simple question regarding download of debian 7 wheezy

[monkeybrain2012]

I suspect in many, many instances new users just see a Linux distribution that doesn't work right after the install, get frustrated, and go back to Windows.

Not really, that's why you have 'easy' distros like Ubuntu or Mint for beginners. But your complaint is about Debian, which is not intended for inexperienced users (much less handholding in general) and I suspect that the Debian people don't really care about market share.

[CharlesA]

Less hand holding? I suppose that is true, but the install processes is pretty much the same as Ubuntu.

[iamkuriouspurpleoranj]

^Funnily enough, the expert install would enable new users to get more easily a kind of sudo-included Ubuntu-like experience. However, the options can be intimidating - even though you can mostly go with the defaults. But like something like Slackware or FreeBSD, the expert install is mostly just enter, enter, enter.

[excollier]

Not really, that's why you have 'easy' distros like Ubuntu or Mint for beginners. But your complaint is about Debian, which is not intended for inexperienced users (much less handholding in general) and I suspect that the Debian people don't really care about market share.

It's a pity that some distros have to be "difficult". After all what is a computer OS for ultimately? To actually do stuff with, like office type work, gaming, web browsing, HTPC et al? If so then it should be as simple to use and supported as possible.
If, on the other hand,the target is development and how to learn the workings of an OS, then the user should be made to work a little harder.
The user, coming from Windows, who wants a working system is quickly going to drop something that he cannot just boot up and do his/her work with, what's the point of that? Most computer users are that person. Steer them to Mint, Ubuntu etc. keep them onside.
What I'm getting at here is hurrah for the likes of Mint and Ubuntu (I have both myself) and for others hurrah for the "difficult distros". I fall somewhere between the two.
Most windows users are utterly unaware of the existence of Linux,(my friend, on seeing me boot a computer with Mint asked "What version of Windows is that??") and maybe even think Apple OSx is just a Windows variant.
In much the same way as satellite tv viewers in the UK and Ireland mostly think that Sky are the one and only provider of satellite tv, and that all such must be paid for with hard earned cash, when it's simply untrue, there's plenty of free stuff out there. The parallels with Windows/Apple and Linux are striking. Such is the penetration of large commercial providers.
If you want to win over users from Windows, Linux has to work with ease and not break easily, it's the only way. Maybe later they will delve a little deeper, maybe not, but once they see they can achieve the same result without being out of pocket every few years, they will never go back.
Says me, a convert to Linux of only six months or so!
PS sorry for drifting off topic.

[iamkuriouspurpleoranj]

^Woah - hold your horses. Debian doesn't deliberately set out to make your life difficult.

A couple of points:
- What seems difficult at first gets easier over time. For many Debian users, what seems difficult to you, seems quite easy to them. I sweated over partitioning once upon a time but it happened a couple of weeks ago that I went out for a drink and woke up in the morning with SolusOS perfectly installed on my main PC. Not sure how it got there but it's clear that some skillz have already passed into my subconscious(unconscious?).
- It's not difficult. It has options, that's all. When you don't know what to choose, choice is a burden. The fact that it prompts you for a hostname is taxing for a new user and I aborted my first install attempt because of it. But all you need to do is hit [enter].
- It has options because it positions itself as a universal operating system. The idea is that you can do whatever with it, wherever you want, more or less. There are instructions.
- The free thing is not easily summed up. Basically, not every jurisdiction allows them and there may be licensing issues if using them in production. Therefore, Debian saves you this hassle by leaving them out. Debian is often used for servers etc. and needs to be configurable for this, not cuddly and user-friendly out of the box.
- Debian is sometimes described as a meta-distribution, which simply means that other distros (including Ubuntu) are based on it. The fact is that there are plenty of easy Debian-based distributions for those who want the software but not the confusing array of options or the cautious/conservative approach to codecs etc.

Debian is a very good tool and a doddle to set up correctly once you know how. But if it's not for you, it's not for you. Personally, I think the Debian forums could be a friendlier place but alas a small cabal of active users seems to have squatted it and I really don't find it a pleasant to be.

[excollier]

I think you missed my point, and I never said Debian was difficult.
What I am trying to say is that anyone coming straight from Windows will be expecting or hoping that everything "just works" as with Windows. Sometimes with Linux certain things don't "just work" and some work is needed to make it work. Sometimes a different distro is required because the initial choice just will not work easily with certain hardwares. If you want people to migrate from Windows, then it must be as seamless as possible, or they will just give up and pay money for an easy time.
Six months ago I was a Windows user of 20 years, I knew practically nothing of linux or all the attendant extra knowledge that comes with it after a short time. Now I dual boot two computers, have a Raspberry Pi with the option of several os, and constantly download and try new distros, you know the form I'm sure, because I had time to sit down and break a few set ups before I got it right. Many users just want to "use" their computer for it's installed apps, not fiddle about with stubborn hardware drivers.
Don't misunderstand me, I am very pro Linux in all it's variants, but the fact is some "just work" some need a lot more input, and like me it's better to start with the likes of Mint or Ubuntu if you want a smooth transition.
Here's my present set up: Not bad for six months of learning from scratch. I'll shut up now.
Acer Aspire 5535 / Windows Vista Home Basic 32 bit / LM 13 KDE 64 bit dual boot
HP Pavillion DV5 1111EA / LMDE Cinnamon 64 bit / Ubuntu 12.04.2 32 bit dual boot
Puppy Linux on a usb stick.
Raspberry Pi(Debian Wheezy ARM, PiBang, xbmc, RaspRazor)

[buzzingrobot]

Not really, that's why you have 'easy' distros like Ubuntu or Mint for beginners. But your complaint is about Debian, which is not intended for inexperienced users (much less handholding in general) and I suspect that the Debian people don't really care about market share.

It's not a complaint so much as a judgement that the practice does not advance FOSS. If it doesn't, why annoy users?

For example, music players are a dime-a-dozen in Linux. Few of them will work unless a variety of codecs, drivers, etc., have been installed. Dependency resolution schemes -- apt-get, yum, etc. -- are supposed to locate and install dependencies. But, they don't install *these* dependencies. Those non-free files, may be hosted in another of the distribution's repos, or they may not.

But, either way, the hapless user is left to resolve this, usually with no information about what's needed having been provided. I have never seen an installer or a dependency resolving tool that actually lists the specific non-free dependencies its developers have chosen to forbid it from installing.

How, then, does compelling users to chase around the net looking for the files that their distribution did not install for allegedly ethical reasons actually benefit FOSS? Does it help developers write better software? Does it attract more people to FOSS? Obviously, the answer is no.

How many posts have we seen over the years from newbies who weren't able to boot a livecd because they use an ATI or NVidia card? Nouveau still crashes a booting kernel on certain Nvidia cards. Users are left to muddle about trying to deal with this issue so they can actually install the distribution, and then find and install the non-free Nvidia driver. Why not use the Nvidia driver on on the liveced to ensure the thing will actually work on as much hardware as possible? Let the user choose Nouveau during the install, rather than shipping livecds that do not work at all for some users?

("Easy to use" distributions are obviously better for inexperienced users. But, after 18 years of Linux experience, I'm quite happy to let someone else's software handle as many of the routine, boring, and mundane tasks as possible, so long as it gets me to the same place I'd get by pecking around in vi. Wanting to avoid doing things the hard way does not mean you don't know what you're doing.)

[mastablasta]

The user, coming from Windows, who wants a working system is quickly going to drop something that he cannot just boot up and do his/her work with, what's the point of that? Most computer users are that person. Steer them to Mint, Ubuntu etc. keep them onside.

true.

Linus explained it well. The linux desktop market share is low because computers simply do not come preloaded with it.

he goes on to explain how normal people do not want to install their OS on mashcine. no one wants to buy a phone and then have to chose and instal the OS on it. so all phones come preloaded with some version of an OS. be is symbian or Android, iOS or windows phone.

and then you have RPi. where debian proves just how difficult it is to use - small kids use it and not just use it they create content on it and programme it.... again that Debian verison was modified to fit perfectly with hardware. so there is basically no fuss on install.

if only there were drivers (be it opensoruce or closed ones) on linux and that they are as easy as 2 button install, then people switching from windows would have much less to worry about

lets face it windows is not easy for true beginners and computer illiterate to install. especially if you want multiple partitions and some other things. but on the other hand it never needs nomodeset and such just to boot. or their updates won't make sound stop working or change system time without any optionto change it back.

as for the netinstall it's like ubutnu minimal iso isn't it?

[buzzingrobot]

true.


if only there were drivers (be it opensoruce or closed ones) on linux and that they are as easy as 2 button install, then people switching from windows would have much less to worry about...

Some non-free code isn't included in distribution installs for legal reasons. But, if it's not installed simply because it's non-free, then that does both users and FOSS a disservice. Hence, my rants.

...windows... never needs nomodeset...

Would really like to see cards that need nomodeset be detected so that option can be applied automatically, especially in the case of LiveCD's and LiveDVD's. Normal people who go to the effort of burning a LiveDVD, and then see nothing but a black screen when they boot off it have every reason to say, "Broken!", not "nomodeset".

...as for the netinstall it's like ubutnu minimal iso isn't it?

The file sizes of the two images seem to be a wee bit different, but the mini.iso *is* a network install image. I've used it a number of times; it's a good way to avoid that nomodeset problem at the install.

[sid0972]

ok guys i just finished downloading and trying debian gnome live cd
to be honest there was nothing much impressive to catch my attention

true.
if only there were drivers (be it opensoruce or closed ones) on linux and that they are as easy as 2 button install, then people switching from windows would have much less to worry about

main reason i didnt install it, cause my qualcomm wifi-catching device isnt working there.
with most distros it does.......