Re: [ubuntu-studio-users] apt vs apt-get
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 11:36:49 +0300, Janne Jokitalo wrote: >Yes, that's moving to more sophisticated usage. And quite frankly, if >we're talking about technologically inexperienced people, wouldn't >they use a GUI (Software Center?) anyway? Not in regards to the wiki, help pages or when solving issues by the mailing list. Command line allows to copy and paste and it allows assuming that the defaults were not that likely edited as by a GUI front-end. And if the Ubuntu defaults should be very important, or if changing defaults should be very important, it could be done temporarily by command line options, too. >One really good plus for apt's scoreboard is the progress bar at the >bottom of the terminal screen. I'm sure there are others, but that's >the thing that jumps at your eyes. It's just not an apt-get default, but also available for apt-get, run it with -o Dpkg::Progress-Fancy="1" for example sudo apt-get -o Dpkg::Progress-Fancy="1" install alpine-pico or disable it for apt by running apt with -o Dpkg::Progress-Fancy="0" for example sudo apt -o Dpkg::Progress-Fancy="0" install alpine-pico To make it permanent, edit the default settings as described by http://askubuntu.com/questions/445245/how-do-i-enable-fancy-apt-colours-and-progress-bars Regards, Ralf -- ubuntu-studio-users mailing list ubuntu-studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
Re: [ubuntu-studio-users] apt vs apt-get
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 09:27:49AM +0200, br...@linuxsynths.com wrote: > > > On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 14:01:03 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > apt and apt-get make not much of a difference, it's just that apt does > > use an easy to understand name instead if dist-upgrade, which is named > > full-upgrade and a newbie don't need to use apt-cache or dpkg to > > search, show or list. It also provides an option to edit sources.list, > > so a newbie does not need to know where it's located. Since apt is new, > > it doesn't need to be backwards compatible. Since it's the new official > > Ubuntu command line tool for package management, pitfalls introduced by > > other user-friendly tools, at the moment just aptitude comes to mind, > > could be ruled out, since Ubuntu and apt defaults will fit very well > > together. This is true, it's always better to have all features related to one specific area (package management in this case) in one app. My only gripe with searching is that the package name isn't a distinct field anymore, so I'll continue using apt-cache for that as then it's only a double-click away. > > I can't see any advantage for a newbie, when dealing with apt-get, > > instead of learning how to use apt. Advanced users likely prefer the > > apt-get defaults, I at least temporarily need to use apt with > > > > -o APT::Color="0" > > > > because otherwise the output could be unreadable on my monitor. To get > > completely rid of it, I would have to edit the config. That's why I > > agree that apt-get could be more comfortable for experienced users, > > used to it. Yes, that's moving to more sophisticated usage. And quite frankly, if we're talking about technologically inexperienced people, wouldn't they use a GUI (Software Center?) anyway? > > > > Why do you think that apt-get is easier to use for newbies? > > > > Regards, > > Ralf > > I don't know why it would be easier. But > I was a newbie when I learned of it, and I discovered Apt later on but > stuck with apt-get anyway. But probably just because of habit. In my case, it's already in muscle memory. I'm learning away from it, but oftentimes the "-get" just automagically appears there. :) > I would > hazard a guess however, that if one of the two has a GUI, then I would > probably go with that. Newbies like GUIs I think. Lots of people have a > bad taste in their mouths about linux because it was so terminal-based. > (Even if using a terminal has definite advantages, for sure. Just not > for the beginning coming from Windows.) There is already a GUI, so I don't think we need to really consider this from that perspective. One really good plus for apt's scoreboard is the progress bar at the bottom of the terminal screen. I'm sure there are others, but that's the thing that jumps at your eyes. In the end, as several tools already suggest using apt instead of apt-get (even apt-get [0]), I'd say moving towards it is the right thing to do. Best regards, Jaska [0]: jaska@ardbeg:~ 11:34:22 $ sudo apt-get --dry-run remove gedit Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required: gedit-common gir1.2-git2-glib-1.0 gir1.2-gucharmap-2.90 gir1.2-zeitgeist-2.0 gjs libgjs0e libmozjs-24-0v5 libpeas-1.0-0-python3loader python-cssutils python-pocket-lint rubber texlive Use 'sudo apt autoremove' to remove them. [...] -- astraljava @ freenode signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-studio-users mailing list ubuntu-studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
Re: [ubuntu-studio-users] apt vs apt-get
> On 30 Aug 2016, at 09:27, br...@linuxsynths.com wrote: > I would hazard a guess however, that if one of the two has a GUI, then I > would probably go with that. Newbies like GUIs I think. Lots of people have a > bad taste in their mouths about linux because it was so terminal-based. > Hi, a real GUI is tricky, there are already GUIs available and perhaps it could be considered as an advantage that e.g. Synaptic partly has got it's own preferences, instead of editing all apt... settings. The advantage of an official command line tool are the defaults. If an user screw up her install, then command line tools with distro specific default settings are useful for wikis and any support channel else. If a GUI should share all settings with the command line tool, it could become very difficult to help a user. Command line tools for the so called "averaged user" are harder to use, than command line tools. However, in regards to the wiki, solving issues could be better done by explaining it using command line, because a command does the right thing by coping, pasting and executing. Explaining how to use a GUI is tricky for several reasons. Even explanations using screenshots have many pitfalls, e.g. the GUI of an app not necessarily is the same for different versions of the app. While apt seemingly is easier to understand and remember than apt-get, apt-cache etc., it's at least not available by the official repositories of at least one Ubuntu release that IIRC still is support until around 2018. As soon as this support reached EOL, all documentation and help anyway should migrate from apt-get to apt. Regards, Ralf -- ubuntu-studio-users mailing list ubuntu-studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
Re: [ubuntu-studio-users] apt vs apt-get
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 14:01:03 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 10:14:55 +0200, br...@linuxsynths.com [1]wrote: > >> Funny! I would have said about the same thing, but for apt-get. > > Hi, > > apt and apt-get make not much of a difference, it's just that apt does > use an easy to understand name instead if dist-upgrade, which is named > full-upgrade and a newbie don't need to use apt-cache or dpkg to > search, show or list. It also provides an option to edit sources.list, > so a newbie does not need to know where it's located. Since apt is new, > it doesn't need to be backwards compatible. Since it's the new official > Ubuntu command line tool for package management, pitfalls introduced by > other user-friendly tools, at the moment just aptitude comes to mind, > could be ruled out, since Ubuntu and apt defaults will fit very well > together. > > I can't see any advantage for a newbie, when dealing with apt-get, > instead of learning how to use apt. Advanced users likely prefer the > apt-get defaults, I at least temporarily need to use apt with > > -o APT::Color="0" > > because otherwise the output could be unreadable on my monitor. To get > completely rid of it, I would have to edit the config. That's why I > agree that apt-get could be more comfortable for experienced users, > used to it. > > Why do you think that apt-get is easier to use for newbies? > > Regards, > Ralf I don't know why it would be easier. But I was a newbie when I learned of it, and I discovered Apt later on but stuck with apt-get anyway. But probably just because of habit. I would hazard a guess however, that if one of the two has a GUI, then I would probably go with that. Newbies like GUIs I think. Lots of people have a bad taste in their mouths about linux because it was so terminal-based. (Even if using a terminal has definite advantages, for sure. Just not for the beginning coming from Windows.) brian Links: -- [1] mailto:br...@linuxsynths.com -- ubuntu-studio-users mailing list ubuntu-studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
Re: [ubuntu-studio-users] apt vs apt-get
Funny! I would have said about the same thing, but for apt-get. It's basically all I ever use. My 2c.. brian On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 23:27:02 +0200, Martin Hammerchmidt wrote: > Hello, > Personally, I'm using apt all time. As a user I think it's easier to learn apt to newcomer. But technically I have no idea which one is better. > If wikis are slowly switching to apt as you said, maybe the best choice is to keep "apt". In a few years, apt will be everywhere maybe. > Regards > > 2016-08-22 23:17 GMT+02:00 Ralf Mardorf : > >> Hi, >> >> as of today I'm member of "Ubuntu Wiki Editors" team. >> >> When editing Ubuntu Studio wikis, should we stay with apt-get or >> already use apt? >> >> The file list of precise [1] doesn't provide /usr/bin/apt but as of >> trusty [2] /usr/bin/apt is available and it already is the official >> recommended Ubuntu command line tool for package management. >> >> For Ubuntu wikis in general apt-get is more likely recommended, but some >> documentation already switched to apt. For other Ubuntu wikis I'll stay >> with apt-get, but IMO it make more sense to use apt for Ubuntu Studio. >> Or should we stay with apt-get? Regarding upstart vs systemd, I will >> describe both ways, how to manage services, for all Ubuntu related >> wikis. >> >> All subscribers be encouraged to join the "Ubuntu Wiki Editors" team, >> too. >> >> At https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-wiki-editors [1] the box on the right >> side, provides a "Join the team"-link. For those with knowledge about >> Linux, English might not be the native language, so regarding the form >> of words proofread and correction is useful when done by inexperienced >> Linux users, too. >> >> Regards, >> Ralf >> >> [1] >> http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/amd64/apt/filelist [2] >> http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise-updates/amd64/apt/filelist [3] >> >> [2] >> http://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty/amd64/apt/filelist [4] >> http://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty-updates/amd64/apt/filelist [5] >> >> -- >> ubuntu-studio-users mailing list >> ubuntu-studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com [6] >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users [7] Links: -- [1] https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-wiki-editors [2] http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/amd64/apt/filelist [3] http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise-updates/amd64/apt/filelist [4] http://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty/amd64/apt/filelist [5] http://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty-updates/amd64/apt/filelist [6] mailto:ubuntu-studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com [7] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users [8] mailto:ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net -- ubuntu-studio-users mailing list ubuntu-studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
[ubuntu-studio-users] apt vs apt-get
Hi, as of today I'm member of “Ubuntu Wiki Editors” team. When editing Ubuntu Studio wikis, should we stay with apt-get or already use apt? The file list of precise [1] doesn't provide /usr/bin/apt but as of trusty [2] /usr/bin/apt is available and it already is the official recommended Ubuntu command line tool for package management. For Ubuntu wikis in general apt-get is more likely recommended, but some documentation already switched to apt. For other Ubuntu wikis I'll stay with apt-get, but IMO it make more sense to use apt for Ubuntu Studio. Or should we stay with apt-get? Regarding upstart vs systemd, I will describe both ways, how to manage services, for all Ubuntu related wikis. All subscribers be encouraged to join the “Ubuntu Wiki Editors” team, too. At https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-wiki-editors the box on the right side, provides a "Join the team"-link. For those with knowledge about Linux, English might not be the native language, so regarding the form of words proofread and correction is useful when done by inexperienced Linux users, too. Regards, Ralf [1] http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/amd64/apt/filelist http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise-updates/amd64/apt/filelist [2] http://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty/amd64/apt/filelist http://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty-updates/amd64/apt/filelist -- ubuntu-studio-users mailing list ubuntu-studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
