Seems that this thread has moved towards a more offtopic nature... So I'll steer it back to its original course.

Describe Debian for me...
A Linux distro.

Describe (Whatever distro you want) for me...
A Linux distro.

It's not religion or whatnot... it's just a product. I don't find any particular inclination to be defensive of the distro(s) I use, pride maybe, but that pride comes from a sense of achievement... Something that can come out of any distro provided of course it does give that nice feeling.

Today I might think that Slack is the bomb, tomorrow it might be Gentoo, or like my dear contrasutra here, Ark Linux (strange thing that I just visited Ark's website last week and somehow kinda like what I see, cs... u gotta describe Ark more to me ).

The only thing that I can actually be bothered about is that it's free (as in speech and sometimes as in beer... depending on distro)... and that is already good enough for me.

ARCH LINUX (not Ark).

Big difference. Arch is for the more experienced user, while Ark is aiming for the beginner.

archlinux.org, check it out.

someday when I have lots and lots of time, I will definately give slack another chance.
I never said slack was bad...and I also try to use commandline for doing basic stuff like cdrecording etc. Its more fun than its GUI counterpart. i didnt mean to offend anyone on this board.
Coolllllll

Yeah, but haven't you ever sat in a car that just "feels faster" even at the exact same speed? Without numbers to back things up, you can't say "so-and-so" is faster and be taken seriously by intelligent people. And here are some numbers that though they actually say that Debian is faster than Gentoo in just about every task that they tried, I wouldn't actually read to mean anything other than "compiler optimizations don't really make a big difference, if any". Because they simply do not. As I've said before, the LARGE majority of applications that people use on a daily basis are not CPU-bound at all. So making them squeeze fewer instructions into the CPU to get the same work done won't make them any faster, because that's not the bottleneck. The fact that you do have a compiler churning away for a big chunk of the time before you get the binary that you want, however, now THAT is a noticeable and unarguable difference. The saying goes: "Gentoo users are the people who like to keep their process at 99% load 95% of the time to compile 100% of apps of which only 2% spend even more than 10% of their time doing CPU-bound processes"

Because most people just want to use the app, period. They don't care about the headers or development libs for pieces of software. If I'm never going to compile anything on a system, why should I install a compiler? Equivalently, if I'm never going to link against libfoo.so (and nothing else is linked against it already), why should it ever see space on my hard drive? It shouldn't.

You aren't being deceived. Your definition of "the whole package" is flawed. In most cases, source is just a means to an end, it's not the product itself. So the development headers that are included are just part of the PROCESS of getting the end product, which is the resulting binary executables and/or libraries. But, packagers realize that some people WILL want these things and package them separately in case you do want them. This is called granularity and it is a Good Thing(tm) considering that there are a significant number of users for whom such packages would be useless. If everyone had a use for the development portion of software, then you'd be right and it'd be sensible to always expect it in packages that claim to contain that software. But, a good portion of the user population will not, so your definition of "the whole package" needs some rethinking.

So instead with Gentoo, you clutter your system with development libraries that you will probably never ever use except when compiling a given piece of software. Trust me, well-done binary-based distros will ALWAYS have a slimmer average footprint than well-done source-based distros simply because binary-based distros never ever need compilers or development libraries.

Well, considering that I can program in a few dozen programming languages, I'd say that they are worthwhile even to those who CAN install stuff by source but who realize that it is often pointless to do so. They are useful to people who want to get stuff done NOW. Not when a compile is finished, not after an hour of tinkering, but RIGHT NOW.

Oh please, play the "you're too scared" card why don't you? I'm not AFRAID to attack init scripts, it's just STUPID to do a repetitive process manually when you can design a tool that will do it for you. That's what tool-building is for. I like SysV better because it is MORE POWERFUL, period. BSD has no concept of runlevels, so I can't create custom boot scenarios in a standard way. I could hack it together with some scripts and BSD init, but I'd have to reinvent the wheel everywhere I wanted to do it.

Well this is sort of the case with me, but I'm not sure why you are presenting it as a bad thing. Someone should want stuff that just doesn't work? Don't get me wrong, I maintain a meticulous watch over every bit of software that hits this machine. I have an almost sick awareness of what's on this machine, and with Debian's tools, I have an amazing amount of control over exactly where everything goes on it. And with Debian's tools I can switch things in a matter of seconds.

You didn't make any personal attacks, no, but you certainly sounded arrogant. So that's why I had to go ahead and rebuff some of the more nonsensical stuff that I saw.

So, in the end..is debian easier to install as compared to slackware or not?
And, MasterC has 9000+ posts so I'll take his word

Before I switched from Mandrake, I was only seriously considering two distros: Slackware and Debian.

Both of them have good packaging systems in place. However, Debian without a doubt has the most number of packages.

The thing that put me off Debian was the simple but at the time irritating answer to this question: "Which ISO to download?!". I won't deny it's in the FAQ, but even the answers do not seem like answers to the then very Linux-green me.

So I visited the Slack site and woohoo... only one ISO to download and it is mentioned clearly that this one CD is all that you need.

After reading on Debian more after I've gotten Slack running just the way I wanted... I feel like I really should give Deb a try and enjoy the wonders of the famed apt package management tools, but couldn't bring myself to download the ISO especially with my piss poor ADSL connection (384kbps d/l... don't laugh).

Another thing... Strike has very good points in his posts, and I believe that numbers of posts shouldn't be a main factor in your decision. My advise is... try them all and make your own judgement.

I really don't wanna reply to all those points and drag the thread further OT. (good points by the way Strike) so I'll hit the last one, and then as Azmeen suggested, get back on topic (thanks for the eye opener Azmeen):

Not all my points were meant to be bad points. I was trying to present arguments for and against a few things.

As for "why is that a bad thing"? It's not if that's what you want. But if you're there to learn linux (as was pointed out previously by another member) then apt-get install package isn't really going to teach you linux. It will certainly teach you Debian, and will give you an idea of how things are done with it, but it won't be universal with ALL distros. But if all you want is 'for things to work' then it's even less likely you will be attacking Debian. No you'll stick with Mandrake or Lindows. So Debian is trying to be something it's not. It's giving the user-friendliness face to those who don't need/want it? Nah. Debian has it's place, I've even heard it said "Debian is a distro written for IT professionals by IT professionals" so that's not the case. Debian is a happy medium. That's fine. It has it's place, it's just not Slackware. Very few things are. (I think I see where you saw the arrogance, it was meant as a joke as is this next sentence) I mean, why would I need to learn how to use linux when I have Debian to do everything for me?

I was also giving another perspective on the situtation. And trust me, I'm by no means arrogant, I'll admit here and now you surely know more about Debian (probably linux in general) than I do. I don't doubt that. I am a humble man, just defending a bit of the distro I love, giving valid points, and doing my best to do so without stepping on too many toes

Jatt: Easier to install (subjective) Slackware. Debians installer is extremely rough for someone who hasn't done it before. Hoewever, and it's a big one, you could use something like Knoppix to take care of all that for you, do an HD install and have all the dirty work out of the way. In that case, Debian's installer would be hands down, and easier one

Cool

Definitely! For those who don't know, Strike is well known 'elsewhere' in the Linux world. Many members of this board know him, but by another name. I won't spoil it, I'll let him decide if he wants to I'm actually quite honored to hold this debate with him.

Thanks Strike.

Cool

Yeah well count my damn near 10,000 posts (and my moderator status as well, just like him!) from LNO and we'll call it a push, okay?

In the same realm of Useless Indicators of Knowledge, I registered here almost a year before he did, so does that make me automatically smarter?

Strike, cut him some 'slack'

Sorry, ya know I had to.

Cool

Thanks, I don't think it's really OT yet. We're still discussing Debian after all

But there's one thing I've learned from using the dozens of Linux distributions I've tried, and that's that there are two ways to get things done: the easy way, and the works-almost-everywhere way. It's good to know both, of course, especially if you are going to stick with that distribution. No distribution actively impedes you in learning either, though some favor one over the other. Nothing wrong with learning both, but the easy way will always be easier

Er, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. At first you seem to think that Debian makes false claims (which, as far as I know, it doesn't), and then you say it's a happy medium. To me, Debian is for the person who is familiar enough with Linux but is tired enough with the "spend hours administering your machine and minutes actually using it" that you often get with other distributions. I honestly don't spend more than an average of 10 minutes a day doing administration tasks on my machine, and that's just because I upgrade all of my software on this machine every day. That really only takes less than 2 minutes of my actual interaction (downloads take time, of course), the other 8 are there for the days when I may spend 30 minutes going through and removing stuff I don't use anymore. Those are pretty rare, so I imagine the daily average is somewhat closer to 5 minutes.

You learn how to ADMINISTER Linux, not how to use Linux software. That's all fine and dandy, but since my job isn't administering bizarre configurations of Linux boxen, I'll just learn once how to configure all my Debian boxen and then spend the 5 minutes a day maintaining them all.

Actually, Debian's installer CAN be pretty easy if you just let it do the work for you. For the most part you just hold down Enter and you get a good install But, as far as hardware detection and stuff it does suck pretty badly. However, the latest testing images of the new debian-installer are pretty sweet and I hear that their hardware detection is pretty slick, so this argument may be going away soon. (Oh, and I believe that there is the potential for a graphical front-end on it as well, to stop the people from whining about no GUI installer)


This is a bit OT, but a Knoppix HD install is a BAD idea. I've explained so elsewhere, but in short, just trust me on it It's good for getting a system installed ... bad for starting a system that you plan on updating. But, like I said above, Debian's new installer has some really slick hardware detection that may give even Knoppix a run for its money, so hopefully people will stop fooling around with the silly Knoppix hard-drive installs

Probably true, but its ironic how i love raw slack Anyway this is *not* a discussion i'm getting into, you two have it pretty well covered. Fight the power MasterC! It's nice to see this kind of advocacy of wonderful slackware. And thanks for the info Strike, one day I'll try debian again... but not before gentoo, sounds sweet!

Funny, I look in *every* part of my system. I've spent time cat'ting the /proc subdirectory and more. But maybe that's just a thing about Slackers.

Granted it's my fault but I have no idea what I installed. Debian's install process - hell, it's download process - is pathetic. And, thanks to that graphical log-in process, I had to sit through a zillion errors while X failed before I could get in and reconfigure X. Graphical log-ins ought to be banned. But they certainly shouldn't be on by default even if I did install it prior to X being correctly configured.

***

As I've said before, I was initially drawn to Debian - I thought it would be the first 'real' distro I installed after I got through playing with floppy distros and Vector and Core and whatnot. But that was just the thing - I noticed that my favorite distros were Basic and Vector and noticed they were both Slack-based and so started with Slack. Now that I'm dual-booting Slack and Debian I can say I'd be using XP as my main system if I had started with Debian.

I used Debian slightly longer than Mandrake - more than 24 hours - and, unlike Mandrake which I immediately removed, I'll leave Debian on there and see what I can do with it. But jigdo sucks. The documentation blathering on at encyclopedic length telling you 9000 ways to install it when it *doesn't* have to be that hard sucks. The packages reek of mold. I couldn't believe I was firing up Mozilla 1.0 - cuz god knows 1.3 is radical edge work now that 1.5 alpha is out - and Mozilla has such a history of trashing systems, too. And the excuse for this ancient junk is to have it "stable" and "done right" but Mozilla 1.0 is inferior and less stable than 1.3. My keyboard was randomly refusing to type while in Mozilla - and not in an xterm, so it wasn't my keyboard. Finally, I got so sick of it I tried to apt-get a newer one which didn't work because I assume my settings were wrong so I cheated and downloaded the 1.3 installer from the Mozilla site as user into my home directory and 'installed' it there - my own personal Mozilla. *That* one worked.

And apt-get is supposed to be so great. I'm not so sure I agree. I did apt-get file runner and rxvt and some other stuff. *Zoop* instant effortless install. But while I often complain about things being too hard, I'm not sure they're supposed to be that easy, either. I'm basically just a button-pusher hoping the Debian gods will drop some application manna on me from their heavens. Of course, it has to be the apps and versions they (whoever they are) *approve* of. "No, my foolish child, thou shalt not have Mozilla 1.3 for it is dangerous."

And, to go back to that SysV stuff, it's a dumb system. I like having a few config scripts and *handling* them if need be. Just like I like actually taking some initiative in my search for apps and my installation of them. I wonder how one passes a flag to make on a .deb? Like, if I wanted to do something weird?

And kinda OT but I came across a Deb manual - part of what attracted me to Debian was its non-commercial aspect but reading a lot of their official writings it *is* like an OS is a religion and they are the only saints and all others are benighted, deluded sinners. Read Slack stuff and it's like, "Hey, whatever man, it's your box - we like to make a living but we don't have to emulate Microsoft like Red Hat does - it's cool. Just... y'know - compute."

And details - like I theoretically finally did get X configured properly - my usual 1024x768x24 and all - but weird crap kept happening - switching from console to X (Ctrl-Alt-F1 to Ctrl-Alt-F7 and back) was like switching from full screen DOS to Windows3x - the GUI kept fritzing out for a second before it would stabilize. Don't know what's up with that and it does not happen in Slack.

I know that, with most any Linux distro, you can choose methods, decide what to install, tweak configs, and turn any Linux distro into any other Linux distro, almost. I'm not saying that a lot of this couldn't be changed by the user to his desires or that a lot of the problems are not my fault. But I am saying that the *essential characteristics* of Debian strike me as 'atrocious install, ancient software, omnipotent package management, goofy initialization, excessively verbose documentation (much like my post), self-righteous moralism, and an overrated and misplaced emphasis on stability which isn't actually achieved, anyway.' The essential characteristics of Slack are 'Here's Linux - it's not that hard to install and it's minimally configured to an extent - we get you started pretty nicely. Now, we'll step out of the way, having done our part - nice config scripts and a box that's a dream to compile on, along with a - A - nifty pkgtool for when you're feeling lazy. So go do whatever the hell you want to do - it's your box.'

{SNIP}

I've seen several, but this is the most recent that I'd figure would prove this point decently:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...threadid=80908

development libraries that I will never use? Compiling a kernel is so rare that... oh yeah, it's not.

Cool

Hey, just because I never cd into or ls a particular directory doesn't mean I don't know what's in there. I know all of what's in those startup directories, but why should I look in there? Do you open up your case to find out what hardware you have in there? No, you either already know or you use some software that's running on it to tell you what's in there - opening up the case would be overkill, but it doesn't mean you can't do it.


If X was configured improperly, that is your fault. If a graphical login was installed and you didn't want it to be, that is your fault. Yes, the install could use some work, but it's not so difficult that it hides what's being installed from you.

What a regular expert you are.

That's funny, I just ran jigdo-lite, put in one URL, and that was basically it. After it was done downloading, I had working ISOs.

But it is more tested and has nothing critically buggy about it. For a desktop user who uses their computer heavily, I wouldn't recommend "stable" for these very reasons. The simple fact is that none of the stuff in stable will make your system crash and burn, and it's one of the most secure distros out-of-the-box. It's definitely server-grade.

Wow, troll much? You in your vast 24 hours of experience (which I'm sure was a 24 hours of constant use) have no clue of how apt works, I see. And you claim to "want to know how your system works". Funny how I can choose from several versions of most applications I have on my machine, isn't it? If you're just a button-pusher, then that is your fault. If all you choose is apps from the main Debian repository, then that's also your fault. Nothing prevents you from installing third-party debs, even though there are few reasons to do so. Continue bitching about "old software" from a distribution that's not only a year old, but was put into a freeze well before that and was never designed to have up-to-date software anyway. That's productive.

Nice argument. "it's a dumb system" - quality stuff. SysV is more powerful, period. BSD init has no concept of runlevels, period. Stick to the facts and your arguments will work a lot better.

Do what weird? You know, the people who write the software generally know what they are doing, so if you want to "do something weird", chances are you're doing something stupid. However, with that said, it's not very hard at all to modify an existing package. Just apt-get source foo and apt-get build-dep foo, modify the sources, and debuild. Then, ta-da, you have a working .deb to install however you see fit. For someone who's so curious about how your system works, you don't do any research.

Linkage please.

You "theoretically" did? Sounds like you ACTUALLY did. Also, this is a rather complex issue and besides, it's not a fault of the distribution anyway. It's a fault of the software. Talk to the people who build the packages, don't blame the distribution itself.


Not going to argue with you there, but like I've said before, an install should be the LAST deciding factor for choosing a distribution - you only do it ONCE.

From a branch of the distribution that you should know will (for the most part) never ever get new versions of the software and was released a year ago after being frozen for a while.

You say that as if it's a bad thing. It's omnipotent, but it is also UNDER YOUR CONTROL. It doesn't tell YOU what to do, you tell IT what to do. Every aspect of it is configurable.

If by "goofy" you mean "more powerful", sure. Using update-rc.d is hardly goofy and I doubt you've ever even tried it.

Again, link? Besides, better verbose (btw, "excessively verbose" is redundant) than terse.

Lalala, still no evidence of this provided whatsoever.

Did your system ever crash? What was going on when it happened? How can stabililty be overrated or overemphasized? "Bah, this thing's too stable, I need a machine that will just stop working spontaneously!"

Funny thing is, Debian is the same way, ... except with massively better tools. And don't get me started on Slackware's "package management" because that's such a funny ... well, like I said, don't get me started.