• From: New Amsterdam, U.S.
  • Registered: 2010-06-13
  • Posts: 425

Topic: Statler Installer

I'm not sure if this has been requested yet but can we put the installer used in Ubuntu in the next Alpha/Beta of CrunchBang? I feel like we have to have it. I mean the turn-off for a lot of people with Debian is the complication of the installer, it's hard to make a dual-boot with Debian if you're a novice with computers. I feel like having a user-friendly (read: ridiculously simple) installer where you just move a knob-thing side-to-side to decide the size of the partitions.

Also, don't use the Stable repos when you guys finally release the official CB, the Stables are full of ancient software.

XFCE User ~ Linux Abuser ~ Rubbish Refuser
[img]http://achievements.schrankmonster.de/Achievement.aspx?text=First%20Tiling%20WM%20-%2050G[/img]
  • From: /dev/null
  • Registered: 2009-07-02
  • Posts: 3,083

Re: Statler Installer

CrunchyFree wrote:

Also, don't use the Stable repos when you guys finally release the official CB, the Stables are full of ancient software.

#! is meant to be based on Squeeze, so Debian testing.

Life's not what it used to be. *
  • pvsage
  • Internal Affairs
  • Offline
  • From: Section Six
  • Registered: 2009-10-18
  • Posts: 4,911

Re: Statler Installer

^ Clarification:  CrunchBang IS based on Squeeze, which is currently aliased to testing.  If I understand Corenominal's plan, Statler will remain on Squeeze and will be "officially" out of alpha/beta when Squeeze goes stable.  The user can always edit etc/apt/preferences and etc/apt/sources.list so that they pin and point to testing or unstable.

As for the Ubuntu Ubiquity installer...just no.  Apparently there is a (currently broken) Debian live installer, and Corenominal says he'll consider including this if it gets fixed, but Ubiquity is strictly an Ubuntu thing, so...yeah.

while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );
  • From: California, USA
  • Registered: 2008-11-29
  • Posts: 8,647

Re: Statler Installer

CrunchyFree wrote:

Also, don't use the Stable repos when you guys finally release the official CB, the Stables are full of ancient software.

Im not a fan of ancient software either but you can easily change the sources.list to testing or unstable if you prefer.

Note: ** Please read before posting **

BTW if you wish to contact me, send me an e-mail instead of a PM.
  • Registered: 2008-11-24
  • Posts: 1,858

Re: Statler Installer

CrunchyFree wrote:

Also, don't use the Stable repos when you guys finally release the official CB, the Stables are full of ancient software.

Clarification: CrunchBang will never use the current Debian Lenny Stable repositories.

The software in the final release will be at least as new as it is now in the Alpha (newer in many cases); it will never revert backward to an "ancient" state. smile

Once Squeeze becomes bug-free and is named the "Stable" branch of Debian, those who want newer apps will be able to use the backports.org repository if they wish. You can also change your sources to Testing or Unstable (or a mix). Lots of options for how you want to maintain your system; this is one big advantage #! Debian will have over #! Ubuntu. cool

  • Registered: 2008-11-24
  • Posts: 1,858

Re: Statler Installer

And now On Topic...

Ubuntu's Ubiquity installer has a horrible flaw in my opinion, it does not ask where to put GRUB unless you know to click the Advanced tab on the final page. It is too easy to accidentally mess up your Windows MBR on /dev/sda when trying to install on a flash drive at /dev/dbb, for example. So Ubuntu's installer has its pros and cons, I would not say it is perfect. Debian's installer is not perfect, either, but it is a "sensible default" for a Debian-based distro.

  • Registered: 2010-05-30
  • Posts: 11

Re: Statler Installer

Look on the bright side, it's still developing and not stuck in a bad state, it will only get better.

  • Registered: 2009-12-31
  • Posts: 89

Re: Statler Installer

snowpine wrote:

And now On Topic...

Ubuntu's Ubiquity installer has a horrible flaw in my opinion, it does not ask where to put GRUB unless you know to click the Advanced tab on the final page. It is too easy to accidentally mess up your Windows MBR on /dev/sda when trying to install on a flash drive at /dev/dbb, for example. So Ubuntu's installer has its pros and cons, I would not say it is perfect. Debian's installer is not perfect, either, but it is a "sensible default" for a Debian-based distro.

I wrote something similar, three weeks ago:

Ubuntu installer

Ubuntu has ONE excellent advantage compared with all other distros, in my opinion, and that is the offer of a choice to the user about passwordless logins DURING THE INSTALLATION.  This feature ought to have been adopted, in my view, by every distro out there.

Ubuntu has ONE terrible feature during the installation:  The user must know, and it is NOT intuitive, that, to install the boot manager, GRUB, on the Linux partition, instead of the default MBR, (absolutely the WRONG choice, especially for those making the transition from M$ products, for whom dual booting capability is essential), one must be clairvoyant and click on the "advanced" icon.  Not only is it poorly labeled, but, it is EASILY overlooked during the installation process.  I have ruined many an MBR with the likes of Mint and Mepis, and Ubuntus, because of that feature.

16 June 2010

smile
CAI ENG

  • From: Melbourne Australia
  • Registered: 2009-04-14
  • Posts: 9

Re: Statler Installer

Just a thought, the Sidux installer is pretty good, and it works with debian.