman.org.uk):
> It is a 2.6 kernel that's installed (2.6.8)
Well, how odd. The SiI 3112 has had pretty good coverage for a long time, and I'd have expected the "sarge" default installer to do well with it.
Another page I maintain, http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Debian/installers.html , lists quite a number of third-party Debian netinst images. I have no idea which would be best, but it'll at least furnish some possibilities.
Kapil Hari Paranjape [kapil at imsc.res.in]
Mon, 2 Oct 2006 14:46:01 +0530
Hello,
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006, Neil Youngman wrote:
> > You need to install a 2.6 kernel. Use expert26 to boot the install > > again (or use rescue26) and get it to install the 2.6 kernel image. > > It is a 2.6 kernel that's installed (2.6.8)
Oh!
> Debugging an initrd.img to see why it's not recognising the disk might be > informative, but, at this time, I'd prefer a solution that doesn't require me > to learn the ins and out of initrd images.
I didn't understand your question. All the modules that are built for the default kernel are listed in /boot/config-2.6.8-*. The list for the current "stable" Debian 2.6.8 kernel is enclosed in a gzipped file for yur reference. It seems to support SATA for a number of devices...
Come to think of it. You succeeded in installing your system so I would imagine that the disk is recognised. Perhaps there was an error in installing the initrd.img. Here is a possible way out for you.
Let me assume that you managed to install the system and your problem is that the system doesn't boot from disk with the initially installed kernel image+initrd combination.
Try to boot the installer into "rescue" mode. You will be prompted for the name of the root partition.
After this the system should boot "normally". Of course you do not want to use the CD in "rescue" mode to boot everytime. So let us try to fix that.
apt-get --reinstall install kernel-image-2.6.8-3-686Or you may wish to choose 386 or some other architecture.
Hope this helps,
Kapil.
--
Kapil Hari Paranjape [kapil at imsc.res.in]
Mon, 2 Oct 2006 14:49:58 +0530
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006, Rick Moen wrote:
> Yes. At the boot prompt, instead of the default boot stanza, pick the > 2.6 kernel one, which is still non-default as of the "sarge" release. > (Hit Tab to see what's available.)
Ah! Maybe Neil should ignore my previous message. Rick seems to have found the root of the problem.
Regards,
Kapil. --
Neil Youngman [ny at youngman.org.uk]
Thu, 5 Oct 2006 21:28:46 +0100
On or around Sunday 01 October 2006 19:49, Neil Youngman reorganised a bunch of electrons to form the message:
<SNIP>
> It's on /dev/sda5, and grub loads the kernel up, but the kernel panics > because as far as it's concerned /dev/sda5 doesn't exist. I can only assume > that the kernel it has installed doesn't have the right module (SiI3112) > installed for the SATA controller.
OK, bad assumption. The problem seems to have been the GRUB boot stanza I used for it. I edited an existing boot stanza for Mandrake and got
title Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 root (hd1,4) kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.8-2-386 init=/boot/initrd.img-2.6.8-2-386 root=/dev/sda5 roThis method of specifying the initrd.img apparently doesn't work for Debian 3.1. It definitely used to work with Mandrake 9.2.
I changed the boot stanza to
title Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 root (hd1,4) kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.8-2-386 root=/dev/sda5 ro initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.8-2-386and now it boots just fine.
Neil
Neil Youngman [ny at youngman.org.uk]
Sun, 8 Oct 2006 22:02:09 +0100
On or around Thursday 05 October 2006 21:28, Neil Youngman reorganised a bunch of electrons to form the message:
> On or around Sunday 01 October 2006 19:49, Neil Youngman reorganised a > bunch of electrons to form the message: > > <SNIP> > > > It's on /dev/sda5, and grub loads the kernel up, but the kernel panics > > because as far as it's concerned /dev/sda5 doesn't exist. I can only > > assume that the kernel it has installed doesn't have the right module > > (SiI3112) installed for the SATA controller. > > OK, bad assumption. The problem seems to have been the GRUB boot stanza I > used for it. I edited an existing boot stanza for Mandrake and got > > title Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 > root (hd1,4) > kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.8-2-386 init=/boot/initrd.img-2.6.8-2-386 > root=/dev/sda5 ro > > This method of specifying the initrd.img apparently doesn't work for Debian > 3.1. It definitely used to work with Mandrake 9.2.
OTOH, it may still work for Debian with IDE disks?
> I changed the boot stanza to > > title Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 > root (hd1,4) > kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.8-2-386 root=/dev/sda5 ro > initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.8-2-386
I wonder if the difference is that in the first version the kernel itself tries to load the initrd.img and can't because the driver it needs to load the image is in the image it's trying to load, whereas, in the second boot stanza, I assume that GRUB loads the image before loading the kernel?
Neil
Kapil Hari Paranjape [kapil at imsc.res.in]
Mon, 9 Oct 2006 08:33:20 +0530
Hello
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006, Neil Youngman wrote:
> > I changed the boot stanza to > > > > title Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 > > root (hd1,4) > > kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.8-2-386 root=/dev/sda5 ro > > initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.8-2-386 > > I wonder if the difference is that in the first version the kernel itself > tries to load the initrd.img and can't because the driver it needs to load > the image is in the image it's trying to load, whereas, in the second boot > stanza, I assume that GRUB loads the image before loading the kernel?
I can't say what is supposed to happen in the first instance but certainly in the second instance it is grub that loads the initrd.img into memory and passes the location to the kernel (by putting it in a specific location in the kernel data area).
If what you think does in fact happen then a stock Debian kernel cannot boot with the first line since it has no disk drivers built-in. Even IDE drivers are loaded as modules.
Regards,
Kapil. --
Ramanathan Muthaiah [rus.cahimb at gmail.com]
Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:04:37 +0530
Few days back, I downdloaded the 3 images of Deian 3.1r3 from one of the mirrors.
I burnt the images (iso) in three separate CDs but could not boot from the first CD.
Is this the right way to install Debian ?
Yes, I understand, the Debian installation manual can help me, but could not find the correct answer, hence posting to this forum.
/Ramanathan
Neil Youngman [ny at youngman.org.uk]
Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:09:40 +0100
On or around Sunday 22 October 2006 07:34, Ramanathan Muthaiah reorganised a bunch of electrons to form the message:
> Few days back, I downdloaded the 3 images of Deian 3.1r3 from one of > the mirrors.
Hmm. 3 ISOs is too few for a full Debian install. Have yo installed the 3 update CDs instead of the installation CDs?
Neil Youngman
Ramanathan Muthaiah [rus.cahimb at gmail.com]
Sun, 22 Oct 2006 16:02:39 +0530
> Hmm. 3 ISOs is too few for a full Debian install. Have yo installed the 3 > update CDs instead of the installation CDs?
Am yet to start Debian installation and I wanted to start it from the first CD.
FYI, I downloaded the three images that were part of Debian 3.1 release 3 update and the three images are :
debian-update-3.1r3-i386-1.iso debian-update-3.1r3-i386-2.iso debian-update-3.1r3-i386-3.iso
I hope they are enough.
/Ramanathan
Neil Youngman [ny at youngman.org.uk]
Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:50:43 +0100
On or around Sunday 22 October 2006 11:32, Ramanathan Muthaiah reorganised a bunch of electrons to form the message:
> FYI, I downloaded the three images that were part of Debian 3.1 > release 3 update and the three images are : > > debian-update-3.1r3-i386-1.iso > debian-update-3.1r3-i386-2.iso > debian-update-3.1r3-i386-3.iso > > I hope they are enough.
I doubt it. I would have thought that update CDs are only sufficient to update an existing installation, not to install from scratch.
If you want to minimise the number of CDs you have to create, I would suggest that the network installer is probably best
debian-31r3-i386-netinst.iso
I'm assuming that you have a suitable connection for a network installation, as you have the bandwidth to download CDs.
Assuming that the update CDs are supposed to be bootable, you also need to check the method you used to burn the CD. It's a common error to create a new filesystem on the CD containing the .iso file, rather than copying the filesystem from inside the .iso onto the CD.
If you're burning the CDs with k3b you need "Tools->Burn CD Image", not "new data project".
HTH
Neil Youngman
Ramanathan Muthaiah [rus.cahimb at gmail.com]
Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:07:20 +0530
> I doubt it. I would have thought that update CDs are only sufficient to update > an existing installation, not to install from scratch.
Ifso, then I have wasted two CDs.
> If you want to minimise the number of CDs you have to create, I would suggest > that the network installer is probably best > > debian-31r3-i386-netinst.iso > > I'm assuming that you have a suitable connection for a network installation, > as you have the bandwidth to download CDs.
OK, I tried this, downloaded the net install version of .iso and installed Debian.At the end of installation, it detected other operating systems (Fedora core 5) and updated the GRUB.
Post-installation status:
At the time of installation, Debian could not recognize Ethernet card, hence installed without networking support; but after installation, am able to boot but had to skip the section regd network configuration settings.
Another interesting observation : the system is not able to boot into Fedora (which was working before the installation of Debian), the system tries to load the kernel and then reboots at some point (which am not able to pinpoint).
Looks like, I have to spend time over the weekend and restore working condition with Fedora.
Of course, I have installed Debian on a separate physical second disk than that of Fedora (installed on first hard disk).
> Assuming that the update CDs are supposed to be bootable, you also need to > check the method you used to burn the CD. It's a common error to create a new > filesystem on the CD containing the .iso file, rather than copying the > filesystem from inside the .iso onto the CD. > > If you're burning the CDs with k3b you need "Tools->Burn CD Image", not "new > data project".
Yes, this is how am burning my CDs.
/Ramanathan
Kapil Hari Paranjape [kapil at imsc.res.in]
Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:30:05 +0530
Hello,
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Ramanathan Muthaiah wrote:
> Post-installation status: > > Another interesting observation : the system is not able to boot into > Fedora (which was working before the installation of Debian), the > system tries to load the kernel and then reboots at some point (which > am not able to pinpoint).
Perhaps this is a problem with using the same swap space.
1. You may need to make swap with 'mkswap -v1' to ensure that both systems use the newer type of swap space.
2. You should (of course) not use suspend to swap on one of the
systems and then try to reboot into the other
> Of course, I have installed Debian on a separate physical second disk > than that of Fedora (installed on first hard disk).
That should certainly not be required if you have enough disk space.
Regards,
Kapil. --
Thomas Adam [thomas.adam22 at gmail.com]
Mon, 23 Oct 2006 06:34:50 +0100
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 10:07:20AM +0530, Ramanathan Muthaiah wrote:
> Ifso, then I have wasted two CDs.
I've only been partially reading this thread, but it seems you've already made hard work for yourself without doing some very basic reading off the Debian site about which ISO is for you.
Assuming you have a decent Internet connection all you need is something like the business ISO (~150MB) which will shove a basic shell and console on your machine upon which you can then apt-get a load of stuff fron the 'net. Conversely, if you don't have an Internet connection, you can download all 15 ISOs, and create yourself a distribution from that (or the equivalent DVD ISOs; whichever you prefer).
> OK, I tried this, downloaded the net install version of .iso and > installed Debian.At the end of installation, it detected other > operating systems (Fedora core 5) and updated the GRUB.
Of course; this is what any installation should do, rather than blat it. ;P
> Post-installation status: > > At the time of installation, Debian could not recognize Ethernet card, > hence installed without networking support; but after installation, am > able to boot but had to skip the section regd network configuration > settings.
What card do you have (more importantly what chipset is it?) You can find out using the 'lspci' command amongst others. Note that my only gripe with the netinstall ISO is that like all the others, they seem to default to using a 2.4.X kernel by default. Whilst I can fully see why this is so, it does force more and more people with esoteric hardware to use the 'expert' install option just so they can have a 2,6.X kernel. Alas, not everything backported into 2.4.X at the time of the release.
> Another interesting observation : the system is not able to boot into > Fedora (which was working before the installation of Debian), the > system tries to load the kernel and then reboots at some point (which > am not able to pinpoint).
Then do what anyone else would have done -- get DeadHat to boot into Single User Mode:
Linux SThen you can:
telinit 3(Which under DeadRat is everything bar $DISPLAY_MANAGER) and see what happens. I suspect though it's booting before it ever reaches Init in which case it could be that the two kernels are trying to share the same initrd, or somesuch.
-- Thomas Adam
-- "Wanting to feel; to know what is real. Living is a lie." -- Purpoise Song, by The Monkees.
Martin Hooper [martinjh at blueyonder.co.uk]
Mon, 23 Oct 2006 07:13:46 +0100
On 23/10/2006 Thomas Adam wrote:
> Conversely, if you don't have an Internet > connection, you can download all 15 ISOs, and create yourself a > distribution from that (or the equivalent DVD ISOs; whichever you > prefer).
Talking of which do you need both of the DVD ISO's to install Debian??
Just wondering...
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:23:42 -0700
Quoting Martin Hooper (martinjh at blueyonder.co.uk):
> Talking of which do you need both of the DVD ISO's to install Debian??
No, you don't.
You can install a reasonable Debian system using CD#1 or DVD#1 only -- or the business card image or netinst image plus Internet access.
Additional disks just have packages and catalogues of more software. Over here in cheap-bandwidth land (USA and Canada), it's most common to use netinst + Internet, on grounds that any Linux CD image you burn and use was already obsolete on release day, you're going to replace the contents from Internet updates anyway, and so you might as well use as small a CD as possible. (This logic applies much more on the quicker-moving Testing and Unstable branch than in the slow lane that is Debian Stable.)
On the other hand, if you expect to do off-Net installs, that might be a sufficient reason to download all 17 or whatever Official Debian CD ISOs. (I personally never do.)
FYI: The ncurses installer on Ubuntu's "Alternate Disk" (the only Ubuntu installer prior to Dapper Drake) is taken directly from Debian, altering it pretty much just to supply default answers to some questions that would otherwise be asked. As Mark Pilgrim puts it, "Ubuntu is an ancient African word for 'can't install Debian'."
John Karns [johnkarns at gmail.com]
Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:48:53 -0500 (COT)
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Rick Moen wrote:
> FYI: The ncurses installer on Ubuntu's "Alternate Disk" (the only > Ubuntu installer prior to Dapper Drake) is taken directly from Debian, > altering it pretty much just to supply default answers to some questions > that would otherwise be asked.
Does that include the hardware detection as well? I was under the impression that it was extended / enhanced, although admittedly I'm at a loss to remember how I arrived at that understanding.
> As Mark Pilgrim puts it, "Ubuntu is an > ancient African word for 'can't install Debian'."
<chuckle> While I offer kudos for his sense of humor, I'm lazy enough to prefer not having to drudge through what would probably be several days of having to sift through individual package installs (for someone who is a new or relatively new Debian user) to arrive at having a "comfortable" system configuration.[1] While I've gone through doing it with other distros in the past, I think Ubuntu offers a nice shortcut to getting a Debian based up and running in a very short time. Now if they just had an ISO tailored for [56]86 architectures instead of the more vanilla 386.
[1] For an environment which will serve as a system for general personal use, I find myself installing numerous development libraries, as well as both KDE And Gnome to support running various multimedia apps, the ability to compile things like "transcode" (which demanded a lot of schlepping for auxiliary packages right there), etc anyway, so that tends to cancel out the advantage of carefully choosing the package set during install for me anyway.
Of course it's different in cases where one is setting up a server or a workstation which will have a narrow scope of use.
-- John Karns
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:12:42 -0700
Quoting John Karns (johnkarns at gmail.com):
> Does that include the hardware detection as well? I was under the > impression that it was extended / enhanced, although admittedly I'm at a > loss to remember how I arrived at that understanding.
I don't think so.
The current "debian-installer" ("d-i") program used in Debian 3.0 "Sarge" and later incorporates many hardware-autorecognition programs not automatically included by the prior "boot-floppies" installer program of 2.2 Potato and earlier. I vaguely recall there being no additional modules included in Ubuntu's recycling of d-i, though I could be wrong.
I kept for many years a roster of optional hardware-autorecognition packages in http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Debian/ , but it's probably a bit out of date. My personal general attitude was always that such programs cause way too many problems and (e.g.) inexplicably hangs because some option ROM was poked the wrong way, so I thought it A Very Good Thing for those to not be installed and activated by default.
Now that such things are tending to be installed by default, in the event of trouble, you have to abort and try again in "expert" mode so that you can disable them.
> <chuckle> While I offer kudos for his sense of humor, I'm lazy enough to > prefer not having to drudge through what would probably be several days of > having to sift through individual package installs (for someone who is a > new or relatively new Debian user) to arrive at having a "comfortable" > system configuration.[1]
I'm guessing you slogged through the ancient boot-floppies installer of yesteryear, possibly getting bogged down in the swamp that is the dselect program, like a lot of us old-timers. That's been pretty much just a bad memory for the last couple of years.
> While I've gone through doing it with other distros in the past, I > think Ubuntu offers a nice shortcut to getting a Debian based up and > running in a very short time. Now if they just had an ISO tailored > for [56]86 architectures instead of the more vanilla 386.
Pentium and PPro-optimized kernels are one apt-get command (or, if you insist, aptitude, synaptic, or what-have-you) away, on Ubuntu. Less so for other packages, but you're dreaming if you think significant gains can be made there.
> [1] For an environment which will serve as a system for general personal > use, I find myself installing numerous development libraries, as well as > both KDE And Gnome to support running various multimedia apps, the ability > to compile things like "transcode" (which demanded a lot of schlepping for > auxiliary packages right there), etc anyway, so that tends to cancel out > the advantage of carefully choosing the package set during install for me > anyway.
Even before they got rid of boot-floppies, the Debian people already offered a choice of either the dselect swamp or the "tasksel" metapackage (package groups) picker, for the latter part of installation. "tasksel" was described as the "simple package selection" choice in the install screens, if memory serves.
John Karns [johnkarns at gmail.com]
Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:38:55 -0500 (COT)
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting John Karns (johnkarns at gmail.com): > > My personal general attitude was always that such programs cause way > too many problems and (e.g.) inexplicably hangs because some option ROM > was poked the wrong way, so I thought it A Very Good Thing for those to > not be installed and activated by default. > > Now that such things are tending to be installed by default, in the > event of trouble, you have to abort and try again in "expert" mode so > that you can disable them.
That conjures the thought of having a menu option or a prompt in Ubuntu's text install mode, to bypass the probing.
>> <chuckle> While I offer kudos for his sense of humor, I'm lazy enough to >> prefer not having to drudge through what would probably be several days of >> having to sift through individual package installs (for someone who is a >> new or relatively new Debian user) to arrive at having a "comfortable" >> system configuration.[1] > > I'm guessing you slogged through the ancient boot-floppies installer of > yesteryear, possibly getting bogged down in the swamp that is the > dselect program, like a lot of us old-timers. That's been pretty much > just a bad memory for the last couple of years.
Yeah, I was thinking mostly of the Sarge install I tried a couple of years back. The install completed without a problem, but then when I was confronted by the thought of having to go through setting up / tuning X to get from wherever the install had left it to where I envisioned having it, I decided that I'd try something else.
>> While I've gone through doing it with other distros in the past, I >> think Ubuntu offers a nice shortcut to getting a Debian based up and >> running in a very short time. Now if they just had an ISO tailored >> for [56]86 architectures instead of the more vanilla 386. > > Pentium and PPro-optimized kernels are one apt-get command (or, if you > insist, aptitude, synaptic, or what-have-you) away, on Ubuntu. Less so > for other packages, but you're dreaming if you think significant gains > can be made there.
Since the Linux kernel has reached the maturity level it currently has with the 2.6 series, I find myself twiddling the configuration a lot less frequently than I remember doing in years past, but I'm still partial to running a stock kernel which I've compiled myself. So I was referring to the packaged binaries.
In most situations the difference is probably just academic, but in some cases, e.g., "transcode", where one is dealing with long, CPU intensive processes, the difference becomes a practical one. This is where the Gentoo users have an edge. Although must say that I don't find the thought of compiling Open Office, KDE, etc. very entertaining either.
>> [1] For an environment which will serve as a system for general personal >> use, I find myself installing numerous development libraries, as well as >> both KDE And Gnome to support running various multimedia apps, the ability >> to compile things like "transcode" (which demanded a lot of schlepping for >> auxiliary packages right there), etc anyway, so that tends to cancel out >> the advantage of carefully choosing the package set during install for me >> anyway. > > Even before they got rid of boot-floppies, the Debian people already > offered a choice of either the dselect swamp or the "tasksel" > metapackage (package groups) picker, for the latter part of > installation. "tasksel" was described as the "simple package selection" > choice in the install screens, if memory serves.
Sometime in the future I'll have to try find some time to try a more recent Debian release to see where I might end up with it. I tend to envision taking the approach of doing a lighter weight install, then filling it out using a tool like synaptic or adept.
I guess the point I was trying to make is that although a distro like Ubuntu or $PICK-A-DISTRO-AIMED-AT-NEWBIES may have it's origins in being designed for the non-geek users out there who are looking to replace the more ubiquitous family of OS's, the easier installs and the ready-to-use configuration can also provide a choice for more convenience for some of the more experienced users too.
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:34:03 -0700
Quoting John Karns (johnkarns at gmail.com):
> Yeah, I was thinking mostly of the Sarge install I tried a couple of years > back. The install completed without a problem, but then when I was > confronted by the thought of having to go through setting up / tuning X to > get from wherever the install had left it to where I envisioned having it, > I decided that I'd try something else.
Confronted with the same problem, I spent ten minutes browsing the Web and package catalogues, to see what optional hardware-autorecognition packages might be relevant to X11 -- and immediately found read-edid (hardware information-gathering tool for VESA PnP monitors), discover (likewise improves video probing), kudzu, kudzu-vesa (VBE/DDC stuff for autodetecting monitor characteristics), and mdetect (mouse detection). All of those assist X11 setup, if present.
And, being publicly spirited, I spent the next ten mintues creating http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Debian/hardware-detection.html .
> In most situations the difference is probably just academic, but in some > cases, e.g., "transcode", where one is dealing with long, CPU intensive > processes, the difference becomes a practical one.
Could be as high as a 10% gain, in edge cases -- in my experience. Of course, one can do that with Debian source packages and tools, if so inclined.
> I guess the point I was trying to make is that although a distro like > Ubuntu or $PICK-A-DISTRO-AIMED-AT-NEWBIES may have it's origins in being > designed for the non-geek users out there who are looking to replace the > more ubiquitous family of OS's, the easier installs and the ready-to-use > configuration can also provide a choice for more convenience for some of > the more experienced users too.
You're making the common error of confusing a distribution with an installer. There are actually dozens of very distinct installers that can produce a Debian system, some of them droolingly simple and GUIfied. See: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Debian/installers.html (in need of updating, but it illustrates the concept)
Kapil Hari Paranjape [kapil at imsc.res.in]
Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:03:54 +0530
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Rick Moen wrote:
> You're making the common error of confusing a distribution with an > installer. There are actually dozens of very distinct installers that > can produce a Debian system, some of them droolingly simple and GUIfied. > See: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Debian/installers.html (in need of > updating, but it illustrates the concept)
The new "etch" installer for Debian has (at least) the following "features":
1. Can install from USB|CD|floppy|hard-disk. The former is really useful when your SATA controller doesn't combine with "linux" to give access to your CD-ROM. 2. Has a GTK/X/VESA install for those who need it. 3. Can create LVM|Raid|Encrypted file systems at installation time. 4. On-line as well as off-line installation. Can help if your network card is so new that the driver has not been integrated with "linux".[*]
As you say "install" is an over-rated aspect of Distribution comparison.
What Ubuntu could do for those Debian users who wish to track "testing/unstable", but not worry about random breakage, is to give them a system that they do^H^Hshould not need to update too often. Unfortunately, Ubuntu haven't quite achieved that goal, since the number of updates, that follow an base install before the next release, is similar to the number of updates that one makes by running "testing" even with bits from unstable. At least this is my experience.
Regards,
Kapil.
[*] What is the correct capitalisation rule for "linux"---the kernel? The problem with using "Linux" is well-known---one set of people think you are writing about the system as a whole while another set thinks you are one of the first set and so set about correcting you. --