Debian for newbies?

Changes · 04-18-2011, 06:28 AM

I fix computers as my main income-giving activity, and I've tentatively been installing Ubuntu on some people's computers. Mostly I install it to people who are fed up with Windows, or when they're hopeless n00bs who'll mess up a Windows system in a week. It's almost always a dual-boot arrangement, because few are ready to ditch Windows altogether (even with emulation).

However, in the case of netbooks and old laptops, I'm developing the opinion that Ubuntu is getting too bloated and inefficient in its attempt to bring itself to the attention of the average user. In my experience, given the same GUI, a Debian system is noticeably snappier and more pleasant to use than a Ubuntu one. It also requires less tinkering to bring it to actual usability (proprietary codecs and such).

And then there's the impending disaster of Unity, which I suspect will cause many to swear off Ubuntu altogether, unless they miraculously manage to fix it properly before launch.

Anyway: I've been thinking of using Debian Wheezy as the default Linux system I install on the aforementioned people's computers (possibly with Liquorix kernel for more hardware support). While it's undeniably true that it's less user-friendly to install and set up, I'm thinking once I set it up properly the user shouldn't have a more difficult time adapting.

What do you think?

rizzy · 04-18-2011, 06:42 AM

If you go through a lot of installs of debian then smxi.org scripts will save you hours of time. The script will help you with liquorix kernel, ati/nvidia drivers install, along with lots of other useful install options.
I came round to the same bloatware conclusion about ubuntu 2 years ago and since been using debian happily. Mint debian edition and crunchbang linux are two other good options as ubuntu replacements. The fact that both of these distros switched from ubuntu to debian as thier base says volumes on the direction canonical is taking.

widget · 04-18-2011, 09:52 AM

I have both Debian testing and Ubuntu installed on here. Debian has become my main OS due to pretty much the same reasons that you give.

With Debian having a Live CD available I do not really see Debian as any harder to install than Ubuntu anymore. Configuration is only slightly harder and that is really only if you want different login screen background as far as looks goes. Other things are pretty much the same.

Ubuntu has actually started to "simplify" things and trying to achieve a "configuration free experience". This does not make configuration easy at all.

The things that are tougher to do in Debian will just make it more durable under the abuse of noobs.

Debian testing is more robust than the normal Ubuntu release as they are based on Sid.

The Liquorix kernel is really great. I would recommend using the "past" repo for liquorix as it has a kernel that is stable with video cards using proprietary drivers.

My fglrx and Catalyst are working great on 2.6.38 now that we are at the end of the cycle and ATI has caught up. Nvidia ought to be in about the same boat. 2.5.39-RC is out. Soon the liquorix kernel will be going to it and then the drivers just will not work again until they are rebuilt for the new kernel and that is, probably, going to be a few months.

The "past" repo, right now has the 2.6.37 kernel in it.

I like Debian testing with Liquorix as a production OS much better than Ubuntu. It gives you about identical stability with the Ubuntu LTS with the kernel of current Ubuntu regular release.

thund3rstruck · 04-18-2011, 10:23 AM

Quote:

I've tentatively been installing Ubuntu on some people's computers. Mostly I install it to people who are fed up with Windows, or when they're hopeless n00bs who'll mess up a Windows system in a week.

My experience with Ubuntu has been that it drives people back to Windows and away from Linux forever. I tried a similar experiment with a group of IT professionals (co-workers) and after that initial 'wow' period was over and 100% of the subjects experienced the Ubuntu updater breaking their wifi, VMWare, or flashplayer (by doing kernel updates, etc) the group got so infuriated that most of the participants went on to shun Linux as a whole.

I've tried to explain that Ubuntu isn't 'Linux' but one (poorly implemented) version of Linux and there are more stable versions like Fedora or Mint but I'm having a hard time breaking through after the Ubuntu failed experiment in 2009.

Maybe things in the Ubuntu world have improved since then but I'm personally through with Ubuntu

j1alu · 04-18-2011, 11:47 AM

You could also try to stick to Ubuntu, disable some unneeded services or use a lighter desktop (e.g. xfce4).
If you stick to gnome, you could open gconf-editor and set metacity to "low-resources". Use gtk2-engines-xfce...

That said: I think Debian is ok for people who just began. And it sure is light out of the box.

If you can live with a window-manager you could have a look at antiX (fluxbox and icewm). I showed it to a friend who has never seen a Linux before, and he liked it a lot.

Hungry ghost · 04-18-2011, 12:26 PM

I agree that Debian can be used by newbies just as fine as Ubuntu. Maybe the part of Debian that is "hardest" than Ubuntu is installing and the post install setup (I don't find it hard, but I understand the fact that some people may find it hard), but these are not tasks that a regular user does, anyway, so, once it's set up, it can be used by anyone, IMO. Just install Wheezy, so your users have up-to-date packages and a solid system.

cascade9 · 04-18-2011, 03:16 PM

Debian 'wheezy' might not be the best choice. Sure, it should work, but being a rolling release its possible (if you use it long enough that changes to 'likely') to give users some update that will break the system, and/or confuse the users.

Maybe Squeeze with a few programs apt-pinned to testing would be a better idea?

widget · 04-18-2011, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascade9

Debian 'wheezy' might not be the best choice. Sure, it should work, but being a rolling release its possible (if you use it long enough that changes to 'likely') to give users some update that will break the system, and/or confuse the users.

Maybe Squeeze with a few programs apt-pinned to testing would be a better idea?

He is considering Wheezy as a replacement for Ubuntu. As Ubuntu 11.04, due out on the 28th of this month, is based on Sid I fail to see that Wheezy would be nearly as risky.

10.04, Ubuntus LTS, came out last April and was based on Squeeze as Ubuntu wants to have stability in their LTS.

If Debian testing is installed it is basically like having a rolling release of the Ubuntu LTS.

Few packages for testing are going to be a problem as Debian does not bring the m in from Sid until they think they will probably work.

I have been using it with the Liquorix kernel since the end of October with no problems at all. Seems like the perfect blend of the most up to date kernel and stability.

the dsc · 04-18-2011, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascade9

Debian 'wheezy' might not be the best choice. Sure, it should work, but being a rolling release its possible (if you use it long enough that changes to 'likely') to give users some update that will break the system, and/or confuse the users.

Maybe Squeeze with a few programs apt-pinned to testing would be a better idea?

Some people would go beyond that and even say it's not a "rolling release", but "testing", as it is the actual name. I wouldn't really make that point myself, but I second what you said.

Just past week or not much earlier than that, there was an update that would have broken the system badly ("render the system unusable", according to the discussion in the bug page), I only managed to not be affected because of that program that intercedes between the updates and warns of discovered bugs (I'm sorry I don't remember its name), and, despite of not quite understanding what it means ("udev should not assume that /run works just because it exists"), I knew udev was important so I decided to hold the package for a while. It's not that common though. Once I've even accidentally upgraded to Sid without noticing for a while, and then later I downgraded my sources.list back to testing, and eventually it "downgraded" as Sid packages got into testing.

As a matter of newbie-friendliness/windows-user-friendliness, I think that KDE or LXDE versus Gnome may be more important than ubuntu versus debian, but quite a lot of people would disagree. I've only used ubuntu back in 2006 or so, so I don't really know. What does ubuntu really has in terms of newbie-friendliness? The last thing I saw there was a pop-up with something like "click here if you want to install these codecs for mp3 and other media", but I'm not sure that it even really worked.

I'd also recommend the liquorix kernel.

widget · 04-18-2011, 05:30 PM

Ubuntu offers a slightly easier configuration still but mainly a more comprehensible repo system and slightly better font rendering.

You also, now, have to sign a MS eula to get fonts installed.

Changes · 04-18-2011, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizzy

If you go through a lot of installs of debian then smxi.org scripts will save you hours of time. The script will help you with liquorix kernel, ati/nvidia drivers install, along with lots of other useful install options.

Fantastic - I'll have much use for this. Thanks

Quote:

Mint debian edition and crunchbang linux are two other good options as ubuntu replacements.

I tried LMDE when it came out, and it sucked. Important things were broken out of the box (say, gstreamer...) and it was just a bad experience. I figured it was my own damn fault for installing a system the moment it came out, so I gave it some more time, then tried it again. The experience was less painful, but I just can't get a good feeling with that distro, so I gave it up altogether.

Crunchbang I know well; I tried it out when it was still ubuntu-based and I loved the interface, but ubuntu 9's own weaknesses (say, awful flash support) killed it for me. Now that they switched to Debian I tried it out again, and liked it a lot - my two netbooks run #! exclusively. Still, it's definitely not a distro for the average Windows user, what with its minimal desktop, config file editing and keyboard shortcuts...

Quote:

The fact that both of these distros switched from ubuntu to debian as thier base says volumes on the direction canonical is taking.

Yeah - making a lightweight distro based on Ubuntu always sounded to me like making a racecar by modifying a bulldozer. Eeebuntu switched to Debian too and became AuroraOS, which had much promise until they failed to produce the new distro, and now development seems to have stalled. Oh well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thund3rstruck

I've tried to explain that Ubuntu isn't 'Linux' but one (poorly implemented) version of Linux and there are more stable versions like Fedora or Mint but I'm having a hard time breaking through after the Ubuntu failed experiment in 2009.

To be fair, that was two years ago. For all my gripes with Ubuntu, I never had it update itself into broken-ness.

As for the whole udev fiasco: I understand why Sid got hit, but how the hell does an update that borks the entire system get into wheezy? Isn't the whole "testing" thing supposed to prevent exactly this?

Dutch Master · 04-18-2011, 08:44 PM

Testing usually is usable software, be it not fully stable nor sufficiently tested, for the actual testing itself Sid (unstable) and the Experimental branches are intended.

k3lt01 · 04-18-2011, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Changes

As for the whole udev fiasco: I understand why Sid got hit, but how the hell does an update that borks the entire system get into wheezy? Isn't the whole "testing" thing supposed to prevent exactly this?

Ummmmmm ...... No. You need to read Debian's pages to understand how the transition from Unstable > Testing > Stable works. Unstable is actually quite stable but Testing can break easily and for weeks at a time. That was one of my gripes with the Mint fanboys who declared LMDE to be the ultimate user friendly distro. One guy even installed it on every PC in a nursing home. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when the "Freeze" on Debian Testing was lifted and all the Sid updates come through, sorry I digress. Debian Testing is for testing things that migrate from Sid without major difficulties. Just because they work in Sid does not mean they will work in Testing especially when updates migrate to testing unevenly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Debian

http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-choosing.en.html

3.1.5 Could you tell me whether to install testing or unstable?

This is a rather subjective issue. There is no perfect answer but only a "wise guess" could be made while deciding between unstable and testing. My personal order of preference is Stable, Unstable and Testing. The issue is like this:

Stable is rock solid. It does not break.

Testing breaks less often than Unstable. But when it breaks, it takes a long time for things to get rectified. Sometimes this could be days and it could be months at times.

Unstable changes a lot, and it can break at any point. However, fixes get rectified in many occasions in a couple of days and it always has the latest releases of software packaged for Debian.

But there are times when tracking testing would be beneficial as opposed to unstable. The author such situation due to the gcc transition from gcc3 to gcc4. He was trying to install the labplot package on a machine tracking unstable and it could not be installed in unstable as some of its dependencies have undergone gcc4 transition and some have not. But the package in testing was installable on a testing machine as the gcc4 transitioned packages had not "trickled down" to testing.

3.1.6 You are talking about testing being broken. What do you mean by that?

Sometimes, a package might not be installable through package management tools. Sometimes, a package might not be available at all, maybe it was (temporarily) removed due to bugs or unmet dependencies. Sometimes, a package installs but does not behave in the proper way.

When these things happen, the distribution is said to be broken (at least for this package).

3.1.7 Why is it that testing could be broken for months? Wont the fixes introduced in unstable flow directly down into testing?

The bug fixes and improvements introduced in the unstable distribution trickle down to testing after a certain number of days. Let's say this threshold is 10 days. The packages in unstable go into testing only when there are no RC-bugs reported against them. If there is a RC-bug filed against a package in unstable, it will not go into testing after the 10 days.

The idea is that, if the package has any problems, it would be discovered by people using unstable and will be fixed before it enters testing. This keeps the testing in an usable state for most period of the time. Overall a brilliant concept, if you ask me. But things are alwasy not so simple. Consider the following situation:

Imagine you are interested in package XYZ.

Let's assume that on June 10, the version in testing is XYZ-3.6 and in unstable it is XYZ-3.7

After 10 days, XYZ-3.7 from unstable migrates into testing.

So on June 20, both testing and unstable have XYZ-3.7 in their repositories.

Let's say, The user of testing distribution sees that a new XYZ package is available and updates his XYZ-3.6 to XYZ-3.7

Now on June 25, someone using testing or unstable discovers an RC bug in XYZ-3.7 and files it in the BTS.

The maintainer of XYZ fixes this bug and uploads it to unstable say on June 30. Here it is assumed that it takes 5 days for the maintainer to fix the bug and upload the new version. The number 5 should not be taken literally. It could be less or more, depending upon the severity of the RC-bug at hand.

This new version in unstable, XYZ-3.8 is scheduled to enter testing on July 10th.

But on July 5th some other person, discovers another RC-bug in XYZ-3.8

Let's say the maintainer of XYZ fixes this new RC-bug and uploads new version of XYZ after 5 days.

So on July 10, testing has XYZ-3.7 while unstable has XYZ-3.9

This new version XYZ-3.9 is now rescheduled to enter testing on July 20th.

Now since you are running testing, and since XYZ-3.7 is buggy, you could probably use XYZ only after July 20th. That is you essentially ended up with a broken XYZ for about one month.

The situation can get much more complicated, if say, XYZ depends on 4 other packages. This could in turn lead to unusable testing distribution for months. The above scenario which is artificially created by me, can occur in the real life. But such occurrences are rare.

Getting back to the title question I would suggest DebianLive's version. It is easy to install (if they have updated it to 6.0.1a (6.0.1 had a few problems). It is exactly the same install format as LMDE (user friendly but without the Minty bits) and doesn't use resources like Ubuntu (or Mint for that matter) does.

k3lt01 · 04-18-2011, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch Master

Testing usually is usable software, be it not fully stable nor sufficiently tested, for the actual testing itself Sid (unstable) and the Experimental branches are intended.

That's not how I understand it. Testing is for testing, that is why it can take so long for things to be fixed in it. A "fix" is made in Unstable and if it seems ok it is sent to Testing for testing. If it breaks in Testing it is broken until a "fix" is implemented in Unstable and again if it seems ok it moves through to Testing after a predetermined period of time. Experimental is a different kettle of fish altogether. I like Sid/Experimental but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who doesn't know their way around Debian. Likewise I wouldn't recommend anyone use Ubuntu Development Release if they don't know their way around Ubuntu.

widget · 04-18-2011, 10:35 PM

The main problem with the udev bug was that it was not, in fact a udev bug. It was a nfs bug. Updating udev, if you had the faulty nfs package would indeed screw things. That version of nfs did not come to testing but listbugs did not know any more than the udev package had a bug against it.