How to Have a Pleasant Installation (for Debian Newbies)

Message

Jackiebrown · #31 Post by **Jackiebrown** » 2007-04-10 03:48

That's right. And it's safe to leave experimental commented in. Apt won't pull anything from it unless you force it too.

tommcd · #32 Post by **tommcd** » 2007-04-10 06:25

OK, thanks Jackiebrown.

Rashkavar · #33 Post by **Rashkavar** » 2007-04-14 06:13

Newbie question:
About the debate about apt-get vs aptitude - what about synaptic or kynaptic? Are those just graphical versions of the terminal package manager?

Also, I remember my friend telling me kynaptic was glitched (was telling him it was installing things but they actually weren't installed, all kinds of bad things like that) - is this still the case or outdated (this was about a year ago...and he likes to run unstable, so it might have just been a problem with the unstable version at the time)?

Same friend tells me that Linux has trouble with SATA drives. (how he knows this with his ancient POS comp I have no idea - I don't think they've ever made a motherboard that could handle his processor (400 MHz...i think AMD) at the same time as a SATA controller) Is this true or is he just full of it? - I do know that the 2.6 kernel introduced SATA support...but I'm so out of touch I have no idea when that was.

An answer to any of these would be very much appreciated. (and yes, I'm a Windows refugee)

chealer · #34 Post by **chealer** » 2007-04-14 12:13

Rashkavar wrote:Newbie question:
About the debate about apt-get vs aptitude - what about synaptic or kynaptic? Are those just graphical versions of the terminal package manager?

I'm not sure what you mean by "the terminal package manager", but assuming you're refering to apt-get, not really...they are front-ends to libapt, like apt-get.

Rashkavar wrote:Also, I remember my friend telling me kynaptic was glitched (was telling him it was installing things but they actually weren't installed, all kinds of bad things like that) - is this still the case or outdated (this was about a year ago...and he likes to run unstable, so it might have just been a problem with the unstable version at the time)?

Why...does anyone still use kynaptic?

Rashkavar wrote:Same friend tells me that Linux has trouble with SATA drives. (how he knows this with his ancient POS comp I have no idea - I don't think they've ever made a motherboard that could handle his processor (400 MHz...i think AMD) at the same time as a SATA controller) Is this true or is he just full of it? - I do know that the 2.6 kernel introduced SATA support...but I'm so out of touch I have no idea when that was.

Linux 2.6.0 has "SATA support", but lacks support for several SATA controllers. If your friend was talking about Linux 2.6.20, I'm not aware of trouble with SATA drives, but if he meant typical GNU/Linux distros, such as Debian, he would have been quite right until sunday, when Debian 3.1 was still Debian stable.

Rashkavar · #35 Post by **Rashkavar** » 2007-04-14 21:29

As I said, I'm a newbie - I know both aptitude and apt-get function in the terminal rather than presenting a GUI - I believe aptitude (or something similar) can present a user interface remeniscent of synaptic, but actually using it is a pain (at least to a noob like me).
I'm not really sure how libapt works, I guess I'll check up on that before I make myself sound like an even bigger idiot than I am.

Why...does anyone still use kynaptic?

I see...is it really that bad or is it just ignored/outdated?

Linux 2.6.0 has "SATA support", but lacks support for several SATA controllers. If your friend was talking about Linux 2.6.20, I'm not aware of trouble with SATA drives, but if he meant typical GNU/Linux distros, such as Debian, he would have been quite right until sunday, when Debian 3.1 was still Debian stable.

Attempted Translation: Debian will support SATA by the time I get a chance to install Linux (May - Busy with university exams atm).
Is this correct?
Also - you refer to a lack of support for several SATA controllers - how would I find out if it has support for my system in that regard?

And thanks for the help, chealer. Much appreciated.

chealer · #36 Post by **chealer** » 2007-04-14 21:39

Rashkavar wrote:I see...is it really that bad or is it just ignored/outdated?

I am pretty sure it is abandoned. Anyway, it never entered Debian, so I see no point in even trying it.

Rashkavar wrote:Attempted Translation: Debian will support SATA by the time I get a chance to install Linux (May - Busy with university exams atm).
Is this correct?
Also - you refer to a lack of support for several SATA controllers - how would I find out if it has support for my system in that regard?

Debian already supports SATA.
I was talking about lack of support for several SATA controllers by Linux 2.6.8, which is the Linux 2.6 version is Debian 3.1. But Debian 3.1 is no more Debian stable now, and the new stable version has support for more controllers, so I wouldn't worry about support for your controller.

Rashkavar · #37 Post by **Rashkavar** » 2007-04-15 07:31

Thanks for all your help, chealer

That's part of what I like about Linux - people are actually willing to help you.

with windows you either get rtfm, ask your admin, "that doesn't sound good", the blue screen of death, or people laughing at you for using such a bad OS.

qingshan · #38 Post by **qingshan** » 2007-04-15 13:40

rickh wrote: /home on a separate partition is a very good idea. One key advantage is that when you re-install (and newbies do it fairly often), you can leave the /home partition in place and just install the OS around it.

Another newbie question: how to do that? That is, how to "install the OS aruond" the old home directory? Doesn't it give you a fresh /home/usrname directory everytime you install the system, on this or that partition?

rickh · #39 Post by **rickh** » 2007-04-15 14:51

Doesn't it give you a fresh /home/usrname directory everytime you install the system, on this or that partition?

Only if you allow the partitioner to work automatically. If you use manual partitioning, you get to change or leave each existing partition.

qingshan · #40 Post by **qingshan** » 2007-04-15 15:11

rickh wrote: Only if you allow the partitioner to work automatically. If you use manual partitioning, you get to change or leave each existing partition.

Is it also possible to leave some other directory unchanged when you install the OS, say the /usr directory? What I am thinking is one can install third party softwares in this directory. When you reinstall the OS, you can leave that /usr directory there, and don't have to install those third party softwares again.

DeanLinkous · #41 Post by **DeanLinkous** » 2007-04-15 15:14

I just keep a seperate partition to store stuff on. It isn't /home but it is always there.

rickh · #42 Post by **rickh** » 2007-04-15 15:35

Is it also possible to leave some other directory unchanged when you install the OS

I'm not sure, but I don't think it would work to leave OS related directories such as /usr intact, since the new installation would be writing things there.

bluesdog · #43 Post by **bluesdog** » 2007-04-15 20:28

Rashkavar wrote:Newbie question:
About the debate about apt-get vs aptitude - what about synaptic or kynaptic? Are those just graphical versions of the terminal package manager?

I find synaptic is a handy, visual way of reviewing new packages, checking dependencies, and looking for applications for 'things I want to do'
apt-get is a quick way of installing one or a few particular packages.
aptitude is my preferred update/dist-upgrade method, because it handles dependencies very well

As in all things Linux, YMMV

oliver · #44 Post by **oliver** » 2007-04-15 20:38

qingshan wrote: Is it also possible to leave some other directory unchanged when you install the OS, say the /usr directory? What I am thinking is one can install third party softwares in this directory. When you reinstall the OS, you can leave that /usr directory there, and don't have to install those third party softwares again.

maybe /usr/local would be a good candidate for this.

Lavene · #45 Post by **Lavene** » 2007-04-17 05:06

The rest of the discussion is moved to http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=14036

rickh · #46 Post by **rickh** » 2007-04-24 15:56

I have lightly edited the Original Post to accomodate the fact that Etch has now become Stable.

actionM · #47 Post by **actionM** » 2007-05-10 19:45

Nice guide. I learned a few things.

Grit · #48 Post by **Grit** » 2007-05-31 21:41

garrincha wrote:There is one exceedingly good tip for newbie who wish to go straight into distro like Debian, providing that he/she is committed to doing a little bit of hard work: grab an iso image of LiveCD such as Knoppix and burn it to a CD or DVD, boot it from the CD/DVD drive. You could play around with a linux system without ever touching your HDD.

List of LiveCD:
http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php

This is how I started out, with a debian based distro Knoppix and once I got the hang of it I went straight to Etch/Testing debian distro.

Rick, I like your article, thanks alot.

garrincha, How do I know which one to pick out? I'm running etch right now. Is it the 700MB one? Do you have to boot these for them to work? And can I use it on a non-linux system - say my laptop?

Thanks,

Garrett

garrincha · #49 Post by **garrincha** » 2007-06-01 10:59

Grit wrote: garrincha, How do I know which one to pick out? I'm running etch right now. Is it the 700MB one? Do you have to boot these for them to work? And can I use it on a non-linux system - say my laptop?

Thanks,

Garrett

It all depend on each person's taste, as many distro fit different needs. For me personally I like Knoppix as it is not only a full fledged desktop program but also a useful tool for troubleshooting and security. It is 700MB yes, and is Debian -based, the other LiveCD that I use mainly as a desktop is Damn Small Linux (DSL) which is only 50MB but superfast especially on old hardware. Puppy Linux is also very lightweight and does similar job as DSL.

Grit · #50 Post by **Grit** » 2007-06-01 12:31

Ok, thanks a bunch, I appreciate it.

Garrett

Debian User Forums

How to Have a Pleasant Installation (for Debian Newbies)

Re: How to Have a Pleasant Installation (for Debian Newbies)