115
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
115 points (87.1% liked)
Linux
48366 readers
1130 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
They’re spot on. I had this thought last week while trying to find an ISO. It’s like it’s a state secret or something. 😆
Fedora, OpenSuse, Arch, Gentoo, Kali, and Armbian all make it easy to find an ISO or image to get started. The free RHEL downloads are the only thing more hidden then Debian downloads.
There's a big fat "download" button right in the front page of debian.org that takes you right to the network install ISO. That's all you need.
And a working network connection. That’s not crap.
That’s ALL you need. 😆
You gotta download it either way, netinstall or not. At least that way you can pick and choose what you actually need. Are you trying to set up a computer in the woods?
Sometimes, yeah. There are a lot shit networks out there.
With the full, I can at least get a functioning base system without needing a network connection. With the net, network no worky, no Debian.
Maybe I will need to.
Yeah, but there is a point. I'm not a Linux newbie, but sometimes you can get lost looking for the iso file that includes firmware, or non-free, or certain desktop. On most distro's pages, the big fat button leads to a direct link to the iso file and another to a torrent at most.
While I do agree that the website is bad, nowadays the main iso includes non-free firmware, and it's the same installer for all DEs.
Well that's nice, I think last Debian I downloaded what buster or something so I might have been talking about old experiences. They're still making the user navigate through an FTP-like file structure to find the current amd64 iso?
As an experiment you could go to debian.org and see if you find the download link.
I gave it another shot having not attempted for a few years, I was looking for the most complete, stable, non-free, offline, x64 image for a USB flash drive. I failed very quickly because I didn't know whether I needed a CD or DVD image. A few minutes of clicking through random and irrelevant "FAQs" and I finally found an answer I understood but only through experience, CD images are smaller than 700mb and my flash drive is large, so I wanted a DVD image. Back to the top, and I found the image I needed.
So it took a few minutes, and I've done this several times before. A new user would have absolutely no clue.
You're describing that you want something that isn't the standard installer, with the ability to do offline installs. A new user with no clue about anything would probably just use the top link and run the graphic installer, ending up with the same system as if he/she had downloaded the dvd version. Is your criticism that internet is a requirement for the standard installer?
Kind of. My criticism is that a new user will end up with that net installer without realizing it, which may not be what they want, confusing them further. Bypassing the website is not a good solution, there's important information there like the install guide. ISO downloads are only one example of how the website is hard to navigate, even if they manage to skip that step it's only going go make it harder in the future.
I see, so then there are two options: 1) Make the full offline installer the default, or 2) put all options side by side and explain the difference.
The first option isn't good because any default will not fit everyone, there will always be someone looking for what isn't the default. The second option would just be confusing for the person who knows nothing about computers. "I have to read a wall of text to decide what to download? This is too much!"
I mean, there's no way to win here. Is there any OS avaliable that can have one installer that fits exactly everyone, or a way to have a list to choose from if the user knows nothing about the choices?
No, the best option is to have a usable website like every other distro. That way anyone can choose the release they want.
Nobody has an issue with there being a recommended download, that in itself is a good thing.
There is something "clunky" about the website, but to be fair, the first page has a big button to download the installer, which leads to a page where the first link is the version most people want, the second link leads to instructions how to get it onto a usb (or cd/dvd) for linux/windows/mac, and clearly visible a link to all the other versions of the installer that people might want, with explanations what they are for.
For me it's hard to put my finger on why the website is bad, all the information is there. I do agree that it just somehow feels bad, but I don't understand why.
Correction. A new user, meaning an actual normie Windows user rather than a nerd like people in this discussion, will get absolutely nowhere trying to install Debian. "Here's the ISO" means nothing to the average person and anyway that's only 5% of the process of getting the thing up and running.
Would a normie Windows user know how to install Windows on a computer without OS? Of course, this hypothetical user doesn't have to, because he/she probably bought a computer with Windows pre-installed. Is there any OS in the world that is easy to install if you don't know what an iso file is? Which measurement are we using when the claim is that Debian is difficult to install? What is an easy install?
What a fatalistic attitude. Or is it gatekeeping? So what if Windows is hard to install for noobs? As you say, they never need to do it. The subject here is Debian, not Windows. And yes, other distros are easier. Have you even tried? Obvious example being Ubuntu but Fedora is even easier, go check it out. Assumes no knowledge of terminology, contains a native tool for making the boot stick, it's step-by-step all the way to first boot. My claim that Debian is hard is based on first-hand experience of it and other distros. Seems you are more interested in defending Debian's honor than making it better. I want Debian to be better. Do you?
I am not trying to gatekeep. It could be that I'm blind to why debian is hard to install, I think it's about the same as ubuntu or mint or fedora etc. Which means I'm not the right person to improve this area. I do want to lower the thresholds, and currently I'm helping out with that in other areas. This discussion started with the claim that it was hard to find the iso, which I disagree with, and now I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about.
Fair enough, apologies for the slightly aggressive tone. ITT there were certainly others who seemed to believe that installing Debian is a simple matter of identifying an ISO file and that Debian is somehow a user-friendly distro. To me at least, these claims are completely out of touch.
Well done.
The ISO is one tenth of the problem. The average non-techie Linux neophyte is not going to have a clue what to do next once they have downloaded this ISO thing, even if they somehow managed to pick the right one. Debian's onboarding for ordinary users is just disastrously bad.
Why does every single distro HAVE to cater to noobs? If someone wants "easy" Debian, then they can use Mint or Ubuntu. Debian is the distro you go to once you've outgrown those two. It's meant for technical applications, like servers and network infrastructure, not really something like casual browsing or gaming.
Anecdata: I used Debian before using Ubuntu. Debian is not just for servers, it works fine on personal computers. And ethically it is better than Ubuntu, more so now than ever. But the onboarding process is a mess. When I have just replaced my laptop and I'm on bad wifi struggling to ditch Windows, and I don't have a piece of paper handy with all the arguments on an obscure
ddcommand, and I risk bricking my machine, I need a bulletproof onboarding process. That was why I moved to Ubuntu. I never cared about "outgrowing" an OS, my concerns are more about privacy and ethics. Well, one would hope that these things might be available to all people one day. That was what Debian was supposed to be for.As someone who uses Debian for browsing and gaming, I agree. It is a tool that you pick because you have a goal in mind and I pretty much never recommend it as an intro to Linux for new users. The only reason I continue to use it as a desktop/laptop is for consistency between all my machines so I don't have to remember how to use 8 different package managers.
Yeah, I mean the website design sucks for sure, but it's literally right there. I'm not sure what else people need.
Apparently by "people" you are referring to experienced technical users like yourself. Everyone else will need to learn what an ISO is, which one is needed, and how exactly to transform that file into a bootable USB stick. This means intense hand-holding from beginning to end. Which is possible, because other distros manage it. Debian does not.
If a user is that far down the technical literacy ladder, they do not need Debian, they need Ubuntu or Mint or one of a dozen other distros that prioritize UX over production.
Then the website should redirect them there instead of using poor UX as an excuse