How to remove Firefox?
jim at winonacotter.org
Tue Sep 4 19:50:16 BST 2007
> Firefox is part of the ubuntu-desktop meta package (a meta package is
> essentially an empty package that simply depends on a bunch of other packages),
> and as such, if you try to remove it, you end up trying to remove ubuntu-
> desktop, which removes tons of other stuff.
> The reason for this is so that to make things easy for the administrator, one
> need only install the "ubuntu-deskop" package, to get all the dependencies you
> need for the full ubuntu desktop.
> What's the problem with them running it? It will work correctly for most
> sites you're likely to encounter, with the exception of those large image
> sites. Besides, it may be handy to have a second option in case you run into
> something that Opera doesn't handle.
I understand the reasoning, for simplicity. But say with our thin clients I didn't need
a application for ripping/burning dvds or audio cds such as Serpentine and Sound Juicer.
I wanted to remove firefox. The default games needed to go in the classroom
environment, etc. All apps except firefox said I'd be removing edubuntu-desktop which I
did, and that was it, all other apps stayed in place but are no longer able to simply be
managed with apt-get and the edubuntu-desktop package, fine. But now I go to remove
firefox after edubuntu-desktop is already gone and it wants to remove the following:
The following packages will be REMOVED:
edubuntu-docs firefox firefox-gnome-support firefox-libthai gnome-user-guide gramps
language-support-th sun-java6-plugin ubuntu-docs ubuntu-restricted-extras yelp
I don't get why without firefox I can't have restricted-extras, yelp, the documentation
for Ubuntu, sun-java, gramps, and language-support-th. I would think that all of these
applications should be independent of firefox. So now Ubuntu is treating firefox like
Microsoft treats Internet Explorer and is forcing me to keep it. Okay, so I can "hide"
it with Sabayon, but why am I forced to keep it for applications that should not have to
rely on it? This doesn't seem like the freedom of Linux way, does it?
I am fine, and can find a workaround, but this doesn't seem right to me. I don't feel I
should be forced to use any application with the exception of real dependencies. I can
understand that if I want to install program x and it needs program y to run properly, I
have to install y to use x. But if x doesn't need y, then why should I have it?
My 2 cents. But I'll go about on my way :-)
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the Cotter Technology
Department, and is believed to be clean.
More information about the edubuntu-users