On 21 Oct 2001, MJ Ray wrote:
Paul paul.corner@tesco.net writes:
Thought a few of you might enjoy the fruits of some correspondance I've been indulging in. Just wish I could think of a suitable reply.
Why? He's right. Debian is the only simple avoidance tactic ;-)
Excuse me? I've heard several people recommend against trying to install Debian without an expert on hand, whereas the ambition at least of Mandrake et al is to allow a novice to click 'next' the whole time and get something working at the end.
Alexis -- "Imagine a world without hypothetical situations" - Bram Moolenaar The more you know, the more you know you don't know. Corollary: Those who know nothing think they know everything. Try: ViM, Zsh, expect, at, rpm-get, checkinstall, sudo and find.
on Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 11:59:47AM +0100, Alexis wrote:
Excuse me? I've heard several people recommend against trying to install Debian without an expert on hand, whereas the ambition at least of Mandrake et al is to allow a novice to click 'next' the whole time and get something working at the end.
Note the "expert" really needs to be a debian expert not a general linux one. Maybe I (and I'm definitely not claiming to be a linux expert, heh) missed something, but when I was recently helping someone with a debian install, finding any information seemed a bit of a futile task.
The search functionality on debian.org seems a little odd, and neither of us were able to find a simple how-to on moving from say, stable to testing or unstable. Although this could be my inability to search/grok manpages properly, but this tends to not fail with pretty much every other distribution/operating system I've come across.
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 xsprite@bigfoot.com wrote:
Note the "expert" really needs to be a debian expert not a general linux one. Maybe I (and I'm definitely not claiming to be a linux expert, heh) missed something, but when I was recently helping someone with a debian install, finding any information seemed a bit of a futile task.
I have to disagree with this logic altogether, when I first installed Debian I was only a step above raw linux newbie. I had been disappointed with the way that all the other distributions were difficult to install software on and not easy to configure (read Redhat, Mandrake, Slackware & SuSE).
The search functionality on debian.org seems a little odd, and neither of us were able to find a simple how-to on moving from say, stable to testing or unstable. Although this could be my inability to search/grok manpages properly, but this tends to not fail with pretty much every other distribution/operating system I've come across.
Hmmm, the Debian FAQ does cover this Sections 5,6,7 & 8. I must say that if you are planning to install Debian (or any OS) it is very helpful to locate the FAQ first. The Debian FAQ is (IMHO) the best I have ever seen for any OS ever.
http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/
Anyhow if you want to have someone give a talk on Debian, its package manglement system and the Debian way of doing things then I am supposed to be doing one at the next Alug meeting (should even have handouts!), please let me know btw what you want me to talk about and what level to put it at. (quite a bit of my talk on Debian will be culled almost directly from the Debian FAQ btw!)
There is a very high chance that this talk will be the meeting after at the UEA now as It looks as though I am not going to have time to get everything together.
/me cowers at thought of preaching Debian to the unconverted ;-) /me also cowers at the thought of public speaking
Adam
on Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 08:38:57PM +0100, Adam Bower wrote:
I have to disagree with this logic altogether, when I first installed Debian I was only a step above raw linux newbie. I had been disappointed with the way that all the other distributions were difficult to install software on and not easy to configure (read Redhat, Mandrake, Slackware & SuSE).
I guess people are just different, hehe. I found slack incredibly easy to install but redhat was a nightmare because of dependancies, etc. Several other people have found the same. Yet there are plenty of people who are quite happy with RedHat and, even, debian. :)
The search functionality on debian.org seems a little odd, and neither of us were able to find a simple how-to on moving from say, stable to testing or unstable. Although this could be my inability to search/grok manpages properly, but this tends to not fail with pretty much every other distribution/operating system I've come across.
Hmmm, the Debian FAQ does cover this Sections 5,6,7 & 8. I must say that if you are planning to install Debian (or any OS) it is very helpful to locate the FAQ first. The Debian FAQ is (IMHO) the best I have ever seen for any OS ever.
Thank you, I should read the FAQ more, but I still don't think it is clear/is too complex. There's no real type "this; this; this", which is useful if you're beginning with something like this. So yes, I probably was in a rush and missed this.
/me wanders off happily with the ultimate package management tools (encap/pkg_*, tar, gcc and make)
Anyhow if you want to have someone give a talk on Debian, its package manglement system and the Debian way of doing things then I am supposed to be doing one at the next Alug meeting (should even have handouts!), please let me know btw what you want me to talk about and what level to put it at. (quite a bit of my talk on Debian will be culled almost directly from the Debian FAQ btw!)
That would be great. Does debian provide any security related package features? With NetBSD, you have audit-packages, that downloads a list of vulnerable packages from a central repository then compares the list of currently installed packages against it.
/me cowers at thought of preaching Debian to the unconverted ;-) /me also cowers at the thought of public speaking
I think the first is far more scary, the second you can just use the old "paper bag on your head" trick if it gets too bad...
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 xsprite@bigfoot.com wrote:
on Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 08:38:57PM +0100, Adam Bower wrote:
I have to disagree with this logic altogether, when I first installed Debian I was only a step above raw linux newbie. I had been disappointed with the way that all the other distributions were difficult to install software on and not easy to configure (read Redhat, Mandrake, Slackware & SuSE).
I guess people are just different, hehe. I found slack incredibly easy to install but redhat was a nightmare because of dependancies, etc. Several other people have found the same. Yet there are plenty of people who are quite happy with RedHat and, even, debian. :)
Well all of them are easy to install IMHO, just getting them configured/into a working state is a bit more tricky. The Debian way is very good when you get used to it.
Thank you, I should read the FAQ more, but I still don't think it is clear/is too complex. There's no real type "this; this; this", which is useful if you're beginning with something like this. So yes, I probably was in a rush and missed this.
You are very correct in that the FAQ is not linked from the front page but once you get hold of it then you find it is very well written/no nonsense (well about the right level IMHO) but then again maybe upgrading to unstable (which is technically unsupported) should be hidden a bit.
That would be great. Does debian provide any security related package features? With NetBSD, you have audit-packages, that downloads a list of vulnerable packages from a central repository then compares the list of currently installed packages against it.
you add the line deb http://security.debian.org stable/updates main contrib non-free
to /etc/apt/sources.list and subscribe to the mailing list debian-security-announce when you get a mail on that list you do apt-get update apt-get upgrade and everything is dealt with for you!
Adam
Thank you, I should read the FAQ more, but I still don't think it is clear/is too complex. There's no real type "this; this; this", which is useful if you're beginning with something like this. So yes, I probably was in a rush and missed this.
Here you go:
"In the case of problems, type 'su', press enter, type the root password, press enter, then type 'cat /dev/random >$(mount | grep ' / ' | cut -f1 -d\ )' and press enter"
Cured now?
Seriously, you have to comprehend if you want to avoid making horrendous mistakes. A common complaint about Linux docs are that it is too much parrot-fashion type x, then y, then z, which leaves newbie owners open to being told complete rubbish.
Quite often the "type x, then y" guides are written by people who don't understand either.
/me wanders off happily with the ultimate package management tools (encap/pkg_*, tar, gcc and make)
blechh... where's the metadata?
MJR
on Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 01:49:10AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Thank you, I should read the FAQ more, but I still don't think it is clear/is too complex. There's no real type "this; this; this", which is useful if you're beginning with something like this. So yes, I probably was in a rush and missed this.
Here you go:
"In the case of problems, type 'su', press enter, type the root password, press enter, then type 'cat /dev/random >$(mount | grep ' / ' | cut -f1 -d\ )' and press enter"
Cured now?
Point taken. :)
Seriously, you have to comprehend if you want to avoid making horrendous mistakes. A common complaint about Linux docs are that it is too much parrot-fashion type x, then y, then z, which leaves newbie owners open to being told complete rubbish.
Sure, but you can always have "type this.. this does blah blah blah, then type this, 'blah' means ..". That way you don't only have an easy, hopefully working route outlined, but you also have something explaining what exactly you are doing and why.
/me digs out of hole
/me wanders off happily with the ultimate package management tools (encap/pkg_*, tar, gcc and make)
blechh... where's the metadata?
freshmeat or with pkg_* it's in (pkgsrc|ports)/<category>/<program>/Makefile
encap is quite handy, it allows multiple version of the same program to be installed at the same time. this is especially useful with things like pgp, stable/devel versions, and so on.
Sure, but you can always have "type this.. this does blah blah blah, then type this, 'blah' means ..". That way you don't only have an easy, hopefully working route outlined, but you also have something explaining what exactly you are doing and why.
Like most people would bother to check that the commands given actually do what the explanation says. No, I'm sorry, but a pointer to the documentation already on your own system is far better than a cheat sheet.
Of course, if you install the right debian package, the official debian docs are all installed for you. For some strange reason, this doesn't seem to be encouraged strongly enough.
/me digs out of hole
Not yet, you don't.
blechh... where's the metadata?
freshmeat or with pkg_* it's in (pkgsrc|ports)/<category>/<program>/Makefile
That's source, not metadata.
encap is quite handy, it allows multiple version of the same program to be installed at the same time. this is especially useful with things like pgp, stable/devel versions, and so on.
Of course, debian's virtual packages usually allow this too. If you really want two copies of incompatible software, you can make yourself an alternative setup and jump between the two, but it sometimes requires recompilation to change locations of config files, etc. Then again, you're compiling it all with your methods anyway...
MJR
on Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 07:00:37PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Like most people would bother to check that the commands given actually do what the explanation says. No, I'm sorry, but a pointer to the documentation already on your own system is far better than a cheat sheet.
"Like most people would bother to check the (command|gpg signature|source code) given"
Presumably the document would be publically available, if it was inaccurate (it's not only going to be read by newbies), then it would be discredited and not linked to, except by search engines that would probably also pick up any critisism of that site/page.
Of course, if you install the right debian package, the official debian docs are all installed for you. For some strange reason, this doesn't seem to be encouraged strongly enough.
/me digs out of hole
Not yet, you don't.
I'll try harder.. hehe.
blechh... where's the metadata?
freshmeat or with pkg_* it's in (pkgsrc|ports)/<category>/<program>/Makefile
That's source, not metadata.
Ok, so what is metadata in this case?
Presumably the document would be publically available, if it was inaccurate (it's not only going to be read by newbies), then it would be discredited and not linked to, except by search engines that would probably also pick up any critisism of that site/page.
Well, we all hope that trust metrics like that come into play and guard against people stumbling on bad advice!
But, the problem is that sometimes even supposedly "respectable" sites contain astoundingly bad advice. I remember seeing a FAQ for some piece of software (I think it was a video player) advising debian users having trouble compiling to make a symlink from /usr/include/linux to /usr/src/linux/include or similar. The correct answer is to install the kernel-headers package for your kernel. Nevertheless, that FAQ had gone unchallenged for over a year, probably resulting in several broken debian boxes...
That's source, not metadata.
Ok, so what is metadata in this case?
Probably the information contained in the README and INSTALL files... what it needs to compile, what it needs to run, what makes it nicer to use, etc. Look at Debian's package control files: not perfect, but quite a lot better than most others available now.
MJR
on Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 11:03:44PM +0100, markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
But, the problem is that sometimes even supposedly "respectable" sites contain astoundingly bad advice. I remember seeing a FAQ for some piece of software (I think it was a video player) advising debian users having trouble compiling to make a symlink from /usr/include/linux to /usr/src/linux/include or similar. The correct answer is to install the kernel-headers package for your kernel. Nevertheless, that FAQ had gone unchallenged for over a year, probably resulting in several broken debian boxes...
yes, alas, this does happen, and with more serious things. One of the few books on C programming available for free also happens to be one of the worst I've read. Available from http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave/C/CE.html has consistent errors throughout.
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 xsprite@bigfoot.com wrote:
Seriously, you have to comprehend if you want to avoid making horrendous mistakes. A common complaint about Linux docs are that it is too much parrot-fashion type x, then y, then z, which leaves newbie owners open to being told complete rubbish.
Sure, but you can always have "type this.. this does blah blah blah, then type this, 'blah' means ..". That way you don't only have an easy, hopefully working route outlined, but you also have something explaining what exactly you are doing and why.
The trouble with Linux when I started using it was that all the HOW-TO documents that did this were so hopelessly out of date that they were about as useful in the situation as an OS/2 manual would have been.
The document that says type this, then this, then this is usually completly useless for 99% of people as they are having some kind of problem that you can't fix by doing things like that.
Adam
on Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 08:10:26PM +0100, Adam Bower wrote:
Sure, but you can always have "type this.. this does blah blah blah, then type this, 'blah' means ..". That way you don't only have an easy, hopefully working route outlined, but you also have something explaining what exactly you are doing and why.
The trouble with Linux when I started using it was that all the HOW-TO documents that did this were so hopelessly out of date that they were about as useful in the situation as an OS/2 manual would have been.
yes, i think the ldp has helped a lot with this. One thing a lot of coders hate/don't have time for/don't have the necessary skills for/etc is good documentation. Yet without it, to the average user most things would be useless.
The document that says type this, then this, then this is usually completly useless for 99% of people as they are having some kind of problem that you can't fix by doing things like that.
Absolutely, for that you have things like FAQs, usenet and mailing list archives, etc.
-
Adam Bower -
Alexis -
markj＠cloaked.freeserve.co.uk -
MJ Ray
-
xsprite＠bigfoot.com