[dataflow]

> Really, Steam seems to be the closest thing Windows has to an application/package manager

I don't understand this obsession with package managers. You guys really have less trouble with package managers than Windows installers? It was literally just 2-3 days ago I was trying to update Ubuntu and I couldn't, because of some stupid error (I don't remember exactly) along the lines of "libgl1-mesa-glx depends libglapi-mesa XX.YY but ZZ.WW is present" (again: I don't remember the error exactly). And no matter which packages I tried to upgrade/fix/uninstall/whatever or in what order I tried it, it wouldn't budge. I guess the package dependency graph was somehow impossible to satisfy? I assume because different packages required different versions of the same package? This was not the first time I've ran into problems like this... eventually I just wiped it and restored from a backup. (Which I had made from moments earlier, because, well, did I mention this wasn't the first time this has happened?) To say I don't see what all the fuss and obsession with package managers is about is putting it very... mildly.

[majewsky]

> You guys really have less trouble with package managers than Windows installers?

Hell yeah. I remember when I had to set aside entire weekends to reinstall a Windows machine. These days, when I need to reinstall one of my Linux boxes, I just fire up the Arch installer, and instead of installing the "base" package group as the manual instructs you, I install my configuration package for that machine which pulls in all applications (from the kernel and coreutils all the way up to Steam) and contains all configuration. When I recently reinstalled my notebook to enable full-disk encryption, it took me around 30 minutes, of which most time was spent downloading packages, and downloading /home from the backup storage. Net working time was maybe 5 minutes. I actually watched a movie while doing it.

The issues that you're seeing are because the particular package manager you encountered is shit. (Or rather, because Debian's/Ubuntu's byzantine packaging processes create a ton of pathological cases.) I've never had such problems on Arch. (Except for those cases about once a year when they restructure something and the package manager is confused, in which case you go to archlinux.org and the most recent news item contains the magic shell incantation that immediately resolves the issue.)

[mehrdadn]

> I just fire up the Arch installer

I will concede that I usually run into far fewer problems/bugs with Arch's pacman than Ubuntu's apt/dpkg. It seems far more robust, and honestly more intuitive too. On the other hand, (1) getting things set up in Arch in the first place is so much more of a pain that it wastes just as much time, and (2) I have also had bad luck with Arch, when after re-downloading and re-trying the install a couple times, I finally realized the ISO I downloaded just had a broken build. (?) I would follow the setup instructions (yes, the appropriate ones, I know they change over time) but pacman would just somehow choke by the end. Once I realized it was a problem with their build I just went back to an earlier ISO and updated and it was fine. But yes, overall, I've had far better experiences with it.

[sli]

> I just fire up the Arch installer

When I switched to Linux full time, I basically replaced Ninite with a one line shell script and was done. It also removes any worry that Ninite might go sour in the future.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

One wonders why you have to rebuild your "better than reinstalling Windows all the time" system so often as to have invested the time creating a metapackage of your configuration.

[majewsky]

1. Because the package acts as a backup, and the commit history explains why I set up stuff the way I did.

2. Because it's really convenient to just link people to its Github repo when they ask questions like "how do you configure MPD to use PulseAudio?".

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Wow but that sounds like a problem created solely for the sake of the solution.

[mmjaa]

Those package dependency graphs are there to protect you. Having to route around the protection is precisely why you should use a package manger properly - to ensure you don't end up with incompatible/borked installation of key elements.

No, I do not think Installers are better than package management. By far, package managers are a key factor in system stability.

[dataflow]

> Those package dependency graphs are there to protect you.

I'm sorry, what kind of protection is this that only after trashing my installation Apt decided to inform me that it can't handle the package dependencies?

And on top of that, for some reason you think the only alternative is to _bypass_ the package manager and get an even more borked installation? You don't see a third option?

> Having to route around the protection

which I never did or suggested I should do...?

> is precisely why you should use a package manger properly

and you are insinuating this somehow implies I must be using my package manger "improperly" because... why and how exactly?

[mmjaa]

>You guys really have less trouble with package managers than Windows installers?

Yes, because:

>(I don't remember exactly)

There is your problem.

Your package manager prevented you installing something which would have caused instability, and you didn't grok it well enough to understand, and somehow this is the fault of package management?

Did you upgrade your dependency graph before deciding it was all too difficult to understand and use the tool to fix the problem? (apt upgrade && apt update)

apt was telling you something important: you chose to just ignore it because "too confusing" or whatever .. maybe because you grew up on the very poor habit of "just install it and who cares whatever may happen afterwards" of installers?

>_bypass_ the package manager and get an even more borked installation? You don't see a third option?

There is a third option - upgrade your dependencies, try again, and if it persists - remove the offending package and replace it with one that works. That dependency graph is there to tell you: your system may become unstable after you install this.

No such luxury happens with the plain ol' installer methods ..

    sudo apt-get autoremove && sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade

EDIT: A simple solution to your problem, only possible with package management:

https://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2268104

[dataflow]

>apt was telling you something important: you chose to just ignore it because "too confusing" or whatever

What "it" are you even talking about? I didn't "choose to ignore" anything. I Marked all Upgrades, clicked Apply, rebooted when it was finished, went to see if there were any more upgrades (there were some), tried to mark & apply them, and was greeted with this error. Apt/Synaptic got me into this broken state and couldn't get me out of it. I don't know what story you're reading, but it doesn't seem to be what I've been writing. There was nothing for me to ignore. The error wasn't something I ignored; it was the problem.

[lmm]

> Apt/Synaptic got me into this broken state and couldn't get me out of it. I don't know what story you're reading, but it doesn't seem to be what I've been writing. There was nothing for me to ignore. The error wasn't something I ignored; it was the problem.

No. Nothing was broken. The updates you had asked for were about to break something if you installed them. The error message was the package manager stopping you from breaking your system.

[dataflow]

> No. Nothing was broken. The updates you had asked for were about to break something if you installed them. The error message was the package manager stopping you from breaking your system.

Uhm... two things.

First: you see this screenshot? https://askubuntu.com/q/814380 Aside from the actual package names, the bottom part is the same kind of error I got.

See how it says "You have held __broken___ packages"?

See how the top answer is "You can use Aptitude to automatically __fix__ the __broken__ packages"?

Yeah, I interpret that to mean I had broken packages. After updating. Not before.

Oh, and actually, I think it's basically the same kind of situation as in that link. Notice it has >17k views, only 2 answers, and no accepted answer? Yeah, I guess it's not so easy to resolve.

Second: Even if I ignore the above and pretend nothing there is currently broken, a system that cannot be updated is, uhm, broken. So not only was this system just broken, it was doubly broken.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Here's a better idea: build the system such that dependency conflicts aren't possible. This is trivial by having a stable base system and otherwise including any application's dependencies in the same directory as the application, which of course means not spreading the application all over the file tree (and thus avoiding another non-existent problem that package managers solve).

I know, that's really hard for Linux Desktop people to understand, because it goes against their nature of making everything as complicated as possible for no reason. It's not rocket science, lots of systems managed it in the past.

[mmjaa]

On the contrary, the system you proposed has been implemented many times over the history of Linux .. I can think of GoboLinux as an example, but I think NixOS also does this (may be wrong).

I prefer to just keep the system stable through careful application of well-curated dependency graphs. I've never run into any issue, having used Linux since the very first day, that I couldn't solve by proper application of package manager tools. It seems its easy for newbies and those who don't care enough to get into trouble, but with the right attitude you can easily have systems with years and years of uptime (personal experience).

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Gobo and Nix do something similar, but they overengineer the hell out of it (largely because typical Linux software is written very inflexibly). What I'm talking about is so simple it requires no management at all. AppImage is the closest solution Linux has, but sadly hardly any applications are deployed that way.

[Yizahi]

I remember running in circles trying to install one app on Debian and getting "hey, you need libtrpc, error", ok, apt-get it, "hey, now I need libc6 for libtrpc, error", ok, apt-get it too, "hey, your libc6 already present, what do you want from me, error". Of course each error was 5 lines long. I was doing lots of tries and asked on SE too but in the end it didn't work. And it couldn't even tell me all dependencies together, only on separate tries for each package. So much for glorified protection and usability.

[Maken]

I have run into this kind of package dependency lock-down sometimes when installing updated graphic drivers and build systems (usually from non-official repositories), and I have been able to solve it by reverting the problematic packages to older versions until I hit a well-formed dependency tree.

I only hit a similar problem in Windows once, when it hung up installing a new C++ runtime, and since then I could neither install another C++ runtime nor rollback it (restore system did nothing), resulting in applications randomly crashing or refusing to run because they were loading the wrong C++ libraries, and the only solution I found was reinstalling Windows again.

[mehrdadn]

Thanks! Yeah, this is a great follow-up to what I've been saying.

Right, Windows isn't perfect either. What it does have going for it, though, is that on Windows there are comparatively very few external shared libraries -- in fact, the only ones I can think of are in fact the C, C++, .NET, and SQL runtimes. So, as you confirmed, it means application updates rarely break your system globally. (OS updates can still wreck the system... but that's no worse than Linux distros in my experience... but let's not go on this tangent.) Of course, that comes at the cost of needing to rely on the vendor for updates to their uses of third-party libraries. It's understandable that not everyone would like this trade-off (though mine tends to prefer an out-of-date system that works than a patched system that's broken), so that part (kind of) makes sense, especially if people are extra-worried about security over productivity. The part I find mind-boggling is that Linux users are obsessed with package mangers for the initial installations themselves, not merely updating. Package managers seem (almost?) fundamentally flawed in that regard, and that's what baffles me. Do they really only ever want to install FOSS software blessed by their OS distro, and do they really think it makes sense for a system to break if they install anything unblessed? More power to them if they can live like that, but I can't.

In terms of the problem you faced, do you mind if I ask how recent of a Windows version it occurred on? (i.e. was it on pre-XP, XP, 7, 8/8.1, or 10?) One generic tip I do have is to use VirtualBox to boot into the host OS with an immutable virtual disk, make all the changes, and verify everything works correctly before doing it for real. It can come in handy when installing programs or updates that you suspect might be problematic. I can provide more details on this if you're interested; just let me know.

[Maken]

They are just different approaches, "bundle every library with the binary" vs "make every binary load the system library". And I think it's mostly a distinction of a system designed for final users (Windows), where your priority is making sure the program works with as little unknowns as possible, vs a system designed for production (Linux), where the people in charge wants to know exactly what is running.

Answering your question, I hit that problem on a Windows 7 machine, it was not a suspicious update, just the usual "install C++ redistributable 20xx to make this program work", but it crashed halfway for some reason. After a while I just reinstalled Windows (it was almost a clean install, so nothing starting anew was simply faster).

[mmjaa]

I'm guessing you don't know what "DLL hell" was.

>The part I find mind-boggling is that Linux users are obsessed with package mangers for the initial installations themselves, not merely updating.

Yes, because it keeps the system functional and operating and - if you use it properly - package management is a hellaciously great way to build a system.

> Do they really only ever want to install FOSS software blessed by their OS distro, and do they really think it makes sense for a system to break if they install anything unblessed? More power to them if they can live like that, but I can't.

Its your system, manage it how you like. But the default of 'safety and stability first' in a package manager is a feature, not a bug. Don't blame the tool if you don't know how to use it properly - its clear that you simply do not know how to use package management to your benefit. This doesn't mean package management is of no benefit; it means your basis of operating/administering the system is flawed. I would suggest this is due to your attitude more than anything else; its certainly not for technical reasons.

[mehrdadn]

> I'm guessing you don't know what "DLL hell" was.

I do. And like you said: "was". That's why I asked which version of Windows parent is talking abomut. Why are you bringing it up so many years later when you explicitly acknowledge it "was" rather than "is"?

> Don't blame the tool if you don't know how to use it properly

So many of you are baselessly claiming this yet none of you are telling me what I could have possibly done "improperly" to get into this mess. I told it to update everything. And there were no packages that had more updates... except these ones which wouldn't budge. If just telling my system to update and letting it do whatever it wants is "not using it properly" then -- to put it as nicely as I can put it -- there is a UI/UX problem. (Read: it would do a good job of explaining why a Linux distro isn't the main desktop OS, wouldn't it.)

[mmjaa]

When you say you told it to update everything, do you mean this:

    $ sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade

FWIW, Steam has a long and chequered history with regards to dependency hell - and there are gotcha's with using it on 32-bit systems these days, so it could be that. Your package manager was protecting you from this issue, not limiting you, and I would suggest that the problem you ran into, was more related to Steams' requirements than to your package manager being borked somehow.

The reason you're getting so much push-back on this issue, I feel, is that there are far, far more benefits to package management than disadvantages, and in your special case you managed to get into a state that led you to the wrong conclusion, alas. Your package manager was protecting your system, as it is designed to do - what you needed to do was identify which package had the foul dependencies, and either decide to override the package manager, or uninstall the original app - which I believe was Steam.

Steam on Linux does have gotcha's - one of which, the designers of Steam also don't want to have to maintain a package repo or play nice with distro's efforts to keep peoples systems clean and well-maintained (too expensive to actually play along) .. so the fact that you were being tripped up by Steam, and subsequently blamed Linux-worlds' package management, is double-frustrating for those of us who have been using package management for decades and consider it one of the principle advantages to being Linux users, over the hell of Windows installation that has cropped the industry for decades.

[JohnStrange]

I'm changing my system soon and I can tell you that I'm very, very happy that most of my games are on Steam. I remember that manual installation from DVD used to take minutes to hours, and I just don't have the time for this any longer.

Right now, my biggest nightmare are VST plugins. They are in fact the reason why I didn't upgrade my PC from an i7 920 for years. I estimate it will take me at least a week of full spare time use to deinstall them on the old machine and re-install them on the new machine. Steam would make many people a huge favor if they managed to enter the pro audio market, which still comes with their own installers, licensing schemes, DRM, spurious hidden support services, etc. All the bad stuff, exclusively for honest customers.

[pbhjpbhj]

You need a pretty hefty net connection to download a complete library in a reasonable time. My computer is a little under powered so i look at lighter games, they're all over 6GB, some are 25GB ... there's at least 3 times I've gone to buy a game, following email offers, and thought it was just too large.

I probably need to look into QoS again, but my ISP's router has it locked down.

[talmand]

A better option is to backup your games to an external drive and then restore to the new system.

[SolarNet]

Well the problem is it sounds like you are dealing with a proprietary gl package. Which sucks because the package mangers can't do anything about that. Blame your graphics chip provider.

You wouldn't have this problem if you didn't give up your freedoms to mega corps (only some snark).

[mehrdadn]

Which of these packages is proprietary? I was doing this in VirtualBox without guest additions installed, and while I used to boot this installation on an NVIDIA system, I don't believe I had any NVIDIA-specific packages on it. Let me know the proprietary package name(s) you think I had and I'll search to see if I had any of them installed.

[SolarNet]

Well there is your problem. You have the NVIDIA graphics drivers / GL shim "installed". Likely manually because that's the only way they can be used (maybe your distribution did it automatically, but I find that doubtful); you can tell you did it through this simple question: did you use the video card's acceleration at any point? if you did (and I assume you did, since you called it a system by the brand of your video card) you have effectively told your package manager (probably through some "convenient" NVIDIA provided "installer" script):

"I really really want this package and do whatever other proprietary shit this script I didn't read thought was a good idea (like maybe put it into the system with some bizarre name) on a system that will always have this NVIDIA card in it"

And now you are trying to upgrade to something (the proper mesa gl library) which conflicts with that request. But because the package you "installed" has no information (because it's not a real package; because it's a bundle of proprietary code that NVIDIA refuses to properly support) the package manager can't really help you (it can't remove a package it doesn't know how to, so it can't remove the dependencies it's providing, so it can't add a new package with the same provided dependencies). You have to undo whatever shit that script did before you can proceed with a stable system.

Also note, what you are trying, is basically impossible with a Windows system (e.g. installing an arbitrary video driver; moving a system - without re-installation - from hardware to a virtual box system, or even hardware to hardware). So if it doesn't work... it's not like you had any other options anyway. NVIDIA assumes the Windows paradigm here, the open source systems you bludgeon with their proprietary code can do nothing to stop the bad actors you force on them from doing bad things.

I don't know the list of NVIDIA driver packages off the top of my head, or whatever bizarre shit they did to your installation, and it's not the responsibility of the Linux community to provide tech support for your hardware manufacturer. I had considered trying to be more helpful, and do some cursory research into your problem, but your attitude towards someone else that was being extremely helpful showed you don't want to be helped, you want to angry at someone. We are not your tech support, so I can tell you: Fuck off.

[throwanem]

> Well there is your problem. You have the NVIDIA graphics drivers / GL shim "installed".

Not in Virtualbox without the guest additions installed. Even with them, it would be a different binary blob. I mean, don't let me get in the way of your profane, unhelpful, and extremely unnecessary rant, but...

[SolarNet]

I mean. Based off of his posts, he implied he took an image from a physical machine with Nvidia hardware and put it in a virtual machine (on an unspecified system with out guest additions anyway). Are you claiming a disk image of an OS running with Nvidia hardware (that used the acceleration) - with that shim installed - is not going to have that package added anymore if I just stick it in a VM? If so what mechanism would have done that?

As to your effort question. Because I want people to use these systems. As I was writing a detailed response he started writing troll responses (implying the people had read some other story and responded to his for some reason he couldn't fathom; and requiring excessive amounts of evidence) to people offering honest explanations and differing opinions. So I wrote an ending paragraph to what I had that called him out on trolling these people for "tech support" as that as the most charitable way I could view his actions.

It's frustrating when trolls take advantage of people's willingness to help with technical requests as a way to disguise shutting down disagreement by asking questions with large burdens. And then also his changing his story once they respond (often editing his posts without EDIT markers), implying they got everything about his vague statements wrong and that his evidence - his anecdotal setup - disagrees. He has set up a situation where it is easy for his anecdotal evidence to be infallible unless someone can somehow figure out his vague error which is a symptom of his misunderstanding more than it is the system, but his response to attempts to explain the system have been met with his trolling about how they are reading something different. I suspect now that his trollish behavior is a way to defend his argument and incompetence from being challenged.

[throwanem]

If your concern is with making Linux on the desktop more appealing, it may be worth your while to consider whether your discursive style, in the role of (presumably self-appointed) community representative, might make it more likely or less likely that people will want to participate in the community you claim to represent.

As it happens, my own experience with the Linux community suggests that you do not accurately represent it at all, at least not when you act as badly as you have here. Someone with no such prior experience, faced with your execrable behavior here and your claim to represent that community in so behaving, could not reasonably be blamed for the conclusion that attempting to engage with that community would be a terrible mistake.

[mehrdadn]

> We are not your tech support, so I can tell you: [expletive] off.

1. I wasn't here to seek tech support at all. The discussion was on package managers and I was sharing an experience I had. Users such as you decided to issue judgments that I must have necessarily ignored apt and broken my system by... installing non-OSS software (?!) without any information on my actual system setup. As I said in the very beginning, I already reverted to my backup. Nowhere did I solicit tech support, and nowhere did I expect any, especially based on almost complete lack of knowledge about the actual system configuration.

2. Flagged. This is the first time I've seen such an attack on HN. And you can imagine I have no interest in replying after this.

[SolarNet]

You were asking to be provided tech support here:

> Which of these packages is proprietary? I was doing this in VirtualBox without guest additions installed, and while I used to boot this installation on an NVIDIA system, I don't believe I had any NVIDIA-specific packages on it. Let me know the proprietary package name(s) you think I had and I'll search to see if I had any of them installed.

(Also, how would you do that if it was already wiped? Edit 2: yea.... because as not tech support I have read everything you have posted on your problem and am aware you have backups)

You were acting pretty entitled to this other person's help here:

> What "it" are you even talking about? I didn't "choose to ignore" anything. I Marked all Upgrades, clicked Apply, rebooted when it was finished, went to see if there were any more upgrades (there were some), tried to mark & apply them, and was greeted with this error. Apt/Synaptic got me into this broken state and couldn't get me out of it. I don't know what story you're reading, but it doesn't seem to be what I've been writing. There was nothing for me to ignore. The error wasn't something I ignored; it was the problem.

Edit: Oh and that's a perfectly civil response to you continuing to tell people who know how these systems actually work (which does not include you) that they are incapable of understanding what you are writing and implying that they are somehow delusional.

[mehrdadn]

I'll reply to this because you posted it after I was finished editing my reply above, but as I said there, I have no interest in replying to your profanity beyond this:

>> You were asking to be provided tech support here:

> Which of these packages is proprietary? [...] Let me know the proprietary package name(s) you think I had and I'll search to see if I had any of them installed.

I was fact-checking your (unsolicited) diagnosis, which you had already provided despite my lack of request for any kind of support. You made a claim seemingly out of the blue that caught me off-guard (it seemed unfounded and I had neither requested support nor a diagnosis), and in response I said if you wanted to check your facts I would provide you with information to confirm or disprove your (again: unsolicited) diagnosis. I thought maybe you would be interested in seeing whether you are correct. Of course I won't anymore, after your profane verbal abuse.

> (Also, how would you do that if it was already wiped?)

Because as I said multiple times since the beginning, I had a backup from before the update, which I ended up restoring to. Apparently you are not reading?

[qznc]

I side with dataflow here. It would have been a "perfectly civil response" without the last paragraph, especially the "Fuck off". Likewise, in your last paragraph above you label him "incapable of understanding" and "delusional". That is not "perfectly civil".