New to Debian

Message

987687 · #31 Post by **987687** » 2008-04-07 01:07

For the most part I use apt because its better than aptitude (although some will argue that...) and I occasionally use synaptic because sometimes it can be nice to have a GUI.

Telemachus · #32 Post by **Telemachus** » 2008-04-07 01:11

MeanDean wrote:OMG now you are calling aptitude the default? Strange, I am pretty sure I can install without aptitude but afaik the base system includes apt-get.

Nope. You can't install Debian without installing aptitude unless you actively remove it. And if we are talking about doing that, you could just as easily remove apt-get by force and just leave dpkg. Even a minimal Debian system - without selecting any of the tasks from the tasksel menu - includes aptitude. Also, I'm pretty sure that since Etch, aptitude does the heavy lifting during an installation with the netinstall iso. (Check your earliest /var/log/aptitude for confirmation. Since you use only apt-get, it should be easy to find.)

MeanDean wrote:Most debian documentation that I have seen refers to apt/apt-get and not aptitude.

Well, quite a lot of Debian reference material still refers to Woody or Sarge as current, sadly, but this should be a good enough counter-proof:

The Official Debian Reference Manual wrote:aptitude is now the preferred text front end for APT, the Advanced Package Tool. It remembers which packages you deliberately installed and which packages were pulled in through dependencies; the latter packages are automatically de-installed by aptitude when they are no longer needed by any deliberately installed packages. It has advanced package-filtering features but these can be difficult to configure.

None of this means you have to use it, but all the official Debian docs I've seen for upgrading from Sarge to Etch explicitly say to use aptitude and not apt-get for that job, and quite a lot of the newer documentation describes aptitude as the new "official" package tool from the command line. (I know I'm a hypocrite: on the other thread I was saying we should stop arguing over these old battles. Still, I had to rise to this bait.)

@ Rickh, right after the bit I quoted for MeanDean, note this:

Official blah blah wrote:synaptic is now the preferred Gtk GUI front end for APT. Its package filtering capability is easier to use than aptitude's. It also has experimental support for Debian Package Tags.

Vorian Grey · #33 Post by **Vorian Grey** » 2008-04-07 01:21

MeanDean wrote:gnome is the default in the gnome cd

There is no Gnome CD.

rickh · #34 Post by **rickh** » 2008-04-07 01:35

The only issue that concerns me about Aptitude is that it is so thoroughly a one-man operation. If Daniel Burrows got run over by a truck, I don't know how much of a setback for Aptitude that would be.

There is no doubt that Synaptic is the best, indeed the only passable, GUI package manager. That said, it is really no easier to use than Aptitude. It only seems easier to some people because it's a GUI interface, and people have been trained to believe that GUI = easier.

Trained like animals, I might add. No tutoring in thought processes...just Pavlovian reaction.

MeanDean · #35 Post by **MeanDean** » 2008-04-07 01:41

sure there is a gnome cd, it just doesnt have gnome in the name

preferred by some does not equal default

The day aptitude is installed and apt is not is the day that aptitude is the default. If both are installed then both are obviously recommended to be used.

If it is easy to remove aptitude and difficult to remove apt-get (apt) then which would be considered more of a 'default'?

aptitude is now the preferred text front end for APT

preferred over dselect, since dselect use to be the text front end to apt

preferred Gtk GUI front end for APT. Its package filtering capability is easier to use than aptitude's

preferred over the aptitude frontend...

Vorian Grey · #36 Post by **Vorian Grey** » 2008-04-07 01:43

MeanDean wrote:sure there is a gnome cd, it just doesnt have gnome in the name

It's the default CD and you know it. You're just arguing to be arguing.

MeanDean · #37 Post by **MeanDean** » 2008-04-07 01:48

Vorian Grey wrote: It's the default CD and you know it. You're just arguing to be arguing.

default means it is pre-selected for you or is what you get if you do not make a selection....

nobody is selecting which iso you use

Vorian Grey · #38 Post by **Vorian Grey** » 2008-04-07 02:01

MeanDean wrote: default means it is pre-selected for you or is what you get if you do not make a selection....

Then why no Gnome CD? How is a brand new user to Debian going to know anything about Gnome or KDE. They will download the default CD, CD-1, and they will get Gnome. That implies that is the default.

MeanDean · #39 Post by **MeanDean** » 2008-04-07 02:08

oversight? bad naming scheme? because joey hess uses gnome?

Okay, you are right! Gnome is the default and it is what everyone should use. We should all recommend what debian developers prefer and have recommended - we should always suggest/recommend gnome to every new user.

Is that right?

Vorian Grey · #40 Post by **Vorian Grey** » 2008-04-07 02:57

MeanDean wrote: Okay, you are right! Gnome is the default and it is what everyone should use. We should all recommend what debian developers prefer and have recommended - we should always suggest/recommend gnome to every new user.

Is that right?

As usual you twist around what is said. Gnome is the default, as is aptitude, but users should be aware there are other choices. They can then choose whatever they want. When I try a new distro I try to do what the developers ask until I know my way around a bit. For example, in sidux I only did upgrades with apt-get in init 3. I didn't necessarily agree with it but I felt it was better to do it and to recommend to other new users that they to do it. A support forum that works against the dev team is a poor support forum indeed.

Lavene · #41 Post by **Lavene** » 2008-04-07 02:58

MeanDean wrote:oversight? bad naming scheme? because joey hess uses gnome?

Actually, IIRC, it was Joey that came up with the idea of creating the KDE and XFCE images. The problem with the naming scheme happened because Joey made the other images *after* Debian had settled on Gnome.

I think he wrote about it in his blog just before the Etch release.

MeanDean · #42 Post by **MeanDean** » 2008-04-07 03:05

Vorian Grey wrote:
As usual you twist around what is said. Gnome is the default, as is aptitude, but users should be aware there are other choices. They can then choose whatever they want. When I try a new distro I try to do what the developers ask until I know my way around a bit. For example, in sidux I only did upgrades with apt-get in init 3. I didn't necessarily agree with it but I felt it was better to do it and to recommend to other new users that they to do it. A support forum that works against the dev team is a poor support forum indeed.

as usual? you know me that well?

I am not twisting anything. You just said it again. Gnome is the default and aptitude is the default so even though we may not agree with it we should all work with the dev team and recommend aptitude and gnome to new users until they know their way around.

Is that correct?

MeanDean · #43 Post by **MeanDean** » 2008-04-07 03:08

Lavene wrote: Actually, IIRC, it was Joey that came up with the idea of creating the KDE and XFCE images. The problem with the naming scheme happened because Joey made the other images *after* Debian had settled on Gnome.

I think he wrote about it in his blog just before the Etch release.

IIRC you are correct, the other images were created later. Don't recall the whole issue though. Either way, would you consider gnome to be the default desktop? And if it is, should we only recommend gnome to new users?

MeanDean · #44 Post by **MeanDean** » 2008-04-07 03:09

987687 wrote:For the most part I use apt because its better than aptitude (although some will argue that...) and I occasionally use synaptic because sometimes it can be nice to have a GUI.

either flame like a raving lunatic or stop cluttering up the thread

Vorian Grey · #45 Post by **Vorian Grey** » 2008-04-07 03:12

MeanDean wrote: Gnome is the default and aptitude is the default so even though we may not agree with it we should all work with the dev team and recommend aptitude and gnome to new users until they know their way around.

Is that correct?

I would recommend that they get CD-1.iso and then use aptitude, yes.

MeanDean · #46 Post by **MeanDean** » 2008-04-07 03:17

Vorian Grey wrote: I would recommend that they get CD-1.iso and then use aptitude, yes.

well gnome-terminal is the default, will you also recommend they use that?

Lavene · #47 Post by **Lavene** » 2008-04-07 03:24

MeanDean wrote:IIRC you are correct, the other images were created later. Don't recall the whole issue though. Either way, would you consider gnome to be the default desktop? And if it is, should we only recommend gnome to new users?

I guess it's the default since getting the others require finding and downloading an alternative CD1. As for recommendation goes, if someone seeks my help for getting his desktop up and running he would have to install KDE because I don't know the first thing about Gnome.

But when someone asks for a recommendation it's usually possible to use more than one word. You can say what is the 'default' but give a short explanation why *you* don't recommend it.

@ "Vorian Grey": As for sheepishly following the devs: Look at the name of the forum. We are an unofficial user support forum. If we as users don't agree with the devs there is no problem in that.

MeanDean · #48 Post by **MeanDean** » 2008-04-07 03:35

I would say there isn't a user on here that doesn't disagree with the devels about something or another. We aren't debian fanboys, in fact debian doesn't have fanboys. Debian is what it is and you accept it because the thing about debian is it can be whatever you want it to be. IMO that is the one thing the devels have always got right, if they ever stopped getting it right that is the day debian stops being debian. Hell, debian is the epitome of disgreement, that is what makes it great. It would suck if we had anyone dictating what we would use by default or deciding what direction to go in. What most consider to be debians weak points are exactly what makes debian so strong. Sure, a leader could crack the whip and drive us down the road twice as fast but it would not be as fun, we may miss a lot of new paths to try out, and it would get old quickly.

Debian rocks....

MeanDean · #49 Post by **MeanDean** » 2008-04-07 03:38

Vorian Grey wrote:.

...and sometimes dean just has to exercise his mean side...

welcome to debian - land of the truly free...

JohnDeere630 · #50 Post by **JohnDeere630** » 2008-04-07 03:59

MeanDean wrote:I would say there isn't a user on here that doesn't disagree with the devels about something or another. We aren't debian fanboys, in fact debian doesn't have fanboys. Debian is what it is and you accept it because the thing about debian is it can be whatever you want it to be. IMO that is the one thing the devels have always got right, if they ever stopped getting it right that is the day debian stops being debian. Hell, debian is the epitome of disgreement, that is what makes it great. It would suck if we had anyone dictating what we would use by default or deciding what direction to go in. What most consider to be debians weak points are exactly what makes debian so strong. Sure, a leader could crack the whip and drive us down the road twice as fast but it would not be as fun, we may miss a lot of new paths to try out, and it would get old quickly.

Debian rocks....

Well spoken! In the end, it is all about freedom.