> I'm aware of the differences of the package managers. It's just that I > don't need Synaptic, whereas Software Sources is one of my most executed > administrative applications (does not matter if it's technically part of > Synaptic or not, for the user it appears as a different app).
If you don't install software, then why would you need to add any repositories at all? > Either I want to install an end-user application, this is what > "Add/Remove" does perfectly and IMHO more comfortable than Synaptic. I agree; Add/Remove is a beautiful application! You should use it whenever you can, and tell all new users to use it. However, the applications listed in Add/Remove is decided by app-install-data, and not the repositories you add, so Add/Remove is irrelevant in this context. If you add a repository with a new application, then you'd still have to use Synaptic to install it. Well, you can always open up a terminal and run some commands there if you like, but you probably shouldn't unless you know what you're doing. > Or I want to install libraries (e.g. for development purposes) or server > processes, then I'm already at command-line level. Instructions on Wiki > pages always use "apt-get install" rather than Synaptic. It shouldn't use "sudo apt-get install" at all. It's _really_ bad practice. Starting with Gutsy, we have support for apturl, which makes it easy to install software by simply clicking links, such as: Install Firefox<apt://firefox> If you're installing a server, then in many cases you'll want to use the task in any case. As an apt-get user, you'll probably not have discovered tasks, and will probably install packages manually instead, making the install a lot more complicated for you. It's very interesting to see that a three page guide for installing LAMP with apt-get, could be simplified to a single, short line using Synaptic. The guide shouldn't have used apt-get at all, but tasksel. But is there any reason why you'd want to use apt-get and tasksel instead of Synaptic? I think, in many cases, Synaptic does a better job than both of them. > I don't want to say that Synaptic is not a good tool. It's just that it > fails to fill in a use-case of my daily Ubuntu work. Perhaps you don't know it well enough? It seems to me, you're a living example of consequences of the problems I'm describing. Best regards, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
-- ubuntu-desktop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
