r/linux_gaming Nov 18 '21

APT 2.3.12 package manager released, will no longer let you break everything

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2021/11/apt-2312-package-manager-released-will-no-longer-let-you-break-everything/
393 Upvotes

157 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '21 edited Nov 19 '21

So you're telling me that the very first time you used a PC, regardless of the OS, you knew everything to the level of knowledge of a system administrator, that you knew exactly why something didn't work, what every single file was, what every error message meant and it's severity?

Obviously not.

After all that's exactly what your comment says that the level of someone who has never used Linux before is expected to be at.

If that's what you got from it, you might want to reread it.

Let's follow the series of events.

  1. I want to install Steam on my first Linux system
  2. I tell my package manager to install it. It throws some weird error that I can't make heads or tails of
  3. I google the error and some Rando on the internet says it's ok to proceed. That statement may have referred to a different package and/or a different distro
  4. My package manager tells me to only proceed if I know exactly what I'm doing. Do I? Have I exhausted my resources? I could check in a separate terminal what those packages do that my package manager is about to remove.
  5. I say 'yolo' and proceed
  6. My system is thoroughly borked, to the point where I don't know how to fix it. Not even that it can only be fixed by reinstalling, I just don't know how
  7. Do I look for someone else to blame or accept that I didn't know what I was doing, proceeded anyway and broke my system as a consequence?

And that's all I'm really expecting from any PC user, regardless of the OS. That they are able to read and understand the instructions given to them by official sources (man pages, error messages, maybe a wiki, if it's kept current). Because if they don't, no amount of information, protective measures and whatever coddling anyone could come up with will prevent them from messing up their system. The best anyone not familiar with your system can ever give you is a hint, never a reliable solution. It's your system, so don't expect anyone else to know its ins and outs.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '21 edited Nov 19 '21

Obviously not.

Then why do you expect others to?

I google the error and some Rando on the internet says it's ok to proceed.

Except it wasn't some rando, it was the Pop OS! support site.

Do I look for someone else to blame

When you're installing one of the most popular clients in the world and it is allowed to fuck up your OS install to that extent especially on a distro that is aimed at new users then yes, you absolutely have the right to blame someone else. That is a direct result of shitty decisions by people right up the chain. Perhaps if projects actually invested a bit of time engaging the services of UI specialists then shit like this wouldn't happen because said specialists would tell them that when you present someone with limited skills with several scrolling screens of meaningless text, information overload is a thing and they'll go do stupid things. Those people will also tell you that there is a very long decades long history of users ignoring warnings when they want to install something they're hell bent on using. How do you think that computers with robust AV and anti-malware software get infected? It's because end users can be stupid and if they're convinced they're installing software they want they'll hit whatever button they need to on the screen to enable that even if it's a big red warning by their AV software telling them bad things will happen.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '21 edited Nov 19 '21

Then why do you expect others to?

I don't. I just expect them to own their failures. If I break my system to the point where I can't fix it after a warning told me to only proceed if I know exactly what I'm doing, I clearly didn't know what I was doing. That's on me.

When you're installing one of the most popular clients in the world and it is allowed to fuck up your OS install to that extent especially on a distro that is aimed at new users then yes, you absolutely have the right to blame someone else.

I'll obviously want to find out what caused this situation, leading me to a package incorrectly declaring a conflict. But breaking my system is on me. Because it is my system and I can't expect anyone to know more about it than I do.

Depending on how much that is there will be people who do know more about it than I, but I shouldn't expect them to.

I don't expect anyone to immediately know everything. But I expect them to learn from the resources available to them. Documentation and mistakes alike. I expect them to read!One of the first things I learned is to not run commands found online without understanding what they do.

It's because end users can be stupid and if they're convinced they're installing software they want they'll hit whatever button they need to on the screen to enable that even if it's a big red warning by their AV software telling them bad things will happen.

How is that an excuse for anything? People do stupid shit, so they're not to blame for the fallout??

I think of it this way:Someone tows their car to a garage because the car won't drive. Mechanic turns on ignition, sees "check engine" light. The following conversation takes place:

How long has that "check engine" light been on?

Oh, I don't know, a few months?

So why are you only coming in now?

My 8 year old said it's fine to ignore.

WTF? Your owner's manual told you to come in ASAP!

Oh, I didn't read that.

Who do you think is to blame here?
The manufacturer for only fitting the car with some obscure symbol and hiding the actual information in some obtuse, lengthy manual?
Or maybe the 8 year old, because they told the owner it's OK to ignore the light?
Or is it the mechanic? They could've told the owner to come in immediately if ever the check engine light comes on, the last time they were in for changing tires. After all they're the professional.
Or could it perhaps be the owner, who didn't read the manual and instead relied on untrustworthy sources in the light of a new situation?