[ubuntu-studio-users] apt vs apt-get
ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net
Tue Aug 30 08:21:01 UTC 2016
> On 30 Aug 2016, at 09:27, brian at 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.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ubuntu-studio-users