New to Debian

[Lavene]

While rickh comes across as a bit harsh he is actually giving some good advice, at least I think so. The tool of choice in Debian is Aptitude and it works brilliantly. CLI is prefered over GUI. As they say, when it Rome.....

The devs recommend Aptitude, that's all. Personally I use apt-get and it hasn't killed me yet. Cli is preferred over GUI only by those who prefer CLI over GUI. It's no universal truth in Debian that you should be using CLI if possible.

Some of us do prefer CLI over GUI for a lot of the tasks because it's faster but the bottom line is to get done what needs to get done. I can't see that it matters one bit if you use CLI or GUI. And I wish we didn't have to have this discussions and thereby shooting the discussion off topic.

[MeanDean]

terminal - one hundred tools in one tiny box that uses 1/10th of the memory that one GUI tool would use
yummy!

~officially off topic~

[Vorian Grey]

While rickh comes across as a bit harsh he is actually giving some good advice, at least I think so. The tool of choice in Debian is Aptitude and it works brilliantly. CLI is prefered over GUI. As they say, when it Rome.....

The devs recommend Aptitude, that's all. Personally I use apt-get and it hasn't killed me yet.

Aptitude, apt-get...it's all the same to me. It's Apt. Despite all the religious posts to the contrary, I don't see enough difference in them to argue about it. I'll leave that argument to great minds than mine.

However, if the devs, who have a deep knowledge about the internals of the OS advise us that something is a superior tool and that we should use it as the preferred tool, shouldn't we listen to their advise?

Some of us do prefer CLI over GUI for a lot of the tasks because it's faster but the bottom line is to get done what needs to get done. I can't see that it matters one bit if you use CLI or GUI.

I am a GUI guy by nature. I know enough commands to do some damage and that's about it. Using Apt with a terminal is bloody brilliant.

Now, we are further off topic.

[Lavene]

However, if the devs, who have a deep knowledge about the internals of the OS advise us that something is a superior tool and that we should use it as the preferred tool, shouldn't we listen to their advise?

Indeed we should... listen first, then think for our selves. I like apt-get, is still being developed, it is in the repos etc etc. And hoping that no one in their right mind put stuff in the repos with a huge warning sticker "Warning! Don't use!" I see no problem making a qualified decisions about my own system even if it's against someones recommendation.

[katofiad]

I recall reading once elsewhere that aptitude and apt-get write to and maintain different files when performing package management. I am not certain to which files the writer was referring, since dpkg is always the backend. Perhaps a comprensive de-mystifying sticky on the matter is in order?

[Lavene]

The thing is that you should stick with one of them. Aptitude keep a record of dependencies installed but it get confused if you install something with apt-get and vice versa.

As for demystifying: Use the magic spells "man aptitude" and "man apt-get". You may throw in "man dpkg", "man apt" and "man apt.conf" too.

I think the reason for the developers recommend one over the other is to avoid as many bugreports saying "I just tried Aptitude and it want to remove my entire system" as possible. It's said to have better dependency resolver... I have never noticed that but that doesn't mean it's not true. Apt-get's autoremove is said to be dangerous... never noticed that either.

So again: Choose one you like, stick with it and have fun.

[Vorian Grey]

I see no problem making a qualified decisions about my own system even if it's against someones recommendation.

Me neither. I do the same thing. We are experienced users and we are hopefully qualified to make those decisions. A newcomer to Debian won't be qualified to make that decision and I think we should recommend they use Aptitude as the tool of choice but that there are other choices if they desire to use them as they gain experience.

[MeanDean]

We are experienced users and we are hopefully qualified to make those decisions. A newcomer to Debian won't be qualified to make that decision and I think we should recommend they use Aptitude as the tool of choice but that there are other choices if they desire to use them as they gain experience.

Should we also recommend gnome or kde? xfce?
medit, gedit, nedit, kate?

Since I am more experienced than you can I make decisions for you?

Why would a user need to be 'qualified' to make a decision that only affects him?

How is he to become 'qualified' unless he starts making those decisions for himself?

I think everyone should offer their opinion and reasons and let the person decide for themselves.

Deciding things for users sounds like ubuntu-think to me...

[rickh]

I agree with Dean, we can't decide for them, but, OTOH, it is our responsibility to encourage efficient and structured use of the tools available.

I like to come in heavy-handedly, flaunting my opinions in a manner that I hope can't be ignored, but I have no desire to hang around for a flame-war over the issue. I strongly believe that the cli is, by far, the most suitable environment for package management ... less strongly that Aptitude is significantly superior to apt-get.

I want newbies to realize that the cli is a privilege, not a burden, and I believe that using it regularly for package management is the most certain way to encourage them to use it in other ways as well.

People who use the cli regularly strengthen the Linux community. People who struggle to avoid using it, sap that strength.

[jayson.rowe]

Not sure what repos you may want, but take a look at my signature for a big list of debian repos.

Thanks. So all I have to do to get sid, is replace lenny's repos with the following?

<snip>

You need to change your repos to point to unstable, and then you need to do this:

apt-get update
apt-get dist-upgrade

Or if you've been using aptitude

aptitude update
aptitude full-upgrade

and are there any advantages in using sid over lenny?

In my mind, no, but lots of folks here prefer Sid. The software is somewhat newer, but Sid is also more likely to have an upgrade that really fucks your system up. (A Sid slogan you often hear is, "If it breaks, you get to keep both parts.") If you know your way around a Linux system and you don't mind tinkering when things go wrong, then you may love Sid. Personally, I find that Lenny is a good middle ground: newer software than Etch, but not so much excitement.

In my personal experience (so take it with a grain of salt) - I've seen more Lenny upgrades go bad than Sid upgrades...It seems sometimes Lenny is incomplete, but Sid is always complete.

Could be my imagination though.

[Vorian Grey]

We are experienced users and we are hopefully qualified to make those decisions. A newcomer to Debian won't be qualified to make that decision and I think we should recommend they use Aptitude as the tool of choice but that there are other choices if they desire to use them as they gain experience.

Should we also recommend gnome or kde? xfce?
medit, gedit, nedit, kate?

Since I am more experienced than you can I make decisions for you?

Why would a user need to be 'qualified' to make a decision that only affects him?

How is he to become 'qualified' unless he starts making those decisions for himself?

I think everyone should offer their opinion and reasons and let the person decide for themselves.

Deciding things for users sounds like ubuntu-think to me...

I am for everyone having the system of their choice. However, when a newcomer comes to Linux they have no idea what their choices are, so I always recommend they stick to the defaults until they learn what they want. The default is what some dev has decided somewhere down the line. It wasn't my decision to make Gnome as default, or for Gnome to have gedit as it's default, or for the devs to recommend aptitude as default. However, for support purposes it's much easily if they stick to the defaults. A new user has no idea what they are doing anyway. They can choose to not listen and do whatever they want and I'm fine with that. That's what I did. That's what I still do on my own system. I only recommend new users doing that if they are willing to learn.

I'm sure this won't surprise anyone but a lot of new users that come to Linux from Windows these days don't want to learn. They want an OS that's based on Linux, that will run all their favorite apps, and is easy to use and basically ready to go out of the box. Ubuntu fits a niche in that area. I wish them no ill well. I am glad they have made Linux more popular for the masses. What you're seeing more of these days, is when people have learned a bit they outgrow Ubuntu and then they start looking for a more serious Linux, like Debian. It's a win-win situation for everyone, seems to me.

[Lavene]

Just for the record: I try to remember to use aptitude when writing on the forum. That way I don't confuse a newbie, and a more experienced user can substitute it for apt-get if he want to. Sometimes I forget though...

[MeanDean]

The default is what some dev has decided somewhere down the line. It wasn't my decision to make Gnome as default, or for Gnome to have gedit as it's default, or for the devs to recommend aptitude as default.

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.

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

If both are installed then neither is the default. If only one is installed then it can be considered the default....aptitude isn't the default in any install I have done.

Linux recommends KDE so I guess it is the default? preferred? suggested? I guess we should all be telling every new user to use KDE?

[Vorian Grey]

Linux recommends KDE so I guess it is the default? preferred? suggested? I guess we should all be telling every new user to use KDE?

If you go here and download an image, like many do....

Code: Select all

http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/4.0_r3/i386/iso-cd/

and you get CD-1.iso, it will be a Gnome install. To get KDE you actually have to go to the bottom of the page and find the KDE image. That, to me, suggests Gnome as the default.

[MeanDean]

gnome is the default in the gnome cd
kde is the default in the kde cd
xfce is the default in the xfce cd

aptitude is not the default in any of them....

[987687]

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]

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.)

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:

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:

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]

gnome is the default in the gnome cd

There is no Gnome CD.

[rickh]

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]

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...