Installing cinnamon

[Patrick Asselman]

On 2012-12-10 12:09, Phil Dobbin wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 10:35 AM, Patrick Asselman wrote:
>> On 2012-12-10 10:54, Phil Dobbin wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2012 09:12 AM, Patrick Asselman wrote:
>>>> On 2012-12-08 10:25, Colin Law wrote:
>>>>> On 8 December 2012 02:38, JD <jd1008 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/07/2012 07:21 PM, Steve Pearce wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 08/12/12 02:08, JD wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The cinnamon web page
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://launchpad.net/~gwendal-lebihan-dev/+archive/cinnamon-stable?field.series_filter=quantal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> asks the user to:
>>>>>>>> add-apt-repository ppa:gwendal-lebihan-dev/cinnamon-stable
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which I did.So I thought that's all I need in order to proceed
>>>>>>>> and issue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> apt-get -y install cinnamon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, it could not find it, and the web page does not 
>>>>>>>> elucidate
>>>>>>>> any further.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JD
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You added the cinnamon PPA, but forgot to update your package 
>>>>>>> lists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    sudo apt-get update
>>>>>>>    sudo apt-get install cinnamon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know much about Cinnamon, but I suspect it'll be 
>>>>>>> available to
>>>>>>> select at the login screen as an alternative to Unity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> stevepdp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see. Should not the web page have explained that instead
>>>>>> of assuming every noob knows this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Most noobs would click on the link on that page "Read about
>>>>> installing" where the instructions appear clear and include
>>>>> instructions to run apt-get update.
>>>>>
>>>>> Colin
>>>>
>>>> It's not just noobs who run into this. I've seen a lot of messages 
>>>> to
>>>> this mailing list where the problem was fixed by updating the 
>>>> package
>>>> list first. In my opinion the apt-get should get a bit more 
>>>> intelligent,
>>>> and ask the user if maybe it should update its list before 
>>>> installing.
>>>> And maybe add an extra switch to skip that step, for the 
>>>> experienced
>>>> users.
>>>>
>>>> It should also be more intelligent about alerting the user that 
>>>> maybe
>>>> there is some maintenance going on on the other end, and please 
>>>> try
>>>> again in a few minutes. That's another source of trouble I've seen 
>>>> a
>>>> lot.
>>>>
>>>> But that's just my opinion of course
>>>
>>> I guess though if they figure you're adding ppa's or indeed using 
>>> apt at
>>> all instead of Synaptic or Software Centre, that you've at least 
>>> taken
>>> the time to read the docs regarding apt. It's generally not a
>>> pointy-clicky interface after all.
>>
>> You think too highly of most people, imho. People want some 
>> software, so
>> they search in Google how they can get it. The most simple Google 
>> answer
>> wins. No time is wasted reading docs, unless it is absolutely 
>> needed.
>
> In which case, they find out the hard way. Some people already hold a
> cast iron view that computers should be able to read their mind & act
> accordingly but as the old adage says, garbage in, garbage out.

If everyone were to think like this, we would still be in the stone 
age, imho.

In the same line of thought you could claim that wheels don't need to 
be round, because people will find out "the hard way" that they are best 
modified to be round. Never mind that *everyone* makes the wheels round, 
we've always made them square and that's how it will stay.

>>> Also, I suspect that they've got more pressing matters to hand than
>>> re-writing something that works perfectly well. I suppose you could
>>> volunteer to help out in this matter. I'm sure they wouldn't mind 
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Please explain what can be more important that getting things to 
>> work
>> well, because I would rank that number 1 on my list?
>> I already helped as much as I can by pointing out how they can 
>> improve
>> their product. (I'm not a programmer, in case you are wondering.)
>
> It does work well. Not wishing to be a straw man about this but if 
> you
> used a car in the same fashion, you'd end up in the ditch.

Sorry, but that is a bad example. (I work in automotive, so you stepped 
on my toes here). If you look closely to cars, you will find that they 
are made to be as robust as feasible. More and more cars are now fitted 
with a "lane tracking" system, so the ditch will remain empty.

If at all possible, users should be protected against their own 
stupidity. Not at all cost, and not at the expense of functionality. But 
in this case I don't see how one can be against it.

Best regards,
Patrick Asselman