remove the hd install script

Forum: DSL Ideas and Suggestions
Topic: remove the hd install script
started by: lovdsl

Posted by lovdsl on May 02 2006,00:45

I suggest that the next release of dsl be offered with no option to install non frugal to a hard disk. it is not recommended so why offer it and then suggest a frugal is better..it is just a left over. ditch it

Posted by mikshaw on May 02 2006,02:39

It's there because it can be done. There's nothing wrong with a harddrive install...it's just not well supported, there's no upgrade, and it's easy to break. There are still many people who prefer this option, and for some people with very little ram it's the only way they can run DSL.

Posted by lovdsl on May 02 2006,05:30

Yes I understand..however if dsl were to introduce the appless version with hd install and the community created a good folder of .dsl apps for it
then dsl could go it's frugal uci way without constant questioning regarding hd installs and get a better feed back for the desired direction it wants to go.
I like the frugal concept and also have a solid hd install
It is just a suggestion based on observation.

Posted by mikshaw on May 02 2006,12:20

I agree with you there. Personally I don't see any solid argument for doing a traditional harddrive install of DSL when it means losing much of what makes DSL unique and flexible. For a person with a very old machine, one that doesn't have enough ram to run anything beyond the base system (or perhaps not even that), there are more appropriate distributions available which install in the traditional way and fully support this method. However, I've always said that one of the greatest strengths of Linux, and open source in general, is the freedom to choose how you want to run your system. Since the harddrive install script is only a little over 6k, it doesn't really hinder the main path of DSL development as a compressed and modular system. The only real downside is, as you said, having to support those people who break what would otherwise have been a fairly unbreakable system =o)

Posted by doobit on May 02 2006,12:38

I agree with ditching the script - at least leaving off the menu. Keep it available for those more advanced users who may benefit from it or who may benefit the community by using it, but keep it out of sight for new users who seem to be confused by it. The tendancy is to install anything that says "install", whether or not it's good for you.

Posted by lovdsl on May 02 2006,16:04

Yes..it would seem reasonable to include it if it were not an obvious choice as in the menu and getting started page but available as a terminal command.

The appless version may be suggested as response to questions about installs to send possible issues in that direction. leaveing hd installs in dsl to a minimum.

I did not find distro alternatives for hd install with as much ease and gui so I am not suprised it is a popular choice for those who have never heard of frugal and feel comfortable with old standards

an appless forum may be more helpfull for hd users as questions may be answered without as much pressure to use frugal unless a poster had continuous issue that may be solved by doing so...many appless users would no doubt be useing frugal and have good knowledge base.

it may be noted on the getting started page of appless that hd installs do not offer uninstall for extensions and will not be modified.. up front... this may shy away some desire.

in any case it may ease the confusion haveing three directions with dsl the center and frugal...this was my original thought.

Posted by roberts on May 02 2006,16:24

The main page say Debain type traditional hard drive install.
The boot screen say installs as Debian type.

The extensions are not an official part of DSL, but rather a community process, the main reason for this is not only community involvement but also to maintain compliance with certain standards group. But even on the extensions website it clearly says...

Quote

Damn Small Linux myDSL Application Extensions
ALL DSL Extensions are made exclusively for Damn Small Linux.
This requires loading them from within DSL, as user dsl.
They are made for the liveCD and "frugal" type installs.
They do not provide package management, simply reboot.
While not made for hard drive installed systems.
most will work however it is not recommended.

myDSL extensions are put together by DSL users independent of the Damn Small Linux project
DSL does not warrant the integrity of sources, builds, or files donated

This has been revisted so many times.

Posted by lovdsl on May 02 2006,17:00

Revisited so many times...thus the SUGGESTION to remove the hd install at least in view.. and fill the void with the clearer hd option in the desired appless offering..the extensions seem to work very well on my hd install...the issue seems to be uninstall for those who get out of control installing them. it is only a suggestion.
observation suggests dsl developers are uninterested in feedback in this regard..but the desire to hd install none the less exists and will continue to do so until some alternative arises ( frugal is an alternative but I mean a disto alternative )..it is a compliment to dsl to be so versitile...versitility however broadens questions.

perhaps it is better to remove and suggest a linux alternative.
offering the alternative keeps the crowd...over there...

Posted by pr0f3550r on May 02 2006,18:00

Quote (lovdsl @ May 02 2006,13:00)

observation suggests dsl developers are uninterested in feedback in this regard..

We might both be completely wrong, but I though the same a few times.

Posted by mikshaw on May 02 2006,18:20

I don't understand what benefit there is to removing the script. People will continue to want debian-style harddrive installs, regardless of whether or not it's an obvious option. What will happen, and I'm about 97% sure of this, is that there will be an increase in posts asking how to do a traditional harddrive install. This problem you perceive with the inclusion of a traditional alternative will simply increase with the apparent removal of the alternative.

Posted by dare2dreamer on May 02 2006,18:51

As Debian moves forward, is DSL still going to really be a "debian style HD install"?

DSL already uses the older "oldstable" repository for its applications. While this isn't a problem for developing a controlled livecd, I think as Debian (in theory) marches on we're going to end up less and less of a "debian style install on the HD" due to version conflicts, changes in default applications and architectural changes in both Debian and DSL.

I think for the moment, removing the HD install script from the menus is a good idea. Leaving the whoppingly huge 6kb script on the disc is also a good idea for power users too. :-)

Posted by doobit on May 02 2006,18:56

Quote (mikshaw @ May 02 2006,14:20)

This problem you perceive with the inclusion of a traditional alternative will simply increase with the apparent removal of the alternative.

I don't think so. It seems like some people who are doing the Debian type install are doing it because they see the word "install" and think that's what they are supposed to do. DSL just works better as a Frugal. I think making the full-install option less obvious would push new users toward the Frugal. One way to steer a herd is to limit their open gates. Just my opinion, but it works in cattle theory.

Actually, people are probably more like cats...

Posted by mikshaw on May 02 2006,19:43

for clarification: When I say debian-style, i mean it as a general term for a setup which, like debian and hundreds of others, has its entire filesystem installed to a writeable partition or partitions, and where changes are permanent.

Posted by cbagger01 on May 04 2006,05:16

It seems like the main concern being addressed here is:

We need to find a way to stop the casual user from choosing the "Debian Style hard disk install" from the menu because we all know what is really best for them and yet they are choosing the "wrong" option.

If this is the main perceived problem, why remove the choice or the script itself? It sounds like a rather drastic and limiting solution.

Simply add some wording like "RECOMMENDED" to the frugal hard drive install choice and call it a day.

There is plenty of real estate on a computer monitor's screen and additional text wording is cheap (in bytes) and easy to do.

You can even write a small book explaining the drawbacks to a "Debian Style" hard drive install, if that's your cup of tea.

Posted by torp on May 04 2006,14:21

i agree with cbagger....linux is about choice.

torp

Posted by escay on May 04 2006,15:43

hi,

here´s my point of view:

the good thing about dsl (and my reason for choosing it) is and was the varitey of ways to use it. This is exactly what i was looking for:

a small system which has everything you need for your daily work (and some more), runs on old hardware, can be installed to a harddrive, is portable (meaning it runs on nearly everything u can call computer) to have always the same workspace, is highly configurable and of course it´s free (in all)! The point is that the you (as user) have the choice. On the system i use it isn´t very comfortable to run DSL of a CD. Having it running just in RAM is totaly impossible on this system. Using the myDSL extensions on such a system causes a freeze (i guess it´s cause the lack of RAM) so it´s not possible to do a frugal-install.

I am really happy that it is possible to make a hd-unstall.

Thanks for your attention

Greetz
Escay

Posted by lovdsl on May 04 2006,16:31

I agree...I use a hd install and am playing with frugal install trying to figure it out..

.many use the hd install but it is the desire of dsl to promote the frugal and like feedback in this regard...

there was mention of a appless version and my newbie notes were seemingly unwelcome so I thought that perhaps deleting the option from dsl and going strictly frugal and leaveing the option in the appless was a way to improve the seeming negativity surrounding the hd install.

this was only a SUGGESTION.. it would in fact force the desired frugal design..and older versions such as the 2.2 I am useing still offer hd install..the hd install will not be improved or recommended..

the synaptic will soon be a very frustrating experience. I think hd installs with .dsl extensions work very well with the knowledge that uninstall of the extensions is not available

choice is great and is available..I do not anticipate a suggestion being considered...it was compelled by observation.

Posted by u2musicmike on May 04 2006,19:26

Just wanted to say that I am glad the HD install is there. When I first downloaded DSL 2.2, I did the HD install on a 200 MHz pentium, 64M, 2.5G HD because that's the way I had done it with a slackware CD I got at a yard sell. I didn't know the difference between frugal and regular HD. I was trilled with DSL right away as I never could get X to work in slackware. I finally broke my DSL HD install when I mounted a UCI package. Then I started reading the forum and this time I tried a frugal install for a couple of days. I gave up on the frugal install because all of the mydsl packages would not install in my limited ram. If there is a way to have packages installed to the HD in frugal let me know. I like something that is hard to break.

Thanks,
Mike

Posted by humpty on May 05 2006,03:37

Some of you may already know I stand firmly in the frugal camp, but even I think taking away the HD install is too drastic. For those who don't really need it is partly the psychology of feeling comfortable that the stuff sits securely on HD and not taking up valuable ram.
What they really need is a 'scare factor', i.e a warning before installing e.g "this operation may seriously screw up your life",
"you may not complain in the forums", "you may not pass go.."
:laugh:

Posted by psybeer on May 07 2006,04:39

I just finished HD-installing DSL in a toshiba 7020ct. I did this because I didn't understand, and still don't, what a frugal install is and what the differences are between them. Also, being new to linux, the only way i've known to install the os is to the hd. I wish there was a table or something that compares hd installs to frugal, in a way that is easy to read and understand.

I have to add that out of all the distros i've tried (ubunu, vector, debian, pocket), DSL was great out of the box. Minor tweaking was done to the xserver, but It's made my life much easier!

Posted by dare2dreamer on May 08 2006,18:31

Quote (mikshaw @ May 02 2006,14:43)

That would be called a "generic linux install", wouldn't it?

Posted by Zephrant on June 28 2006,21:28

Bringing back up an old thread- I do want to mention that there is a class of us out here that don't have an optical drive in the system. I'm building an appliance, and used a CD for the initial install to an 512MB IDE CF. When I get done configuring the system, I'll remove the optical drive (there is no room in the case for it) and run CF only. Once I'm fully configured, I'll duplicate the CF for additional units.

Why I need a HD install:
I use an IDE to CF adapter for cost reasons. Much cheaper than any notebook sized HD, better mechanical mounting than an internal USB stick, and field replaceable if the user really hoses the system.
Speed- Boot time is important, and I suspect that I'll get faster booting with an HD install, especially if I can remove some auto-detect stuff I don't need.
Cost- No optical drive means a much cheaper unit.
RAM savings- Only having the required apps in RAM means I can install less, which again is cheaper.
Will never be adding/removing apps.

If I'm missing something here, please advise, but on the surface the HD install sure seams to match my needs best.

Posted by brianw on July 05 2006,02:03

The big thing really is boot time, amount of ram, and ease of configuration. With a traditional install the filesystem is not compressed into a single file requiring the loading into a ram drive of the complete OS. Also there are the additional apps that are loaded to make things more useable. Figuring out what needs to be backed up may be daunting and some things require being present at init so the restore process doesn't work. The time it takes to reinstall a trashed system is negligable especially if you back up your apts, mydsls, compiles, etc...

<had some sarcasm here but felt I should remove it because it did not serve the community spirit>

I am glad the developers of DSL can see that there are many different views out here. What works for one may not work for all. I don't feel that I need to be forced into using a frugal install when an HD install works best for me. Traditional HD installs may be best for newbies because changes they make would be persistent and therefore less confusing until they become more linux savy and a reinstall only takes minutes..