Submitted by “Debian GNU/Linux used to have a reputation as the toughest GNU/Linux distribution to install, yet the easiest to maintain. In fact, Debian’s package management system has played a huge role in the proliferation of projects based on Debian. Suffice it to say that anyone who can install their own operating system can generally install Debian Etch with little or no trouble. If you’ve never installed Debian before, it’s fairly easy to walk through the default installation without realizing you have options. Let’s explore the Debian Installer, to find out just what options we do have.”
Nice overview of the current state of debian-installer. Good timing, too, because the (hopefully) final version of the Etch installer, RC2, is scheduled for release in 19.3.2007.
Screenshots of debian-installer RC1, using the GTK interface:
http://shots.linuxquestions.org/?linux_distribution_sm=Debian-Insta…
“””
Nice overview of the current state of debian-installer. Good timing, too,
“””
The new installer looks like a huge improvement.
Welcome to the 1990’s, Debian!
Edited 2007-03-11 18:12
Back in the old days, the debian installer was even more primative. You had to know things like the PCI card indentifier and the frequemcy of your mouse. Even the current installer is 100% better.
zizban: Back in the old days, the debian installer was even more primative. You had to know things like the PCI card indentifier and the frequemcy of your mouse. Even the current installer is 100% better.
Don’t get me wrong, but WTF is the “frequency [sic] of your mouse?” My first Debian was only Potato and I have no idea what you are talking about.
You don’t remember having to set that? lucky you:
basically thats how fast the mouse sends the information to the computer. the faster the beter of course
zizban: You don’t remember having to set that? lucky you:
basically thats how fast the mouse sends the information to the computer. the faster the beter of course
Oh, you mean the baud rate. Yes, I remember baud rates, MS Windows 3.1 and even OS/2 2.1 (Warp certainly didn’t) needed them for mice sometimes. I can’t recall that Red Hat 5.2 (my 1st GNU/Linux *sniff*) expected something like this.
Thanks for the info.
Oh, you mean the baud rate. Yes, I remember baud rates, MS Windows 3.1 and even OS/2 2.1 (Warp certainly didn’t) needed them for mice sometimes. I can’t recall that Red Hat 5.2 (my 1st GNU/Linux *sniff*) expected something like this.
I remember my first ‘box set’ Red Hat 6.0 Professional edition during the install I was lost when it was asking about / (root), swap and so on….. In 1999 my how time has went by it is amazing how it has progressed and surpassed Windows in every facet.
Thank you for using the word ‘primitive’ !
Until Ubuntu, most Linux installers I’d dabbled with over 6 yrs. were decidedly PRIMITIVE,
and thus I never established a day-to-day working Linux system until now, in 2007.
The last one I dabbled with (an early v. of SUSE) required me to build my own software modem for dialup.
Were they kidding? With Windoze simplicity around?
Hello-o-o?
Personally, I like the concept of having a core application with different frontends, such as it has been mentioned in the article: Text, Newt, Gtk. This makes installation via serial console possible (or on GPUs X does not autodetect correctly).
I’d like to know if the german internalisation is acceptable. Does it differ between standard german and newspeak german (such as it differences between british and american english)? Furthermore, is a serial mouse automatically supported?
Thanks for the screenshots. They show that the installatoin preparation process is split in many single steps that do not require much “professional” knowledge. So Debian might be worth a try even for beginners (who just know the basics).
Edited 2007-03-11 00:50
Doc Pain: I’d like to know if the german internalisation is acceptable. Does it differ between standard german and newspeak german (such as it differences between british and american english)? Furthermore, is a serial mouse automatically supported?
German support is adequate, certainly not worse than Ubuntu’s. I reported a lot of issues last year and most have been more than fixed. I do not understand the difference between standard and newspeak, but if you expect an installer devoid of IT terminology, you are going to be disappointed.
The GUI installer recognizes RS232 (serial), PS2 and USB mice without problems.
“I do not understand the difference between standard and newspeak, but if you expect an installer devoid of IT terminology, you are going to be disappointed.”
So let me elaborate on this a bit: “Newspeak” (Neusprech) refers to a dyslexia-like use of the german language, such as the usage of capital letters, connected and disconnected words, proper cases, hyphenation and the use of ligatures. Standard german refers to the common regulated and confimed orthography, grammar, and punctuation, which is no longer part of the basic education here in Germany.
It would be nice to have de_DE and de_NS separated.
The evasion of IT termini technici is not ment. Most of these terms (with their origin in the english language) are part of the common education, so there’s no problem to know what “E-Mail”, “Browser” or “Interface” refers to. There are some ill translations of IT termini technici floating around, but they’re not common, so nobody really uses them. Just to mention an example, the term “Weltnetz” (world net) refers to the Internet and the WWW as well, because the inventor(s) of the term surely didn’t know the difference.
“The GUI installer recognizes RS232 (serial), PS2 and USB mice without problems.”
I’m glad to hear this. Allthoug serial mice are considered obsolete, they’re still in use. For example, PC-BSD needs a manual setup to make them working, while USB mice are no problem.
I’ll surely give Debian a try, I think I’ll like it because it features “outdated methods” (using the keyboard and the console) along with “modern methods” (GUI solutions). Allthoug I prefer UNIXes such as FreeBSD, Solaris and IRIX, Debian with its new installer is interesting for me, at least for an evualuation if it’s “good enough” do be given to friends and family. NB: First test, then share, else you’ll earn complaints only.
Doc Pain: So let me elaborate on this a bit: “Newspeak” (Neusprech) refers to a dyslexia-like use of the german language, such as the usage of capital letters, connected and disconnected words, proper cases, hyphenation and the use of ligatures. Standard german refers to the common regulated and confimed orthography, grammar, and punctuation, which is no longer part of the basic education here in Germany.
The installer mostly follows the 3rd edition of the reformed orthography of 2006. Older modules may contain 2nd edition reform orthography, but I’m not intimate with the details. It is just what I noted during my last test.
It would be nice to have de_DE and de_NS separated.
Whatever that means.
“The installer mostly follows the 3rd edition of the reformed orthography of 2006. Older modules may contain 2nd edition reform orthography, but I’m not intimate with the details. It is just what I noted during my last test. “
So it’s an outdated unofficial german dialect… BTW, the official reform orthography is dated to 1996 by law. Depending on the federal state, there are many different dialects. But that’s a topic for another forum.
“Whatever that [de_DE, de_NS] means.”
de_NS (newspeak) is intended to cover all german dialects (about 20 different orthographies are known at the moment), no matter if spelling, hyphenation etc. is correct, while de_DE would provide the standard (unified) german language, regardless of any reformatory nonsense or mistake. (LaTeX and OpenOffice still are able to produce accurate results, proper dictionaries are still available.)
But as I said, another topic. Non german OSN readers must think we’re completely mad in Germany, teaching a different german language in every nearly school…
But as I said, another topic. Non german OSN readers must think we’re completely mad in Germany, teaching a different german language in every nearly school…
Dunno about that, though it was a bit strange to see people chatting about an insidious method of societal brainwashing practised by a totalitarian regime to erode and eventually destroy the very concept of dissent (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak )…
…and they aren’t even discussing Microsoft (ba-dum tish!)
I think that’s one occasion where the literal translation of a term is perhaps not the best option
“Dunno about that, though it was a bit strange to see people chatting about an insidious method of societal brainwashing practised by a totalitarian regime to erode and eventually destroy the very concept of dissent (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak )…”
You’ll notice impressive parallels. If people are not longer given means to express their thoughts in a form of written language, or, in the german case, if the language is modified in order to erode semantic differences, there are problems developing. Especially because there is no authority controlling or permitting the language ruleset. So I could sell a book myself and call it “The new official german orthography”. All the different dictionaries are just suggestions without any legitimation. They do not contain the language spoken and written. Very strange… As you might know from the result of the PISA surveys, basic knowledge (reading, writing = being able to use the language as a basic means of culture) is decreasing constantly. Where does this lead to?
“…and they aren’t even discussing Microsoft (ba-dum tish!)”
Hell no! MICROS~1 is “pro education”, they even want schools to buy expensive new computers in order to run some of their expensive products because that’s cool for the kids!
“I think that’s one occasion where the literal translation of a term is perhaps not the best option
“
Be S a sentence of a finite number of words w0, w1, w2, …, wn, then the translation T(S) is not to be evaluated by T(w0), T(w1), … T(wn).
The german term “Neusprech” refers to a desolation and destructuration of language, you could call it “arbitrary writing”, too. The term deliberately connects to the connotations we have from Orwell’s “Newspeak”.
But as I said, a topic for another place.
“But as I said, another topic. Non german OSN readers must think we’re completely mad in Germany, teaching a different german language in every nearly school… :-)”
Why would you think that ? Here in the US we don’t even teach English anymore. But we do get teachers certified to teach foreign languages such as Ebonics.
“Why would you think that ? Here in the US we don’t even teach English anymore. But we do get teachers certified to teach foreign languages such as Ebonics.”
As far as I know – I hope I’m not insulting anyone! – the standards of common knowledge in the US is not as high as it could / should be, but the language knowledge is present at an acceptable amount. If you look at Germany, professional schools (“Berufsschule”: the school you go to when you’re learning a profession) start teaching reading, writing and calculating to youths that have 8 or 10 years in elementary and graduate school behind them. They are not able to use these basic means of communication and interaction.
I cannot imagine that english is no longer part of the basic education in the elementary school in the US. Is this really correct? I simply cannot believe this. Schools not teaching the own native language…
And do all federal states in the US have different language specifications? Is it “OS News” in Montana, while it is “OS Nyous” in Florida?
Non german OSN readers must think we’re completely mad in Germany, teaching a different german language in every nearly school.
Is this really the case? I thought all German native speakers, including us Austrians, were taught the same German in School.
Obviously there are dialects and variants, but usually they are learned autonomously rather than being taught.
“Is this really the case? I thought all German native speakers, including us Austrians, were taught the same German in School.”
Yes, it is correct. Differnt schools, even if they’re located in the same federal state, use different publications of dictionaries, some are older, some are newer, some are from another distributor, and even the teachers don’t know exactly. Language contents changes twice a year.
In Germany there is no authority controlling or verifying the different dictionaries released by publishers. Furthermore, as it has been decided by the federal constitutional court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) in 1997, orthography is a matter of the government of the federal states, not of the federal government itself. So, back to the sectionalism of 1800.
And the BVerG also decided a very interesting fact: No one is forced (!) to use any of the “new” orthograohies. Every individual has the right (!) to write how he or she wants. That leads the language education in schools ad absurdum, because the teacher no longer may give a mark for incorrect orthography because it’s the pupil’s individual right! Strangs, isn’t it? (Proof: adjudgement of the first senate of the federal constitutional, July 14th 1998, reference
1 BvR 1640 / 97, guidelines)
I don’t know which authority in Austria is set up to control the use of language or what dictionaries are to be relied on, maybe you could tell me.
A few examples for common confusion:
leid tun – Leid tun – leidtun
kennenlernen – kennen lernen – kennenlernen
feststehen (to be definite) – fest stehen (to stand close)
aufgrund – auf Grund
zur Zeit – zurzeit
sogenannt – so genannt
Tolpatsch – Tollpatsch
Mayonnaise – Majon"ase
zusammen schreiben – zusammengeschreiben
(but: getrennt schreiben – getrennt schreiben)
Thunfisch – Tunfisch
(but: Thron – Thron)
(I’m avoiding examples using the Eszett ligature because it won’t be displayed correctly everywhere. This complicated way of first havng some ss set to Eszett and then setting back some of the Eszett back to ss was abolished in Austria over 100 years ago, now it has its “revival” in Germany. Switzerland does not use any Eszett.)
Scientists have no problem to explain why this word is written this way and that word that way. But the “Newspeakers” are not able to. From a scientific point of view, they’re just babbling nonsense.
While in one school it is “zusammenschreiben”, in another school it’s “zusammen schreiben”. Or even if it’s another teacher correcting the paper. There’s a high grade of uncertainness especially in the three big fields: Connected or disconnected? With capitals or not? Comma? Additional problems usually occur with the use of the Eszett ligature. The children who learned an orthography when they got into school 8 years ago have lots of problems using the actual orthography which is essentially different from what they were taught is correct.
If you have a look at the universities and read scientifical papers, you could sometimes barf all over it! (I’ve seen it myself when I was at university.)
The amount of books written without orthography, grammar and punctuation errors is decreasing, sadly. Books written up to 1995 are fine, everything after this is mostly a disaster. Only few publishers, newspapers and scientists use the german standard orthography, which, from a viewpoint of language science, is the easiest to read and most effective in regards of typesetting. Furthermore, polls have proffed that all the “new orthographies” (depenting on publisher and year, new conservative, new moderate konservative, new moderate progressive, new progressive, governmental etc.) do not have a backing in the society. (I did a study on this when I was at the university.) Escpeially print media are avoiding some subsets of the “new orthography”, such as “new” rules for punctuation.
“Obviously there are dialects and variants, but usually they are learned autonomously rather than being taught.”
No, this concept of confusion (and commerce: selling new books every year) does not include dialects. Allthoug the german newspeak principle propagates “everything is written as it is spoken”, this does not include dialects. You’re correct, they’re not taught, they’re usually assimilated by social contact.
Maybe you’d like to read a shord summary of Dr. M. Pohl from the “german world of language”: http://www.deutsche-sprachwelt.de/berichte/rsr/pohl01.shtml Don’t miss the work of Dr. Th. Ickler, too.
For all who want to discuss this any further with me, feel free to send me a mail to docpain -at- edvax -dot- de.
The options to fully encrypt your partitions with LUKS is great for laptop users with some notion of privacy and far beyond any other GNU/Linux installer I’ve seen. Now if only it was possible to input all decryption keys at the same time instead for having to babysit the boot-up process and type them whenever needed…
One thing that puzzles me though is that it is possible to select file system types for /boot which grub does not handle rendering the system unbootable.
I’ve always found that the installer itself (textmode was my choice) was quick and it did the job very nicely.
My choice was to use the net-install CD’s, and my only complaint would have to be how terrible the wireless support is in the installer, or should I say complete lack of support. It would be nice, even if I’m only to expect the most basic fireware installed by defaut (open source ones only, due to Debian’s choice) it would be nice.
Otherwise, great installer, very streamlined, fast and it works.
I can’t see what the big fuss is about, as installers go, it’s still very very primative. I remember when I was using Libranet, they wrote a custom installation wizard that worked, and worked exceptionally well, including allowing you to change partitioning details at the same time, same screen. If a single man distro can do it in 3-6 months, then why the hell has it taken an organisation like Debian so long? Sorry, but the new Debian installer might be better than previous versions, but it still falls an awful long way short of being really useful imho.
Dave
I really wouldn’t call the debian-installer primitive when compared to the installers of other distros. I would also strongly disagree with your opinion on the debian-installer’s usefulness. Maybe you could add some details and tell what kind of problems you’ve experienced using the debian-installer?
You ask what the big fuss is about. There are both historical and technical reasons for celebrating the debian-installer. The main historical reason is that although many people think that Debian is sweet once you manage to install it, Debian also has the reputation to be one of the most difficult-to-install GNU/Linux distros out there. The debian-installer was introduced in the Sarge release (2005) and before that Debian had just a set of install floppies.
Libranet and Knoppix became popular because they made installing Debian easy. (Well, Knoppix has also other merits — is a good live-CD.) Then Ubuntu adopted the Sarge installer in 2004 (before Sarge was released) and people certainly didn’t say “Welcome to the 1990’s, Ubuntu!” Instead, they said “Hooray! Ubuntu has made installing Debian easy!” I doubt that Ubuntu would have ever become popular without the debian-installer.
More history of the debian-installer here:
http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/d-i_retrospective.html
Technical reasons why the debian-installer could be considered better than the Libranet installer include, among other things, support for many languages and processor architectures. If you have read the article we’re currently discussing, you also know that the debian-installer is very flexible and you can modify the installation process according to your needs.
More technical reasons here:
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller
“””
If you have read the article we’re currently discussing, you also know that the debian-installer is very flexible and you can modify the installation process according to your needs.
“””
Not really. I’ll take Anaconda with Kickstart any day. The installer discussed does look horrendously primitive to my eye.
I don’t understand why an organization with the talent, and number of developers, that Debian claims to have can’t get this right.
Not really. I’ll take Anaconda with Kickstart any day. The installer discussed does look horrendously primitive to my eye.
I don’t understand why an organization with the talent, and number of developers, that Debian claims to have can’t get this right.
To each their own. I think that the Debian installer is elegent in its simplicity, and works as smooth as butter, as opposed to Anaconda, which works but seems more slow and quirky to me.
If you want to “prettify” it, have you tried the graphical version yet? d-i is modular, so anyone can write an even more pleasing-to-the-eye front-end to it whenever they want. I’ll take its rock-solid stability over a pretty front-end any day though.
“””
I think that the Debian installer is elegent in its simplicity, and works as smooth as butter
“””
You are completely missing the point.
I care more about flexibility than pretty. It’s just that Anaconda happens to have both.
You can have the elegance and simplicity of the Debian installer… whatever that is supposed to mean. Seems to me, its just simple.
And the butter is likely to give you a heart attack. I would advise cutting down. (No offense, Butters. )
For deployment at client sites, I still prefer Anaconda/Kickstart.
For installation in your parents’ basement, Debian’s installer may be OK.
Edited 2007-03-12 22:38
I hate to feed the trolls, but…
Debian is the base of many more distributions than Fedora, so it must be doing something right. The top home user distro right now is Ubuntu, and Debian itself is very well respected as a server (though I like it as a desktop too). Speaking of Ubuntu, its text-based installer for those who can’t, for whatever reason (unsupported video card or RAID or whatnot) use ubiquity uses…the Debian Installer.
I’m not saying that Anaconda doesn’t have its strengths, but to propose that it’s superior simply because you like it better doesn’t mean anything. Let’s say that you’re right that Anaconda is more flexible for corporate deployment (I don’t do corporate deployments so I can’t say either way)…does that help if your corporation has lots of old DEC Alpha machines that they are repurposing? Debian is much more cross-platform. In other words, your precious Anaconda isn’t better in all situations, or even most.
I never claimed that d-i was superior for everyone, just that I find it much better for myself. You might want to learn some humility yourself.
Cut down on your margarine with all its partially hydrogynated oils and then talk to me about the health of butter.
And your parents’ basement is more likely to be running Gentoo than either Debian or Red Hat/Fedora.
“””
I’m not saying that Anaconda doesn’t have its strengths, but to propose that it’s superior simply because you like it better doesn’t mean anything.
“””
I’m the one giving giving concrete reasons for finding Anaconda superior. I’m not the one referencing abstractions like “elegance”.
For automated deployment in the business world, Debian’s installer is a nonstarter.
And as you admit, it’s not pretty or friendly, so it’s not the best for home installations, either.
Perhaps there is a niche market out there that needs “elegant simplicity” without actual capability.
“””
Let’s say that you’re right that Anaconda is more flexible for corporate deployment (I don’t do corporate deployments so I can’t say either way)
“””
That’s obvious enough…
I hate to be the one to break it to you… but the DEC Alpha architecture died several years ago.
Are you saying that dead architectures, obscure even in their heyday, are the future of Linux?
“””
Cut down on your margarine with all its partially hydrogynated oils and then talk to me about the health of butter.
“””
Well, I switched to soft tub margarine about 20 years ago. Hard stick margarine may have enough trans fats to be nearly as damaging as butter. But soft, tub style, margarine has always had little. And today has none. (Actually, I use extra virgin olive oil for most everything these days.)
But I would further recommend that you avoid the Koolaid, as well. You seem… susceptible.
Edited 2007-03-12 23:35
I’m the one giving giving concrete reasons for finding Anaconda superior. I’m not the one referencing abstractions like “elegance”.
No, but I was never claiming it to be the best for everyone and everything, so subjective reasons are just fine. And you haven’t given any concrete reasons yourself, just anectodes, which are impossible to prove or deny. (I did give one concrete example of one area of superiority though: portability.) Speaking of which…
Are you saying that dead architectures, obscure even in their heyday, are the future of Linux?
No, just that no one installer is best for everything. Business deployments are not the end-all, be-all either. In fact, often people using something at home will lead them to ask about it at work. Just ask our friendly monopolist, Microsoft. Ubuntu is the distro to keep an eye on at this moment, whatever my personal feelings about it.
And as you admit, it’s not pretty or friendly, so it’s not the best for home installations, either.
I never said it wasn’t friendly. The actual steps (partitioning, root password, normal user, selecting whether it’s a desktop or a server, etc…), are pretty standard. Put a home user in front of either (with the GTK+ version of the Debian installer), and it will look pretty much the same.
As for beauty, it’s in the eye of the beholder (I don’t think either is particularly pretty). All I was saying is that, thanks to its modularity, the front-end is easily changed. If you think it’s ugly, make it more pretty yourself. (And a non-pretty, text-based installer never stopped people, even some “dumb” home users with the help of their power-user friends, from reinstalling Win2K/WinXP when necessary.)
For non-standard installations, that’s where the differences will show. And I still submit that Anaconda is better in some situations, d-i in others.
As for the Kool-aid quip, just stop with the personal insults. They add nothing to the conversation and do nothing to further your position.
“””
And you haven’t given any concrete reasons yourself, just anectodes, which are impossible to prove or deny.
“””
Send me a CD that uses the Debian installer that I can pop into pretty much any machine that I find at a client site that will install Linux on its local hard drive and have it automatically reboot into a login screen from the local XDMCP server.
It needs to start esd from inittab.
But if it is not on the local lan and is talking to the server over a WAN link, it needs to be smart enough to install and configure nxclient, as well, and disable esd.
And please don’t have it run any unneeded services. But do have it run needed ones, like cupsd, on those workstations with printers attached.
I do this every day… with Anaconda and Kickstart.
Is that concrete enough?
Let me know when you have completed your assignment.
The debian-installer has an in-built capacity for automatic installs that equals Anaconda and Kickstart. What you can do with it depends on the skills of the administrator. If you’re genuinely interested, take a look at the documentation and examples:
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/Preseed
Amen.
Dave
Quote: “I really wouldn’t call the debian-installer primitive when compared to the installers of other distros.”
Well, I would. Anaconda from circa 97 is better than the current Debian installer imho.
Quote: “Debian also has the reputation to be one of the most difficult-to-install GNU/Linux distros out there”
Bullshit. I didn’t have any issues with installing Debian ‘Woody’ going back several years.
Quote: “Libranet and Knoppix became popular because they made installing Debian easy”
Well duh, yes. Libranet offered a fair bit more than that though. Knoppix was rarely used to install Debian onto a system imho, from my experience. It was used to diagnose problematic systems.
Quote: “The debian-installer was introduced in the Sarge release (2005) and before that Debian had just a set of install floppies.”
It’s been a while since I’ve installed Woody, I seem to remember some floppies, yes, I don’t remember them being particularly difficult to do. Hell, Microsoft didn’t have bootable CD media until Windows 2000 and people managed just fine…
Quote: “I doubt that Ubuntu would have ever become popular without the debian-installer.”
Ubuntu became popular cos it was free, and had the latest and greatest Gnome. The rest is just fanboy stuff. I still think Ubuntu is vastly overrated.
Quote: “Technical reasons why the debian-installer could be considered better than the Libranet installer include, among other things, support for many languages and processor architectures.”
I see. Tell me, why is it logical to waste time developing and testing an installer on different architectures, delaying a project beyond time immemorial, when said architectures are used by 0.0002% of computer users around the world? Better to drop these archaic architectures and concentrate on the real world, where real users are. This is primarily why Debian has fallen so far behind. This belief that we must support M68K, Alpha, PPC etc etc is idiotic. There are only 2 real architectures worth supporting imho, and that’s i386, and AMD64. As soon as Debian wakes up and realises this, then they’ll make their life a lot easier, and I suspect their releases a lot timelier. Ubuntu realised this early on, and only supported the architectures that counted. So did Libranet.
As to languages, English is THE language. Like it or not, it’s the top dog in the language arena. It is spoken by more people than any other language, it is, these days, universally accepted as the universal language by all sane people. I personally detest the English language for a variety of linguistic reasons, but that is beside the point. Libranet was based in Canada, a primarily English speaking country, so it made sense that English was supported. Adding other languages adds unneccessary complications imho. Other than that, the Libranet installer absolutely hammered the hell out of the current Debian installer.
Quote: “If you have read the article we’re currently discussing, you also know that the debian-installer is very flexible and you can modify the installation process according to your needs.”
Please don’t insinuate that I didn’t read the article, I did. Flexibility that only a very small subset of a percent of your users is going to use is idiotic imho.
Until Debian realises these issues, they are going to stay their own worst enemies. The problem with Debian is that it’s developed by geeks, for geeks. Geeks are a small subset of the population, and coding for them, over the priority of coding/developing for the majority of the users is a sure way to extinction.
I like Debian. I really do. But they are their own worst enemy.
Dave
Dave, I can see where you’re coming from, and even agree with a lot of it (e.g.: the over-hypedness of Ubuntu), but I think you’re missing some of the point of Debian.
As much as Debian is my preferred distro, I don’t think it’s the “distro of the masses” (but neither is Fedora), nor does it need to be. Being completely non-commercial, it can reach people (say, those 0.0002% still running m68k Macs) that no commercial distro would reach because it wouldn’t be worth their while. It can reach people who only speak a remote Pacific Island language. It is the exact opposite of a geek-only distro; it’s an inclusive distro. Now, you’re right that it means that they can’t move as fast, but I think it’s a good trade-off for being the most inclusive distro there is.
Now what about the majority of us that are on a x86 or amd64 machine that want more of the latest-and-greatest and tailored to the average computer? That’s where Debian’s obsession with stability comes in handy. Other distros can use it as a base and add the latest on top of it, and make it more a seamless experience without making it too unstable. Ubuntu, however over-hyped, being the prime example of that. Taking Debian as a base and making it as non-geeky as you could ever want. Not to say that the Fedora camp is bad, but the Debian camp isn’t nearly as bad as you make it out to be.
One more thing I disagree with: As a genuine English-speaking American who has lived in other countries for years at a time, I can assure you that although lots of Westernized countries can speak and read English just fine, they still prefer their native language. And it is nothing but cultural narrow-mindedness to assume that English will be the dominant international language forever. While some things (stability, polish, etc…) may be more immediately important, internationalization shouldn’t be ignored in any distribution.