On 19/05/02 Robert Ian Smit did speaketh: > I am using Windows as my main system at the moment. I have tried various
My condolences.
> distributions in the past (Suse, Mandrake, Redhat). The Linux-systems I
> tried could never fully replace my Windows desktop. Unstable application
> software was one reason, the amount of hacking required another.
Hmm. I recently tried Winblows ME, and I found I hack to hack it to death
to make it even remotely useful. I quickly rebooted into Linux. I think I'll
make something useful out of that partition, like reformat it and mount it at
/usr.
> With some of the major applications reaching 1.x, I believe now is the time
> to give Linux another shot. Besides I don't want to upgrade to WinXP.
WinXP isn't an upgrade anyway. I suppose the NT kernel is better, but
everything good that XP does it stole from Unix anyway...
> I know Debian is more difficult to install, but I hope I will benefit by
Personally I don't think it's more difficult to install by much. Getting
your peripherals working is the real issue, but I recently put Debian on my
Sony VAIO notebook, and then installed a 2.4.18 kernel, and I have everything
working now.
The great thing about Debian is not only the quality of the software due
to the policies involved, but the fact that you learn about "Linux", not
necessarily about "RedHat Linux", or "SuSE Linux", etc. My knowledge spans
distros now, something that I'm sure RedHat doesn't want.
> learning a lot. The default install for Redhat 7.3 is quite nice, but
> adapting it to my needs is a lot of work. I might as well try Debian and
> only install things I really need to avoid bloat.
Most of my friends at work are cursing Redhat 7.3 right now as being too
unstable. I've converted most of them to Debian.
> I have downloaded a Woody-iso, and managed to install a minimal system with
> internet-access. All is well.
Congrats.
> I do have a few questions about package-management.
>
> Once Woody becomes stable, do the packages (even if unchanged) require
> upgrading?
Nothing is "required", only recommended. It's quite simple. If you point
your /etc/apt/sources.list at "woody", then when new versions of packages
appear in woody, and you "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade", the new versions
will be installed. Remember though, you do _not_ have to burn new ISOs if you
have a decent internet connection (which, considering you downloaded the ISOs,
you probably do...). Debian's apt system is package management "the way it
should be" (tm). It's console-based, with curses and gui interfaces being
available but optional (so many developers miss that point and require a gui
on a box that might be headless), it's mostly automated, and it works out
dependencies by itself. No more rpm hell.
> Where do I go for packages that are not yet part of one of the dists?
I wouldn't, since they haven't been tested by Debian's standards. But, be
aware that just about everything available in the open source world is already
packaged somewhere in Debian. See here
http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages
Also, know that Debian's "unstable" tree is more like what you'd get from
RedHat. I run unstable, and I'm running the latest versions of most apps. Each
week I upgrade.
> If I install software in /usr/local, as I understand it, I bypass Debian
> package management. If I want to run current software (as in Redhat or
> Mandrake current) will I need to install a lot of software in usr/local?
That depends on what distro you track. I find unstable to actually be
quite stable.
> Basically I want to know if it's possible to have a system that respects
> the Debian guidelines, but is more up to date in regards to
> desktop/application software?
Yup. See above.
> I want to avoid format disks and install again every three months, but
> rather have a stable, open-ended system that I can adapt to my needs.
Install again?? I installed my system well over a year ago. From there I
just upgrade regularly. I don't intend to install until I buy a new computer,
and this one will never install again unless it has a fatal harddrive problem.
> I hope I have made clear what I want to do and would like to know about
> experiences from other people. Please tell me if I am wrong in choosing
> Debian for my needs. I want to and have time to learn, but would like to
> have an indication whether my goals are reachable.
It depends on your goals. Often I find that people coming from windows
expect a ton of graphical applications because they don't understand the
difference between good software and good-looking software. Personally I stick
to mostly curses and command-line apps, as I find most graphical apps to be
mostly bloatware, and not customizable enough. Using Linux you will find
software of such quality that you'll never want to use anything else, if you
give it a chance. Just leave room for a few different paradigms, and you might
find that while graphical applications have their place, they're not always
the right tool for the job.
Mike
--
Michael P. Soulier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, GnuPG pub key: 5BC8BE08
"...the word HACK is used as a verb to indicate a massive amount
of nerd-like effort." -Harley Hahn, A Student's Guide to Unix
pgpvIp0u5tHil.pgp
Description: PGP signature
