On 2020-02-26 22:49, Peter Ehlert wrote:
On 2/26/20 7:20 PM, Lee wrote:
On 2/26/20, John Kaufmann <kaufm...@nb.net> wrote:
For my Thinkpad, I burned CDs with:
(1) debian-10.3.0-amd64-netinst.iso
(2) firmware-10.3.0-amd64-netinst.iso
and (3) firmware-edu-10.3.0-amd64-netinst.iso [just in case]
A. Disk (1) begins without problem, then stops for wifi firmware:
Try it with one of the non-free network install ISOs from
https://cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images-including-firmware/current/multi-arch/iso-cd/
I have been using these:
https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/10.3.0+nonfree/amd64/iso-cd/
...
Thanks, Peter - but on top of Lee's answer, I'm beginning to get a sense that
debian.org has /way/ over-complicated the installation images. (If the choice
of images seems too complicated, that's only because it it.) For example, just
look at the pages you and Lee referenced:
Lee:
cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images-including-firmware/current/multi-arch/iso-cd/
You:
cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/10.3.0+nonfree/amd64/iso-cd/
Two pages to serve the same purpose is WAY too much churn. Then look at the
/files/ from those two pages:
Lee's page: [660M] firmware-10.3.0-amd64-i386-netinst.iso
Your page: [377M] firmware-10.3.0-amd64-netinst.iso
It's almost as if two different people (or parties) are taking cracks at the same
issue simply because no one is in charge to rationalize it for the sake of the people
who matter: Those who are looking for a way to get started on Debian. But it gets
even worse: Both pages use the SAME boilerplate text above the file links, so it
would be easy to confuse them. Even someone who has read the instructions
<https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch06.en.html> carefully (as I did)
has no hint of the unnecessary complications.
There's no reason there should be two places for people to go for the same
thing. As it happens, the file from your page is the one I had already
downloaded [(2) above], but even you did not recognize it because this has been
over-complicated. And looking at both files, knowing that they contain much of
the same material, I'm inclined to think that the other one [at 660M rather
than 377M] has been more carefully assembled to get as much as practicable onto
one installation disk.
I'm taking a lesson from this: some cleanup is in order.
Thanks,
John
