"3 Ways To Improve Debian And I Haven't Even Booted It Yet"

[arochester]

Are there any comments about this article?: http://www.everydaylinuxuser.com/2015/0 ... avent.html

It boils down to:
1) The Debian website is too big and difficult to navigate
2) Debian LiveCDs are not UEFI bootable
3) The Debian Installer has too many screens

It says: "Have you been left confused about how to download, try and use Debian? Alternatively did you find it easy and think that all this is nonsense?"

[andyetanother]

Typical clickbait crap - it succeeds because it gets reposted on forums such as this one.

[mor]

I think that the biggest flaw in the reasoning behind that article, and so many similar arguments made every so often, is the notion that "improvement" means the same for all. The article implies that "improvement" means reaching a broader audience or being more appealing.

Many users, sometimes with a pinch of malice but I believe in most cases with genuine sincerity, argue that Debian could "improve" by "only" adjusting a few things here and there.
And that's where we get lost in a vain clash of moral certitudes because we never define "improvement" yet we argue as if the meaning was established.

Unless one defines the meaning of improvement, it really makes no sense to talk about whether the article or any other similar argument has merits.
But does it make sense to define it? It probably will lead to a flame just the same.

Anyway, if we go with what the article's implication about the meaning of improvement is, then yes, by all means the article has its merits: the site is big and confusing, the uefi thing (I guess it is true) and definitely there are "too many" stages to a Debian installation.

So, what's the definition of "improvement" again?

Bye

[edbarx]

Publication of laws employs the idea of defining keywords prior to the main text as highlighted by mor. However, many publications, including the one this thread is alluding to, does not need such a definition. The latter can be understood by reading the article itself. As mor himself pointed out, "improvement", and I dare say, many other adjectives, apparently, are judged by the masses instead of other more objective means.

[vbrummond]

Debian is more appealing (for me at the least) than ever. If our organization went with something like CentOS we would have many limitations. Lack of i386 support and as such limited to version 6. Too high of system requirements to boot the installer so we would need a preeseeded installation. On top of that the lack of software available. It just does not compare to Debian. The only advantage was impressive length of security support, something I can realistically handle myself.

"Improvment" might be for more organizations to adopt it and to maintain the packages they need inside Debian instead of from without.

[mor]

As mor himself pointed out, "improvement", and I dare say, many other adjectives, apparently, are judged by the masses instead of other more objective means.

Actually I meant to say that there are no objective definitions here.
You made a very pertinent example citing how in lawmaking things are well defined before making rules on them, and that's to remove as much ambiguity as possible. Similarly we do need to define our interpretation of improvement in order to make our arguments relevant. We can't just say that there are more or less objective interpretations, with the implication being that ours is the correct/more objective one.

Here in fact we are most likely a bunch that thinks that the notion of Debian improving as per what the articles says is misguided at best, but honestly, the one in the article is one perfectly legitimate way to define what would constitute an improvement.

[dasein]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition

[Randicus]

Let us see. With a name like "everydaylinuxuser".com, it is easy to interpret.

It boils down to:
1) The Debian website is too big and difficult (for most Ubuntu and Mint users) to navigate
2) Debian LiveCDs are not UEFI bootable (so dual-booting with Windows is difficult. Oh no!)
3) The Debian Installer has too many screens (instead of selecting "Install", go away for a cup of coffee, return to computer and enjoy)

[edbarx]

I dare say discarding the installer altogether and using debootstrap and chroot is the easiest of all installation methods. As far as I am concerned, having complete control over an installation is an advantage I don't want to bargain for anything including the so called appeal to the masses.

When I was a newbie, I had to climb the learning curve like a mountaineer as it was steep and difficult for me notwithstanding I was a Windows power user. After a few years of reading and studying, the situation started to change, and now, I can even write my own source code for GNU/Linux.

By the above, I am NOT saying that installers should be abandoned to satisfy my 'arrogance' and 'ego'. There are certainly people out there who benefit from the automation provided by installers. However, it is quite inaccurate, to put it in a politically correct style, to claim a distribution is inferior judging only on how an installation appeals to beginners. A distribution should also be judge by other characteristics, like say, stability, reliability, diversity of software in its repositories, etc.

Where there is a will, there is more than simply a way.

[andyetanother]

The installer debate is a tired old debate going back many years - as with the iceweasel vs firefox debate and other similar often repeated wastage of electrons.

What the installer is: The installer is comprehensive and used to install the OS. Where the installer cannot install the OS, the user can use another method (install from a chroot environment).

What the installer isn't: An "introduction to Debian", with impressive graphics animations and sounds to make the person installing feel warm and fuzzy. If you want that kind of thing, someone has already doe the work for you in creating the plethora of Debian derivative distributions out there which will better suit your needs.

[somebodyelse]

Point 1
Fair enough. But the way to improve that kind of thing is to get involved.

Point 2
I used to doubt Debian's attitude to UEFI and now I salute it. As, Linus Torvalds said, if vendor A, B or C wants to deep-throat Microsoft, that's their issue.

Point 3
There is a reason Debian existed and then Ubuntu was created to have something Debian-like but pre-configured for ease-of-use. There is a reason the number of installation options is greater in Debian than in Ubuntu. However, if you consider changes to the Debian installer are needed, it's up to you to get involved (see point 1).

However, I don't think the article is insincere. Just misguided.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

1) The Debian website has a huge amount of resources on it and the reviewer is clearly not the brightest of sparks (maybe he's used to being spoonfed by *buntu?)...
2) So what? Debian installer ISO images support UEFI in 64-bit systems, 32-bit systems and even 64-bit systems with 32-bit firmware.
3) The Debian installer has a huge amount of options and the reviewer is clearly not the sharpest tool in the box...

[edbarx]

repeated wastage of electrons

What about the Large Hadron Collider smashing protons and stars annihilating millions of kilograms of matter to get their energy?
[joking: don't take me seriously, but I couldn't resist]

[somebodyelse]

To be clear, re point 1, I meant that it's reasonable to have an opinion about the organisation and the efficiency of the Debian website. Everything is open to question. I didn't mean that I shared his opinions.

[tomazzi]

To be clear, re point 1, I meant that it's reasonable to have an opinion about the organisation and the efficiency of the Debian website. Everything is open to question. I didn't mean that I shared his opinions.

Well, to be honest, *sometimes* it's easier to find something on a Debian website using ddg/google rather than the Debian webpage...

...but GOD save us from GUI-based installers - they're mostly useless, excluding trivially trivial cases...