I have a feeling that this thread is now on the brink of stretching slightly
beyond its expiration date.
@chaosmonk: thank you very much for your input, you have fully addressed my
concerns.
@stripey: we disagree on the definition of the synaptic package manager. You
might wish to open
> "Google" isn't a verb, it's a brand name.
It's both. In my locale, it is the word people most often use to mean
"search the web." Even the people I know who use other search engines like
DuckDuckGo or Ecosia still refer to using these search engines as "Googling".
> Insisting on
Boba:
> Therefore I would rather stick with the description of the synaptic
package: "graphical package manager".
That's your prerogative. But you asked for clarification of what I meant, and
I supplied it.
> It's similar to the reason I stubbornly say "search" instead of "Google"
It really isn't. "Google" isn't a verb, it's a brand name. "App" is not a
brand name, it's just a common contraction of "application". Insisting on
"application" instead of "app" is the equivalent of insisting on
> Apt can be used without Synaptic, but if you were to somehow install
Synaptic on a system that did not have Apt installed, Synaptic would do
nothing.
Since we are talking from the user's perspective, indeed installing synaptic
without installing apt is not helpful, that's why it is a
> "Synaptic displays all packages available in the repositories on your
system. This includes not only apps, but also libraries, artwork, development
files, drivers, or other kinds of data which are only meant to be accessed by
programs that require them. If you only want to add or remove
Again, thanks for the detailed explanation.
Chaosmonk:
> This isn't really accurate.
OK, that's why I introduced my sample warning text with the words "something
like" ;) Given what you're explained, how about displaying something like
this in Synaptic on first use:
"Synaptic displays all
> I would go further and say all non-GNUbie-friendly programs although I
admit that's a judgement call
Terminal applications can be easily filtered out by parsing .desktop files
and looking for "Terminal=True". Filtering out "non-GNUbie-friendly
programs" would require manual curation,
Boba:
> I confess that the subtle nuance you seem to establish between an Apt-based
GUI package manager and a graphical front-end for the Apt package manager is
lost to me.
In GNU/Linux, every GUI app consists of a graphical UI, which triggers
underlying back-end programs. Sometimes a new
These are all good points, thanks for taking the time to lay them out.
Perhaps you're right that it's sufficient to remove all non-GUI programs from
Add/Remove Apps (I would go further and say all non-GNUbie-friendly programs
although I admit that's a judgement call).
But perhaps there's a
>> Users who are uncomfortable using a terminal.
> ... have no use for CLI-only programs
No, plenty of users use some command line programs but would not be
comfortable performing all package management via a terminal. Looking back
on my own history of learning to use GNU/Linux, I was
@stripey: please cf. my answer to your previous post below, if you had missed
it (I am presently writing directly on the forum, not through the mailing
list), and in that case please ignore the remainder of this post.
In case you had already read my answer but decided to go ahead anyway:
Chaosmonk:
> Users who are uncomfortable using a terminal.
... have no use for CLI-only programs and will be confused if they are
installed. Hence Synaptic would be more useful to them if it did not offer to
install them.
>> Is it a good idea to limit the packages that will be manageable through a
package manager?
> Synaptic is not a package manager. It is a graphical front-end for the Apt
package manager.
I confess that the subtle nuance you seem to establish between an Apt-based
GUI package manager and
> No, I meant Synaptic.
Sorry, I misunderstood you then. I thought you were suggesting that we
remove command line applications from Add/Remove Applications, which I had
been considering doing. I am not in favor of crippling Synaptic. It is
important to have a complete graphical
boba:
> Is it a good idea to limit the packages that will be manageable through a
package manager?
Synaptic is not a package manager. It is a graphical front-end for the Apt
package manager.
Chaosmonk:
> I'm pretty sure he meant trisquel-app-install, not synaptic.
No, I meant Synaptic.
...which indeed solves the mystery.
By the way, thank you very much for your work forking gnome-app-install to
trisquel-app-install (and of course more generally for all your work on
Trisquel, but that would require much more than one sentence).
> I now take it that you were both referring to trisquel-app-install, and
that the mention of "synaptic" by stripey was accidental.
Yes, I'm pretty sure he meant trisquel-app-install, not synaptic.
I see, indeed it makes more sense.
In order to be sure that I am getting things clear, I quote the origianl
thread (with stripey's question and your answer) :
>> As mentioned in that older thread, I still think that CLI programs ought
to be installable only from a terminal. Would it be
> If I understood well, it has been suggested that some packages will not be
available through Synaptic in Trisquel 9
"Add/Remove Applications" refers to trisquel-app-install (formerly
gnome-app-install), not synaptic.
If I understood well, it has been suggested that some packages will not be
available through Synaptic in Trisquel 9:
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/trisquel-9-graphical-iso-available-testing?page=2#comment-148309
Is it a good idea to limit the packages that will be manageable through a
21 matches
Mail list logo
