Automatix

[Blindraven]

Spoken like a true FOSS agent :P

On Dec 6, 2007 7:47 PM, Daniel Pittman <daniel at rimspace.net> wrote:

> Chris Jones <chrisjones at comcen.com.au> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > Sridar,
> >
> > It seems that you have a major problem with Automatix.
>
> He is hardly the only person to have major problems with it, among the
> user population as well as (crucially) the development team of Ubuntu.
>
> > Just because you don't like it, use it or support it, that's no reason
> > for me to recommend it to other users.
>
> Actually, it is a good reason to advise that you don't recommend it:
> every person who uses it, and has bad experiences, is another person who
> looks at "Ubuntu" as faulty, or who the rest of us get to support in
> fixing their broken system.
>
> Also, simply because you like it -- even if you don't support it,
> understand it or know why it is a poor choice -- is no reason to
> recommend it to others.
>
>
> > And that link you provided is crap!
>
> That isn't an argument, that is an opinion.
>
> > It proves nothing more than a bloke who is simply analyzing it to the
> > last 0's and 1's and debunking Automatix.
>
> Leaving aside the credentials of MJG, this is certainly true.  Now,
> since there have been *technical* arguments supplied for why Automatix
> is no good perhaps you would be so good as to supply some *technical*
> arguments in support of your position?
>
>
> > If I Googled the issue, I'd find just as many sites in support of
> > Automatix.
>
> Perhaps.  Why don't you.
>
>
> > In fact, a recent poll on UbuntuForums.org showed that more people
> > like/use Automatix than people that don't.
>
> More people who answer polls in that part of the UbuntuForums system do,
> perhaps.  I didn't respond to the poll, or even know that it existed.
> How do I factor into your equation here, as a positive or a negative?
>
>
> > Well guess what Sridar, Automatix is software. And software ain't
> > perfect.  I bet I could find x amount of problems with the Ubuntu OS
> > itself if I analyzed it enough.
>
> Please do.  When you find issues please file them into the bug tracking
> system so the software can be improved.
>
> > I'm sure any advanced geek here would know that it isn't perfect and
> > has many issues indeed.  But it doesn't mean I shouldn't recommend
> > Ubuntu to other users. Why, because (once again) software ain't
> > perfect.
>
> ...there are varying degrees of "imperfect" software.  That isn't a
> black and white line, but a continuum -- and opposing Automatic because
> it fares poorly on that continuum is quite valid.
>
>
> > Automatix is simply a third-party application which should be used
> > with care. Just like ENVY, Synaptic, GParted etc. that has the ability
> > to tinker with valuable pieces of the OS file structure.
>
> No, Automatix is a tool that *will* cause problems, as they are core
> parts of the design.
>
> Yes, issues such as races, the failure to run for anything but the first
> user account, and the other technical flaws in the software are one
> thing.  As you say earlier, other software has flaws.[1]
>
>
> The parts that we really object to are the parts where Automatix does
> things "perfectly" as it intended ... and causes terrible problems for
> the Ubuntu system it was run on as a consequence.
>
> Broken by design, not by mistake.
>
> > And Ubuntu Developers ARE NOW working in collaboration with the
> > Automatix Team.  Things might have been different prior to Gutsy. But
> > that was then and this is now.
>
> ...which Ubuntu Developers?
>
> Also of note, Automatic is still not in universe, let alone main.  Once
> the developers and the Automatix team get as far as inclusion in the
> distribution this will be a powerful argument.
>
> Until then, though, it is a third party product that does not meet the
> technical requirements to get into 'universe' -- somewhere that,
> frankly, all sorts of useless and poorly designed crap can get a
> look-in.
>
>
> > Next time Sridar, get your facts right instead of blabbering out the
> > usual crap.
>
> ...uh-huh.  You might actually want to consider how this statement might
> apply to what you have written.
>
>
> Well, or not, since I doubt that you have any interest in technical
> argument on this and will continue to hold your religious position
> regardless of what anyone else might say.
>
> Regards,
>        Daniel
>
> Footnotes:
> [1]  Though any software with this range of flaws is rapidly patched out
>     of existence, since these are terrible and decades old flaws that
>     show little rigour in either the design or testing of the software.
>
> --
> Daniel Pittman <daniel at cybersource.com.au>           Phone: 03 9621 2377
> Level 4, 10 Queen St, Melbourne             Web: http://www.cyber.com.au
> Cybersource: Australia's Leading Linux and Open Source Solutions Company
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-au mailing list
> ubuntu-au at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
>



-- 
When one burns ones bridges, what a very nice fire it makes.
╔═════════════════════════╗
║╔╗ ════╔╦╗║║╔╗ ══║║╔╗╠╗║╔╗ ║
║╠ ╔╗╔╗══║═╠╣╠╝ ══╠╣║║║╔╣╠╝ ║
║║ ╚╝║═══║═║║╚═ ══║║╚╝║╚╝╚═ ║
╚═════════════════════════╝
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-au/attachments/20071207/5e6928ad/attachment.htm