Matthew Garrett's Automatix Analysis- Automatix Team Member's Response

[jtbl]

First let me start off by saying that most of the issues stated in this analysis will be fixed in the Gutsy version of Automatix. For more information on that visit:
http://www.getautomatix.com/forum/in...showtopic=1558

Now to answer the question of whether or not Automatix can break systems. Automatix can possibly break certain components in certain situations. The problems usually occur when the usage of Automatix is mixed the usage of other installation scripts or third-party repos. When Automatix is developed and tested, its only designed to be compatible with the Ubuntu repos, the Automatix repos, and third-pary repos used by Automatix. It is impossible for the Automatix team to make Automatix compatible with every installation script and third party repo available for Ubuntu. Hopefully, with Automatix's new community development model, other installation scripts and third party repos will become compatible with Automatix.

[jrusso2]

Thanks for the reply and your efforts. I have always had good luck with Automatix and I appreciate you taking the time and effort to offer it.

[p_quarles]

I don't really think that constitutes a response to Garrett's criticisms. Here's the link if you want to read it again.

I'm not interested in a flamewar here, but I think it would be beneficial for an automatix dev to respond in more detail to the specific criticisms (which were far beyond "Automatix can possibly break certain components"). That's why I clicked on this thread.

[kadath]

Automatix is so terribly redundant. I don't understand how downloading, installing and running Automatix to download other apps is somehow easier than enabling all the repos and adding the Medibuntu repo via Synaptic.

[starcraft.man]

First let me start off by saying that most of the issues stated in this analysis will be fixed in the Gutsy version of Automatix. For more information on that visit:
http://www.getautomatix.com/forum/in...showtopic=1558

Now to answer the question of whether or not Automatix can break systems. Automatix can possibly break certain components in certain situations. The problems usually occur when the usage of Automatix is mixed the usage of other installation scripts or third-party repos. When Automatix is developed and tested, its only designed to be compatible with the Ubuntu repos, the Automatix repos, and third-pary repos used by Automatix.

Holy cow, you have to be joking... it's been almost 2 months since that report. More? Less? When did we get that analysis? I know early August or so. Anyway, now you choose to respond and say "it's safe"? That doesn't seem much of a response either as p_quarles pointed out. I also noticed you said most of the issues, not all.

It is impossible for the Automatix team to make Automatix compatible with every installation script and third party repo available for Ubuntu. Hopefully, with Automatix's new community development model, other installation scripts and third party repos will become compatible with Automatix.

Right, there is an easy fix to this though. Teach users how to install packages/programs/whatever through proven official means, manage their computer on a daily basis effectively and don't get them to use scripts/third party services. No problems happen that way in my experience. An informed and knowledgeable user is a self sufficient and independent one.

Anyway, you can make all the fixes you like, none of them will ever address the two core issues I have with recommending Automatix to new users. I'd get into those reasons, but it'd just spiral out into another heated and pointless discussion, which I'm not interested in. That's my 2 cents.

[southernman]

Right, there is an easy fix to this though. Teach users how to install packages/programs/whatever through proven official means, manage their computer on a daily basis effectively and don't get them to use scripts/third party services. No problems happen that way in my experience. An informed and knowledgeable user is a self sufficient and independent one.

Enough said... or should be at least. I've never contemplated using any thing of this sort, for the very reasons you mention. The only thing I disagree with you on, is when you say:

No problems happen that way in my experience.

It's bound to happen (which I know you agree - know) the occasional foul up is going to occur.

To me, the whole ideal of using GNU/Linux in the first place is to have more control over what my computer does. If I wanted a borked system I'd use that other OS! *wink*

Why do I get the feeling that UF will be getting ddos'ed again? *ponders* I am not suggesting that... well, err, ummm, never mind!

[starcraft.man]

Enough said... or should be at least. I've never contemplated using any thing of this sort, for the very reasons you mention. The only thing I disagree with you on, is when you say:

Glad I'm not alone in my thinking.

It's bound to happen (which I know you agree - know) the occasional foul up is going to occur.

Murphy's Law combined with the chaotic nature of the universe (and other tid bits) preclude any possibility of perfection/problem free from ever existing (OSX isn't even perfect and how much closer can you get?).

So yes, I know most users are eventually going to run into a problem. I suppose what I meant to say is that in my experience the odds of an informed user running into a problem drastically decrease in likelihood and severity when one doesn't rely on such scripts and is knowledgeable about his/her system's basics/daily operation.

To me, the whole ideal of using GNU/Linux in the first place is to have more control over what my computer does. If I wanted a borked system I'd use that other OS! *wink*

Yup, I agree. To that end I am working toward greater documentation (that's why I been kinda quiet. Working on my own so haven't been around as much) for Ubuntu and educating/helping users. I think teaching is the most effective means when combined with incremental OS improvements.

[p_quarles]

Glad I'm not alone in my thinking.

Definitely not. When I first installed, I got all the proprietary/extra stuff running about a month before I even knew what Automatix was.

And, yes, I'm on the geeky side, but I was still completely new to Linux and the directions in the user documentation wiki worked for me on the first try.

[jtbl]

The reason for the late response it that all of the Automatix Team members have been very busy for the past 2 months. One of us has finally got around to writing a response. I know it wasn't much of a response, but the specific bugs that Matthew Garrett discovered will be fixed.

There is part of his analysis I would like to further discuss, the dependency handling. When Automatix was originally created it was an installation script, and it still is, however it has become more advanced over time. Dependency handling is usually found in package managers, like synaptic, and not usually found in installation scripts like Automatix. The dependency management duties in Automatix are left up to apt and the Automatix developers. If a .deb is installed through apt its dependencies will get installed along with it. If its installed through dpkg then the Automatix devs will find out that .deb's dependencies and have Automatix install them through apt first. Now a compressed, precompiled, archive follows the same dependency management technique as a deb being installed through dpkg, the only different is the archive is instead extracted into /opt/automatix/appname. Now package removal is a bit tricky as we don't want to remove dependencies for other applications when removing one application. When removing an application in Automatix, only the application is removed and not its dependencies. This is where the drawback to being an installation script shows itself.

[aysiu]

For users who don't want to learn how to do things manually, I'd recommend Linux Mint over Automatix.