Re: Cannot re-install synaptic on Buster.
Hi.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 01:31:04PM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > > A short-term solution at best, although I'll avoid Wayland in buster.
> > >
> > > Why do you think it is a short term solution?
> >
> > Because GNOME. GNOME's upstream said their word loud and clear, and that
> > word is - 'thou shall use Wayland for it is our favorite toy now'.
>
> Yes, for GNOME users that's right. And GNOME is Debian's default DE.
> But not the only one, and you don't even have to have a DE (I haven't
> one, for example).
There are users that are installing Debian from the first install DVD.
Some of those come to this maillist from time to time.
There are users that are installing Debian from the Live DVD.
These are also coming to this maillist.
Never underestimate the power of the defaults. If they give it by
default - people will use it even given the alternatives.
> > Luckily for us, Debian stable users, we're promised a lack of behaviour
> > changes during the lifecycle of a stable release. And Debian keeps that
> > promise most of the time [...]
>
> You make it sound as if there were some cabal behind Debian.
One can call them that. But officially they are called Debian
Developers ☺. I meant nothing sinister, I assure you.
'Most of the time' referenced certain packages (samba, wireshark for
instance), which versions was changed during stretch's lifecycle
because backporting security fixes was not feasible.
Oh, and *browsers*. Let's not forget *those*.
> I think Debian (folks) will be happy to keep alternatives viable as
> long as there is someone around willing to do the legwork.
#818366 convinces me otherwise.
> Watch again systemd: while the default in Debian, it is perfectly
> possible to install a Debian system without it (mine is SysV, and
> I do play around with installers for raspi). And quite a bit of
> the necessary legwork (SysV init scripts for packages et al) *is
> being done by the respective package maintainers, many of whom may
> be systemd proponents... just because they think your choice is
> important!*
I'm not going to touch *this*. We have enough threads about s*****d here
already. A good example nevertheless.
> > > This is more or less my situation. After a detour through Gnome I
> > > finally came back to fvwm, and glad I did.
> >
> > Ah, that's the thing. They give you mutter (it's a GNOME thing) and they
> > give you weston (a reference 'window manager').
> > Both lose in usability to my openbox setup.
>
> Hey. It's free software. Shouldn't we be rather saying "we give
> ourselves [2] this and that?" Who's "they" anyway
I'm not a part of Debian project, I'm just a user.
While I can build a package or two if a need arises, I'm too lazy to
play this "maintainer for myself" role too often.
So I (the user) use the packages they (maintainers) give me.
And I use "they" as a way of referring the group of people I'm not
acquainted with, or whose identities are not relevant to the question
discussed. Fits here, IMO.
Reco
Reply to: