Debian-8-jessie-KDE

[marco07]

Thanks Vinny. I'll just download the firmware-iwlwifi_0.44_all.deb package and place it on a USB stick. I think that will work.

That is what I did when installing Jessie with my needed broadcom driver and it worked. My installation seems to be quite stable right now, after being used 3 weeks and I feel happy about it.

[vinnywright]

Thanks Vinny. I'll just download the firmware-iwlwifi_0.44_all.deb package and place it on a USB stick. I think that will work.

O ,,please do try it,,,,,,,,I almost stopped the installer to get the package and try it my self ,,,,,, but the emergence hard wire is right next to me ,,,,so

I would be interested to know how the installer handles it .

VINNY

[Qqmike]

GreyGeek:

So, for the average user, I suspect that they'd not recognize a difference between Kubuntu 14.04 and Jessie KDE, save for the default browser and email. That assessment assumes that they use the EXT4 fs.

That seems to be the consensus of the reviews I read on Jessie. The real power and stability advantages of Debian shine through on the server side of life, so the experts tell me in their articles.

[Snowhog]

Thanks Vinny. I'll just download the firmware-iwlwifi_0.44_all.deb package and place it on a USB stick. I think that will work.

[vinnywright]

Yes, it did here too. However, I don't have the identified files, so I'll have to hook my laptop up to the wired connection upstairs (?) to install Debian.

you can just install it anyway ,,,,,,and just not have wireless until you add the "contrib non-free" to your sources list and hardwire up and install the firmware ,,,,,,,,,@hear it was the "firmware-iwlwifi" package.

VINNY

[GreyGeek]

While Debian is renown for its server stability, desktop loads for the typical user aren't stressful enough to cause a catastrophic collapse of the desktop. I've been running Kubuntu 14.04 since it was alpha and haven't experienced a single abend. I've had the occasional app break but nothing like a show stopper. So, for the average user, I suspect that they'd not recognize a difference between Kubuntu 14.04 and Jessie KDE, save for the default browser and email. That assessment assumes that they use the EXT4 fs. If theY choose Btrfs then it's altogether another matter. Kubuntu's (Ubuntu's) installer is a light year ahead of Debian-8 when it comes to Btrfs.

[Snowhog]

I had the same problem , but used a wired connection .

however the installer did ask me if I had the files/packages for the wireless driver during install and was offering to install them as well

VINNY

Yes, it did here too. However, I don't have the identified files, so I'll have to hook my laptop up to the wired connection upstairs (?) to install Debian.

[vinnywright]

I configured my HP laptop for a second OS -- Debian 8.1, but I can't install it (at the moment) because I'm not connected by wire; wireless only, and the needed WiFi driver is non-free.

I had the same problem , but used a wired connection .

however the installer did ask me if I had the files/packages for the wireless driver during install and was offering to install them as well

VINNY

[Snowhog]

I configured my HP laptop for a second OS -- Debian 8.1, but I can't install it (at the moment) because I'm not connected by wire; wireless only, and the needed WiFi driver is non-free.

[vinnywright]

well ,,,,,,so far @hear Debian-8 seams to work pretty much the same as Kubuntu ,,,,,,,,,,,only a bit ,,,,,lighter maby?







and of course ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the obligatory kiss my cube .......








☢VINNY☢

[Qqmike]

Ladies and Gentlemen,
In the Education Corner ...


For people not up to snuff on what Debian is, its history, what the big deal is, about systemd, desktop vs server use, and such, check out this link for straight, conversational talk.


Debian 8: Linux’s most reliable distro makes its biggest change since 1993
http://arstechnica.com/information-t...ge-since-1993/
(Also, discusses systemd: it's an issue for servers, mainly; most mainstream desktop users will probably not notice using systemd.)

This seems to be a common sentiment:

You've probably noticed a theme here; Debian is behind the curve when it comes to version numbers. Why run Debian on the desktop when similar downstream distros like Xubuntu or Ubuntu GNOME or Linux Mint offer arguably the same thing with newer packages and a more polished interface? These are, after all, Debian derivatives—aren't you in effect using Debian?
The answer I suspect lies in that legendary Debian stability. And many developers like to mimic the server in their local environment. For the average Linux user, though, the downstream derivatives are probably a better bet in many cases. Ubuntu and Linux Mint might not be quite as stable, but they deliver more frequent updates to the applications most people use daily. That means more new features and arguably a better experience. If you want something similar, but for philosophical reasons feel more comfortable with Debian, there's always Debian Testing.

The pitch for Debian is very much stronger for servers than for desktops, so it seems?

If Debian on the desktop is perhaps a bit too far behind to entice today's user, nearly the opposite is true on the server. There's systemd to deal with, but once you get past the systemd changes there's much to love about Jessie here ... [read on]...

--> --> --> Wait! There's more!

Debian 8.0 'Jessie' is out and even Microsoft is celebrating
http://www.pcworld.com/article/29145...lebrating.html

Modern computers that use EFI boot mode instead of BIOS boot mode have been a bit of a pain point, but Debian 8.0 Jessie has seen a lot of improvements here. Computers with broken EFI implementations should now be handled much more gracefully.

... and more ...


What's what in Debian Jessie
Getting a Debian Linux release out the door is never easy, but the latest and greatest, Debian 8, "Jessie" is out now.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/whats-w...-debian-jesse/

In the meantime, Debian comes with greatly improved Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) support. This means it will be easier than ever to install Debian on Windows 8.x PCs with secure boot.

One thing, which may puzzle new users, is that Debian doesn't appear to have the Firefox web browser or Thunderbird e-mail client. These mainstays of many Linux desktops actually are present, but they've been slightly forked. For Firefox, Debian uses Iceweasel for Firefox and Icedove for Thunderbird respectively. Under the name, they're the same programs.

What Debian isn't, is a distribution for new comers. If you're new to Linux, I'd recommend Ubuntu or Mint. Both are based on Debian, but come with a lot more hand-holding. For power users, or businesses that want a very stable operating system and have the in-house expertise to manage Debian, Jessie is well worth your time.

=> Looks OK, no problem I see w/Jessie, based on the reports. I've not tried it, though. Not sure how much of what I know about Kubuntu (like command line and such) would apply; what the learning curve would be for the differences. Looks like things like kdesudo work, for example. The GRUB-EFI stuff works the same (in the Debian family). I continue to read positive things about Mint-KDE and even Xubuntu. I guess I can start trying out some things, cluttering up my HDD with OSs like I used to! PITA. Or forget it and ride this out with Kubuntu. I already decided: The latter wins out! (But am open to being swayed, somewhat.)

[GreyGeek]

Unfortunately, I've come across no other installer that uses subvolumes automatically at install time except Kubuntu. My idea is to not only have the installer use subvolumes, but to also allow you to specify the subvolume name at install time. Then you can install numerous distros or versions to the same btrfs file system without any of the above shenanigans like Jerry is going through.

With out wanting to re-invent the wheel I am going to follow the Ubuntu Btrfs scheme with Jessie:

Ubuntu-specific subvolume layout in 11.04 and later

In Ubuntu 11.04 and later, the installer sets up btrfs with a specific layout:
The default subvolume to mount is always the top of the btrfs tree (subvolid=5).
Subvolumes are created below the top of the btrfs tree as needed, e.g. for / and /home, it creates subvolumes named @ and @home. This means that specific options are needed in order to mount the subvolumes, instead of the default btrfs tree top:

• [*=left]The @ subvolume is mounted to / using the kernel boot option rootflags=subvol=@
  [*=left]The @home subvolume (if it is used), is mounted via the mount option subvol=@home in fstab.

How to work with snaphots in Ubuntu's layout

In order to work with snapshots of / or /home in the Ubuntu layout it is very convenient to mount the btrfs filesystem at a separate location, and work from the top of the btrfs tree, rather than from the mounted subvolumes.
sudo mount /dev/sdX# /mntCreate snapshots

To create a snapshot use
sudo btrfs subvolume snapshot /mnt/@ /mnt/@_snapshotthis will create a snapshot of the @ subvolume named @_snapshot located also in the top of the btrfs tree.
Rollback to a snapshot

To roll back to a snapshot, you simply need to change its name to the name that ubuntu mounts, using
sudo mv /mnt/@ /mnt/@_badroot
sudo mv /mnt/@_snapshot /mnt/@and reboot.
Delete a snapshot

To delete a snapshot use
sudo btrfs subvolume delete /mnt/@_badrootbtrfs snapshots are subvolumes in themselves, and self-contained, deleting the old @ subvolume like this is fine, provided we have a replacement.
The btrfs-tools command ''set-default'' will break Ubuntu's layout

Since Ubuntu is set up to always keep the top of the btrfs tree as the default mounting subvolume it will break when using the btrfs-tools command set-default, since this command is specifically designed to change the default mounting subvolume.
The mount options for / and /home described above relies on the fact that the corresponding subvolumes @ and @home can be located below the default mounting subvolume, and if set-defaultis used, this is no longer the case.
If you have accidentally used set-default and want to revert, you can do the following
sudo mount /dev/sdX# /mnt
sudo btrfs subvolume set-default 5 /mnt
since the id 5 is a permanent alias for the top of the btrfs tree.


Using the idea above, a Debian installation is modified using techniques in this link.

[SteveRiley]

LVM is the appropriate thing to obtain support from installers and it sits in the right layer (above the filesystem, being filesystem agnostic). This is precisely the sort of fuss I was making about BTRFS, why should a FILESYSTEM be specifically catered to, replacing or displacing the support that would otherwise exist for LVM? Suddenly we get a call for functionality that centers solely around BTRFS because no other filesystem makes use of it.

LVM had to exist because filesystems weren't smart enough to figure on their own how to span a single volume across multiple devices. Thankfully, Btrfs is smart enough and no other layers are necessary. BTW, guess what other file system can already do this: NTFS. So the idea isn't exactly new. Your protestations fall on deaf ears.

Meanwhile the graphical installer is so poor you can't do half the **** the Debian text mode installer can do for you. Why not make the graphical installer up to par or install through text mode in the first place? (Is faster too!).

So use the text installer then, just like I do. Choice is good.

Unfortunately, I've come across no other installer that uses subvolumes automatically at install time except Kubuntu. My idea is to not only have the installer use subvolumes, but to also allow you to specify the subvolume name at install time. Then you can install numerous distros or versions to the same btrfs file system without any of the above shenanigans like Jerry is going through.

Have you tried calamares independent linux installer

[xennex81]

Do you realise you are now asking distribution installers to obtain extra features based and meant solely for a single filesystem, even surpassing or shoving aside LVM? LVM is the appropriate thing to obtain support from installers and it sits in the right layer (above the filesystem, being filesystem agnostic). This is precisely the sort of fuss I was making about BTRFS, why should a FILESYSTEM be specifically catered to, replacing or displacing the support that would otherwise exist for LVM? Suddenly we get a call for functionality that centers solely around BTRFS because no other filesystem makes use of it. Why then design specifically for it? Meanwhile the graphical installer is so poor you can't do half the **** the Debian text mode installer can do for you. Why not make the graphical installer up to par or install through text mode in the first place? (Is faster too!).