F5F Stay Refreshed Software Operating Systems Yes, Follow My Lead II: The Growing Voice

Yes, Follow My Lead II: The Growing Voice

Yes, Follow My Lead II: The Growing Voice

D
DUHMAN118
Junior Member
38
12-01-2025, 01:45 PM
#1
Yes, even Ubuntu has acknowledged that Gnome can be a virus.
D
DUHMAN118
12-01-2025, 01:45 PM #1

Yes, even Ubuntu has acknowledged that Gnome can be a virus.

B
Bonnibel
Posting Freak
794
12-09-2025, 01:14 PM
#2
even the linked site mentions they're working on a fix... mistakes happen sometimes. keep in mind that even without seeing the warning message, it will still show you precisely what will be removed. before you think "this wouldn't work on Windows," remember Windows lacks automatic dependency handling and treats the desktop as a single package, so you can't pick alternatives. if you prefer avoiding this issue on Linux, opt for static binaries or Flatpak.
B
Bonnibel
12-09-2025, 01:14 PM #2

even the linked site mentions they're working on a fix... mistakes happen sometimes. keep in mind that even without seeing the warning message, it will still show you precisely what will be removed. before you think "this wouldn't work on Windows," remember Windows lacks automatic dependency handling and treats the desktop as a single package, so you can't pick alternatives. if you prefer avoiding this issue on Linux, opt for static binaries or Flatpak.

F
Froulard
Member
118
12-10-2025, 02:45 PM
#3
Only those who require a graphical interface for their system need one.
F
Froulard
12-10-2025, 02:45 PM #3

Only those who require a graphical interface for their system need one.

T
TheZoosk
Member
158
12-11-2025, 12:45 PM
#4
The aspects worth noting here, based on talks about Linus during the Linux challenge, are: 1. The issue isn't mainly about Pop_OS itself. 2. Using the package manager treats your whole system as a single unit. 3. Unix and Linux tools assume the system will fulfill requests, adapting accordingly. With package managers, this means generating options that fit user needs and letting users weigh the pros and cons. This supports developers in choosing systems that move users away from traditional package management toward containerized or bundled deployments, especially when targeting power users who either lack experience with system-wide management or favor a BSD-like split between apps and OS. People used to managing systems via packages (like you) often avoid containerized solutions like Snap, AppImage, Flatpak for valid reasons—such as storage limits, platform stability, speed, customization ease, or unresolved sandboxing issues. Those on Windows or macOS may not be comfortable with (2) and (3) and will likely stick with stable, immutable base systems to reduce risks.
T
TheZoosk
12-11-2025, 12:45 PM #4

The aspects worth noting here, based on talks about Linus during the Linux challenge, are: 1. The issue isn't mainly about Pop_OS itself. 2. Using the package manager treats your whole system as a single unit. 3. Unix and Linux tools assume the system will fulfill requests, adapting accordingly. With package managers, this means generating options that fit user needs and letting users weigh the pros and cons. This supports developers in choosing systems that move users away from traditional package management toward containerized or bundled deployments, especially when targeting power users who either lack experience with system-wide management or favor a BSD-like split between apps and OS. People used to managing systems via packages (like you) often avoid containerized solutions like Snap, AppImage, Flatpak for valid reasons—such as storage limits, platform stability, speed, customization ease, or unresolved sandboxing issues. Those on Windows or macOS may not be comfortable with (2) and (3) and will likely stick with stable, immutable base systems to reduce risks.

F
FELIPE369
Member
234
12-12-2025, 06:12 AM
#5
If users aren't aware they can simply remove their operating system using a package manager, it's time for managers to include a set of installed packages that trigger errors or warnings when uninstalled. That decision depends on the distro developers choosing which items to highlight. Still, it seems there should be a dedicated "my permanent software" section so you don't have to delete essential productivity tools you rely on daily. My sarcastic side just thinks, "LMAO @muppets"!
F
FELIPE369
12-12-2025, 06:12 AM #5

If users aren't aware they can simply remove their operating system using a package manager, it's time for managers to include a set of installed packages that trigger errors or warnings when uninstalled. That decision depends on the distro developers choosing which items to highlight. Still, it seems there should be a dedicated "my permanent software" section so you don't have to delete essential productivity tools you rely on daily. My sarcastic side just thinks, "LMAO @muppets"!

S
Struzz
Member
75
12-12-2025, 06:53 AM
#6
others already handle it using meta packages. The issue is that apt doesn’t protect meta packages like pacman or rpm does.
S
Struzz
12-12-2025, 06:53 AM #6

others already handle it using meta packages. The issue is that apt doesn’t protect meta packages like pacman or rpm does.

U
UberCuber
Junior Member
28
12-19-2025, 12:16 PM
#7
They continue to do so over extended periods. For Ubuntu, the warnings shown to users before uninstalling packages are those that would disable the package manager itself. However, discussions have persisted since the initial incident about whether these alerts are adequate. It’s evident that for many, they fall short. This isn’t true regarding meta-packages or how pacman handles them. Meta-packages are merely collections of packages without installation files, serving only to reference other packages as dependencies. Whether something qualifies as a meta-package and if it’s shielded from removal are unrelated concepts. Additionally, equating RPM with APT is a misunderstanding—each system operates within its own package management hierarchy. APT functions similarly to other advanced tools such as Zypper, YUM, and DNF. In the Debian ecosystem, dpkg replaces rpm as the primary package manager.
U
UberCuber
12-19-2025, 12:16 PM #7

They continue to do so over extended periods. For Ubuntu, the warnings shown to users before uninstalling packages are those that would disable the package manager itself. However, discussions have persisted since the initial incident about whether these alerts are adequate. It’s evident that for many, they fall short. This isn’t true regarding meta-packages or how pacman handles them. Meta-packages are merely collections of packages without installation files, serving only to reference other packages as dependencies. Whether something qualifies as a meta-package and if it’s shielded from removal are unrelated concepts. Additionally, equating RPM with APT is a misunderstanding—each system operates within its own package management hierarchy. APT functions similarly to other advanced tools such as Zypper, YUM, and DNF. In the Debian ecosystem, dpkg replaces rpm as the primary package manager.