Re: aptitude --mind-your-own-business option?
Ken Irving wrote:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 06:38:46AM -0600, Russell L. Harris wrote:
* Ken Irving <fnkci@uaf.edu> [061202 06:26]:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 05:34:23AM -0600, Russell L. Harris wrote:
Does synaptic do something better than apt-get? It doesn't appear to
be very usable on a command-line, looking at aptitude show synaptic.
Unless you are not running X, why is that a problem?
There are a number of ways to answer this question, any one
of which would be sufficient. To me, the fact that you ask the
question implies that you haven't actually tried to put yourself
into anyone else' shoes.
How about "Just because I don't like GUI applications". There are
many of us out here who don't.
How about "I like to run in verbose mode, and capture the output,
so I have a record of exactly what took place, instead of a progress
bar which reveals nothing, and gives no hint of what might have been
odd during the process."
How about "I like to have it verify each package, either to install
or remove, independently, and if I request it not to install
something which is necessary, then to let me know, and confirm,
and then do what *I* tell *it* to do, not the other way 'round."
There are others, which, if you strained your imagination, you
could probably think of for yourself. Since the exercise will do
you good, I'll stop here.
Another way to answer you is "You did not respond to the
question as asked." He asked what it does that is better.
You didn't make any progress toward answering that question
that I can discern. AFAICT, you seem to think it is better,
simply because it gets installed by default. That's an attitude
more suited to the OTHER OS we all know about.
I don't have X on servers (running stable), but even on workstations
I prefer to not "get into" an application where a simple command will
do the job. (Some tense moments inside deselect come to mind, but
maybe that was due to my inaptitude to figure out/read/learn its
key mappings.)
Indeed.
The fact is that Debian installs synaptic by default. I have been
using synaptic exclusively for nearly a year, and have experienced
none of the woes others on this list say they are encountering with
aptitude and apt-get.
I am not a crusader regarding this matter. Synaptic works for me and
has been trouble-free. And, importantly, it is not nearly as easy to
get in trouble when using synaptic as it is when using aptitude or
apt-get; I speak from experience.
This is as may be. However, installation of a new package and "garbage
collection and disposal" are conceptually very different things, and
should, IMO, be physically distinct operations. I see no reason to
conflate them.
Furthermore, putting something back in is more difficult than taking
it out.
Also, the attitude built into software that "I know what needs to be
done on your machine better than you do" is one more suited to that
of the OTHER OS we all know about, not one where openness and control
are so frequently touted. To conflate these operations, and then only
have one confrimation prompt is, IMO, not a useful or suitable design.
I, for one, would immediately abort any such operation on my machine,
and I would toss the software which was written like that into the
dust bin instanter, whether GUI or command-line being irrelevant.
It's a BAD DESIGN. It's bad in concept, not to speak of implementation.
Whoever designed that has, IMO, a flawed conception of what version
control means.
I can appreciate that, but I'm used to using apt-get and it seems to
do what's needed. Just figured to try aptitude (etc.) based on all
the glowing reports I've seen on the list, but I'm not convinced of
its (nor synaptic's) advantages over apt-get.
I think that you have very adequately demonstrated that it is a
decidedly inferior tool to apt-get. I had been toying with the idea
of using it, but after this report, it has gotten a complete write-off
from me.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
Reply to: