Automatix [WAS: Re: ubuntu-au Digest, Vol 22, Issue 1]

[Melissa Draper]

Chris Jones wrote:
 >> Message: 2
 >> Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:49:47 +1100
 > From: Sridhar Dhanapalan <sridhar at dhanapalan.com>
 > Subject: Automatix [WAS: Re: ubuntu-au Digest, Vol 22, Issue 1]
 > To: ubuntu-au at lists.ubuntu.com
 > Message-ID: <200712052049.59946.sridhar at dhanapalan.com>
 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
 >
 > Please don't recommend Automatix. It is seriously broken in design and
 > often
 > does more harm than good. More information at
 > http://mjg59.livejournal.com/77440.html
 >
 >
 > Sridar,
 >
 > It seems that you have a major problem with Automatix.

Many of us do, especially when it removes half the packages of a default 
install just to please it's convoluted interpretation of dependencies. 
I've seen this so many times whilst providing support in and moderating 
#ubuntu that it is not tolerable.

Automatix has a very very troubling track record and has damaged 
hundreds of systems to the point of reinstall. Recommending it is 
considered bad form anywhere in the community due to this.

 >
 > Just because you don't like it, use it or support it, that's no reason
 > for me to recommend it to other users.

Just because you like it, does not mean we have to support you in 
recommending it.

 >
 > And that link you provided is crap!
 > It proves nothing more than a bloke who is simply analyzing it to the
 > last 0's and 1's and debunking Automatix.

Matthew Garrett is part of the Ubuntu Technical Board, and is quite 
likely the reason your laptop suspends/hibernates. He's not just some 
bloke.

 >
 > If I Googled the issue, I'd find just as many sites in support of
 > Automatix.

I google Microsoft Windows and find many sites in favor of it. Does this 
prove that Windows is immune from causing problems such as security 
breaches or Genuine (dis)Advantage?

 >
 > In fact, a recent poll on UbuntuForums.org showed that more people
 > like/use Automatix than people that don't.

How does this prove that it is safe?

 >
 > Well guess what Sridar, Automatix is software. And software ain't
 > perfect.
 > I bet I could find x amount of problems with the Ubuntu OS itself if I
 > analyzed it enough.
 > I'm sure any advanced geek here would know that it isn't perfect and has
 > many issues indeed.
 > But it doesn't mean I shouldn't recommend Ubuntu to other users. Why,
 > because (once again) software ain't perfect.

Of course all software has issues. What these particular issues are, is 
the defining point.

 >
 > Automatix is simply a third-party application which should be used with
 > care. Just like ENVY, Synaptic, GParted etc. that has the ability to
 > tinker with valuable pieces of the OS file structure.

Envy actually rates up with Automatix for potential damage. Every time 
there is a kernel update or an envy update, the drivers and kernel 
modules get mismatched and things go kaboom.

At least we have a form of predictability with Envy.

Automatix simply kills dpkg and nautilus -- *without checking if they're 
running*, replaces config files outright, messes with the bootloader, 
etc. When these things happen at the wrong time, things go kaboom.

 >
 > And Ubuntu Developers ARE NOW working in collaboration with the
 > Automatix Team.
 > Things might have been different prior to Gutsy. But that was then and
 > this is now.

You are aware that the Developers are now working with the Automatix 
team *since* mjg59's audit, right?

Prior to that the Automatix team adamantly *refused* to collaborate 
despite repeated attempts from the Developers.

 >
 > Next time Sridar, get your facts right instead of blabbering out the
 > usual crap.
 >
 >

Sridhar is quite well versed with the issue, more so it seems, than you are.

Next time maybe you will get *your* facts right instead of flaming blindly.