Matthew Garrett ([info]mjg59) wrote,
@ 2007-08-04 03:59:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:advogato, ubuntu

Anyway, back to pure Linux stuff. A while ago, the Ubuntu Technical Board were asked to take a look at Automatix. I've finally got around to doing so, and here are my initial conclusions. I'd appreciate any factual corrections, and note that at this point this is my individual opinion rather than any sort of official statement.

Automatix is a combination system configuration/package installation
tool, aimed at making it easy for users to install features like
graphics drivers, media codecs and software not distributed as part of
the Ubuntu distribution. It is provided as a .deb file containing a
python GUI frontend that calls out to a shell backend. The frontend
parses an XML file which contains module descriptions and function
names for installing and uninstalling modules, with these functions
being part of the shell backend. An install module will typically
check whether another package manager is running, and if not either
install a set of debs or download and manually install a
tarball. Uninstall modules generally remove the same software or clean
up the manually installed files.

The following is a list of identified issues with the current version
of Automatix - it is the result of a few hours of investigation, so
may not be complete.

  • Automatix is, in itself, a poor quality package which fails to
    conform to Debian or Ubuntu policy.

    • It is inappropriately flagged as belonging to base
    • Depends on essential packages
    • Has a short description of more than 80 characters and no long
      description
    • Provides no email address in the maintainer field
    • Contains no copyright information in the standard locations
    • Ships a TODO file as a control file
    • Provides no man pages
    • Ships files in /usr/etc
    • Contains many files inappropriately flagged as executable
    • Changelog is in /usr/etc/automatix2/ax_data ?

    These issues are primarily cosmetic and in themselves are unlikely to
    cause any harm to the system.
  • In debug mode, automatix will write files to your home directory as
    root. Again, more of an irritation than anything dangerous.
  • Provides platform-specific data in /usr/share. Potentially an issue
    if /usr/share is shared between multiple architectures, but since
    Automatix is x86/amd64 only probably not a real problem.
  • #!/bin/bash
    #created by arnieboy 
    foo=`gksudo -u root -k -m "enter your password for gedit root access" /bin/echo "Do you have root access?"`
    sudo gedit $NAUTILUS_SCRIPT_SELECTED_URIS
    appears to be an attempt to ensure that the user has sudo rights. This
    will break if timestamp_timeout is set to 0 in sudoers - gedit should
    be run directly from gksudo. This is repeated in more than one
    place. The assumption that sudo will not need to prompt appears
    prevalent throughout the code.
  • catagory_data.xml - nitpick, but should be category
  • "Please NOTE that downloading and installing w32codecs, libdvdcss2
    and other non-free codecs without paying a fee to the concerned
    authorities constitutes a CRIME in the United States of America"


    Somewhat dubious legal advice - the issue has nothing to do with fees,
    and isn't just limited to the USA.
  • Automatix checks that other package managers aren't running at
    startup (by grepping for a static list of application names in the
    proces list), but doesn't enforce this by carrying out any locking of
    its own. This leaves Automatix open to race conditions.
  • if ps -U root -u root u | grep "dpkg" | grep -v grep;
       then
         killall -9 dpkg
    May well leave the system in an inconsistent and unbootable state, and
    is carried out without warning. This is entirely unacceptable and will
    leave a stale lockfile in any case.
  • function reloadnautilus {
           killall -9 nautilus
    }
    Not actually used anywhere, but could potentially lose user
    information without warning.
  • Most install functions contain a sleep statement for no obvious
    reason. They then call dpkg_check, which sleeps again. It's not at all
    clear what this is meant to be doing.
  • Passes --assume-yes to apt-get, which will (as a result) happily
    remove packages without giving the user an opportunity to
    intervene. This is especially bad when removing Automatix modules -
    any package that depends on one of the packages being removed will
    also be uninstalled, even if the package was originally installed via
    something other than Automatix!
  • Has no internal dependency management. Unable to keep track of why
    packages were installed, so prevents the removal of the multimedia
    module because that would remove sections of other modules without
    explicitly removing that module. Installing swiftfoxplugins will pull
    in several plugin packages, but removing swiftfoxplugins will not
    remove them even if nothing else depends on them. Also means that
    package installation and uninstallation have to be manually kept in
    sync - uninstall will not always remove all packages that were
    installed.
  • Has no concept of file tracking, so will just remove entire
    directories. Makes no attempt to ensure that a user-installed version
    is not already installed in the same location, so effectively assumes
    that the /opt namespace belongs to it.
  • Will remove Ubuntu repository packages in favour of tarballs with
    no warning.
  • Setting ctrl-alt-del to open gnome system monitor will destroy any
    existing user configuration for run_command_9
  • Installing streamtuner will create a world writable directory in
    /opt/ripped with no sticky bit, allowing users to interfere with other
    users' files.
  • mplayerplugin moves totem plugin files to a backup, but does
    nothing to prevent package upgrades of totem replacing them.
  • Only updates the java link after installing new java, not the rest
    of the java alternatives
  • amsninstall installs tls libs that are never removed, copying over
    the ones in the tcltls package. This means that the md5sums in the
    tcltls package will no longer validate.
  • sudo ln -s /usr/lib/libesd.so.0 /usr/lib/libesd.so.1
    is really not
    such a good idea.
  • ln -s /tmp/.esd-1000 /tmp/.esd
    looks like it'll only ever work for
    the first user on the system, and there's nothing to recreate it on
    boot.
  • sudo sed -i "s/^vboxusers\(.*\):$/vboxusers\1:$AXUSER/" /etc/group
    - assumes that the system isn't using some sort of user directory
    service.
  • installs truecrypt suid root - not ideal, given its less than
    stellar security record
  • Unmounts filesystems without checking to ensure that the unmount
    succeeded.
  • Deletes lines from fstab and replaces them with device nodes
    rather than uuids.
  • Includes acroread 7.0.9, despite the new Acrobat license appearing
    to grant no right to redistribute.

Conclusion:

Automatix exists to satisfy a genuine need, and further work should be
carried out to determine whether these user requirements can be
satisfied within the distribution as a whole. However, in its current
form Automatix is actively dangerous to systems - ranging from damage
to small items of user configuration, through removing user-installed
packages without adequate prompting or warning and up to the (small
but existing) potential to leave a system in an unbootable state.

The current design of Automatix precludes any reasonable way to fix
some of these problems. It is attempting to fulfil the role of a
high-level package manager without actually handling any sort of
dependency resolution itself.

A more reasonable method of integrating Automatix's functionality into
Ubuntu would be for the Automatix team to provide deb files to act as
installers for the software currently provided. These could then be
installed through the existing package manager interfaces. This would
solve many of the above problems while still providing the same level
of functionality.

In its current form Automatix is unsupportable, and a mechanism for
flagging bugs from machines with Automatix installed may provide a
valuable aid for determining whether issues are due to supported
distribution packages or third party software installers.



Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

(228 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Great post!
(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 04:47 am UTC (link)
Very good post! Answered a few questions I had about Automatix. Very interesting.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Great post!
[info]info_link
2007-12-29 06:00 pm UTC (link)
Join! Excellent written!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Great post! - [info]newz_top, 2008-01-02 05:45 pm UTC
Re: Great post! - [info]caseyracine, 2008-01-18 11:49 pm UTC
Re: Great post! - [info]jaobedoza, 2008-03-19 03:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]katijytu, 2008-07-16 04:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rashadmarciliu, 2008-08-06 03:55 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]barrettspurloc, 2008-08-11 12:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aureliorocks, 2008-08-11 12:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]hansgist, 2008-08-11 03:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]geraldoborodia, 2008-08-11 04:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]seanrolle, 2008-08-11 06:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sammyjurdon, 2008-08-12 12:04 pm UTC

(Reply from suspended user)
Posted to digg
(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 05:29 am UTC (link)
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Initial_Analysis_of_Automatix_several_problems_found

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Posted to digg
[info]zappak1
2008-02-27 05:36 pm UTC (link)
Digged :)

Free Blogs

(Reply to this) (Parent)

well then
[info]maco.myopenid.com
2007-08-04 05:55 am UTC (link)
that confirms for me that I should stick to writing my own little "#!/bin/sh \n sudo aptitude install "

(Reply to this)

Interesting
(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 06:04 am UTC (link)
Very informative. The first analysis of Automatix I've seen since it was a monolithic, evil, extendable bash script.

(Reply to this)

Interesting
(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 06:04 am UTC (link)
Very informative. The first analysis of Automatix I've seen since it was a monolithic, evil, unextendable bash script.

(Reply to this)


[info]lionsphil
2007-08-04 09:13 am UTC (link)
Yikes. It's bad enough re-inventing the package-management wheel. But to then do it with such gargantuan corners?

Bad, bad memories of post-2004-ish Gentoo.

(Reply to this)


[info]reddragdiva
2007-08-04 09:29 am UTC (link)
That's hilarious.

(Reply to this)


[info]reddragdiva
2007-08-04 11:11 am UTC (link)
And that's "pure GNU/Linux", you insensitive clod!

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 11:43 am UTC (link)
Works great for me !

(Reply to this) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 01:01 pm UTC (link)
What we have here is another variant of the practical vs. puritanical. Automatix is cobbled together and untidy but most people don't care because it works well and gets the job done.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]http://foodfight.org/log/, 2007-08-04 02:02 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fooishbar, 2007-08-04 02:50 pm UTC
yep - [info]maco.myopenid.com, 2007-08-04 09:01 pm UTC

[info]mas90
2007-08-04 01:07 pm UTC (link)
Automatix also supports an Apt-based installation method: if you follow the instructions on their wiki but don't actually install the automatix2 package, the other packages they provide can now be installed via Apt. This seems to address some of the issues with their proprietary package manager (e.g. you get Apt's dependency tracking).

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mjg59
2007-08-04 01:23 pm UTC (link)
Oh, internally automatix uses apt. The problem is that it passes static lists of packages to apt, rather than checking whether anything else depends on those packages. Just using their apt repository with something like synaptic avoids this problem.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]mas90, 2007-08-04 01:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mjg59, 2007-08-04 01:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]erickalikys, 2008-07-16 01:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]hermanchamberl, 2008-08-10 11:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]keishagianatsi, 2008-08-11 12:54 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tomassouthmayd, 2008-08-11 03:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jonathonyouman, 2008-08-11 04:54 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sallypartello, 2008-08-11 09:06 pm UTC
Next Step?
(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 02:01 pm UTC (link)
For a n00b like me, this is good to know, but also very alarming.

So, having this information now, what should I do with it? My first inclination is to simply remove Automatix2 from my system, but what about all the software it has installed? What if some of the problems mentioned above now exist on my system?

What is the correct way to remove Automatix2 and clean up any messes it may have created?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Next Step?
[info]mjg59
2007-08-04 02:16 pm UTC (link)
Uninstalling any of the packages it's installed should leave your system in a safe state.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Next Step? - (Anonymous), 2007-08-04 11:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jefferyflores, 2008-08-06 03:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sterlingreves, 2008-08-11 05:00 am UTC

(Deleted post)

(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 02:54 pm UTC (link)
http://ubuntuguide.org unfortunately has a section about installing Automatix.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]yaddoshi, 2007-08-04 03:20 pm UTC
Good information sources - (Anonymous), 2007-08-04 11:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]treenanyted, 2008-07-11 04:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rollandpaguada, 2008-08-06 04:06 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]terencekirkwoo, 2008-08-06 04:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]clydemondin, 2008-08-10 11:14 pm UTC
Unfortunately...
(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 03:09 pm UTC (link)
While I realize Automatix has bad issues, it's not the only thing which can render a system unbootable.

I use Automatix for the purpose of filling little holes of functionality. I use it as a last resort. I always go to official package management first, and Automatix last.

But, that does not save me from a poorly documented kernel update, which basically kills my machine.

How's this for feedback: I don't do kernel updates anymore, because I like my machine bootable, and the teams involved don't seem to do alot of testing. They just ship down the update. I am already sort of dreading Gusty, because I know it's going to entail a re-install of everything. I can fix a variety of problems, but if my machine can't even boot after an offical update, how am I supposed to get support online? Sure, I can select the previous kernel, but in some cases, even that has failed for me. I may not have uber linux chops, but I can reasonably fix a majority of things. But I can't fix bad form on the part of the people who release updates. Ubuntu should work, out of the box, when I update, my options should NOT be the one some of us have faced with damaged Windows Installs. Namely: wow, it's going to (unfortunately) be easier to just re-install than screw with this anymore. The last thing in the world you want, is users saying: Ubuntu is great, but whatever you do, DONT LET IT UPDATE ITSELF. That's a Bad Thing.

While Automatix does have issues, one thing I think is missing from this debate: rake your own leaves, before telling your neighbor they have a messy lawn. Worry about Ubuntu, and getting it tightened up, and working well enough so a user does not HAVE to find something to plug holes, like Automatix. Start testing updates better. This is important. Very important. Document how updates should work, and proper procedures for kernel updates when someone has say...binary nVidia drivers. I realize it takes time. But I get dismayed at the number of people I see get just as frustrated by the lack of good user support and documentation at ubuntuforums, as they do at microsoft or apple. Ubuntu is supposed to be different. Is that just lip service? One could maybe draw that conclusion, based on the number of attacks on Automatix ive seen in the last month.

Ubuntu want's to be an alternative to the desktop? Well, then it's time for some of the ivory tower geekdom to come down and sit in the luser's chair and make an honest assessment of things. Period. Lusers will almost always choose the path of least resistance. That's why so many Automatix installs are out there. The popularity of Automatix shows that Ubuntu fails in some areas. Fix them. While this review is indeed well researched, and certainly the truth of it speaks for itself, I can't help but wonder if the time would have been better spent fixing the issues in Ubuntu, or going to the Automatix teams to try and help them fix some of these issues.

Just my $0.02

Duo.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Unfortunately...
[info]yaddoshi
2007-08-04 03:39 pm UTC (link)
Ubuntu is not for everyone. It is also still in the process of being improved. You state that you are afraid of Gutsy, but perhaps you should be looking forward to it - because the problems you are experiencing may very well be resolved by the time it is released.

How many other operating systems undergo significant improvement twice a year, every year?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Unfortunately... - [info]mjg59, 2007-08-04 03:50 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - (Anonymous), 2007-08-04 05:01 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - (Anonymous), 2007-08-04 05:33 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - (Anonymous), 2007-08-04 11:30 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - (Anonymous), 2007-08-04 11:54 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - [info]amedee.be, 2007-08-05 01:05 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - [info]reddragdiva, 2007-08-05 02:35 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - (Anonymous), 2007-08-06 05:56 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - (Anonymous), 2007-09-13 02:55 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - (Anonymous), 2007-10-03 06:24 am UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - [info]photosinensis, 2007-08-05 02:00 am UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - [info]lionsphil, 2007-08-05 11:24 am UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - (Anonymous), 2007-08-07 10:56 am UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - [info]ajaxxx, 2007-08-04 07:29 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - (Anonymous), 2007-08-05 06:55 am UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - [info]tea_and_cuddles, 2007-08-05 11:17 am UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - [info]lionsphil, 2007-08-05 11:28 am UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - [info]yaddoshi, 2007-08-05 05:16 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - (Anonymous), 2007-08-05 06:01 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - [info]yaddoshi, 2007-08-05 07:26 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - (Anonymous), 2008-01-18 04:22 am UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - [info]fooishbar, 2007-08-04 04:25 pm UTC
Ubuntu NVIDIA binary driver documentation - (Anonymous), 2007-08-04 05:32 pm UTC
Re: Ubuntu NVIDIA binary driver documentation - [info]maco.myopenid.com, 2007-08-04 09:07 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - [info]wechsler, 2007-08-04 07:05 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - [info]_paladine_, 2007-08-04 10:49 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - [info]lionsphil, 2007-08-05 11:41 am UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - (Anonymous), 2007-08-04 11:36 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - [info]lilchris173, 2007-08-05 04:38 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - [info]jmtd, 2007-08-06 01:06 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - (Anonymous), 2007-11-20 02:40 pm UTC
Re: Unfortunately... - (Anonymous), 2008-01-17 12:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jasperparr, 2008-08-10 10:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]colleenpylypiv, 2008-08-11 01:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bradleymoseley, 2008-08-11 06:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rorynooue, 2008-08-11 01:48 pm UTC

(Reply from suspended user)
Good read, but...
(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 03:37 pm UTC (link)
Very interesting read from the technical side, but I am one of those people who started using Ubuntu because of Automatix. I have only installed the codecs, GoogleEarth and clipart and never had a problem with it. I haven't yet upgraded to 7.04 and haven't 'played' around with the system. Maybe if I did I would have problems. If there was an officially endorced method of installing the programs Automatix has just as easily, Ubuntu users would welcome it. Unfortunate it may be, but the reality is that Automatix is a great help to new Ubuntu users.....until, of course, a problem occurs. Ubuntu needs to take onboard the reasons why Automatix exists, because it exists and is popular for a practical reason. The people behind Automatix have addressed this and I, one of many, have benefited, as has Ubuntu and Linux in general. Hopefully, Automatix (or something) will become officially part of Ubuntu in the future.

I hope that the people of Automatix are not offended by what you wrote because they have done a good job in responding to a need. Anyway, I don't think so. You being part of the Technical Board, you wrote from technical viewpoint, and you analyse from this angle, which of course why you are there. We need you too.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Good read, but...
(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 04:19 pm UTC (link)
"If there was an officially endorced method of installing the programs Automatix has just as easily, Ubuntu users would welcome it"

For most of the usual non-free codecs, plugins and stuff, there is: just install ubuntu-restricted-extras, it will get you everything you need except, unfortunately, libdvdcss.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Good read, but... - (Anonymous), 2007-08-04 05:36 pm UTC
Re: Good read, but... - [info]maco.myopenid.com, 2007-08-04 09:13 pm UTC
That's complicated - (Anonymous), 2007-08-04 09:43 pm UTC
Thanks - (Anonymous), 2007-08-05 01:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]orsifebuk, 2008-07-16 01:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]timeadusop, 2008-08-03 04:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tyreeclaiborne, 2008-08-10 10:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alejandromcenr, 2008-08-11 02:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lymanbliudziuv, 2008-08-11 04:58 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]margaritosails, 2008-08-11 05:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]marvinfiennes, 2008-08-12 12:09 pm UTC
Been saying that for years
(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 05:14 pm UTC (link)
And all arnieboy says is "OMG AUTOMATIX!! YOU JUST JEALOUS!!" ubuntuforums community is pretty lame as everyone praised arnieboy for so long despite numerous people noting the flaws.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Been saying that for years
(Anonymous)
2007-08-06 12:56 pm UTC (link)
Lots of people used to Windows, mostly, so they think having to reinstall the OS for a new version (and indeed, slowly deteriorating systems) are normal. Of course they don't care that the system is hosed, they don't even understand that it is.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]khanreaper
2007-08-04 05:47 pm UTC (link)
Wow! I am happy that I have never installed that thing and done everything by hand in a traditional way.

I'm incredibly surprised that nobody has made it conform to the Debian Policy Manual, given the utility's popularity.

Also: idempotency anybody?

My kneejerk reaction: Never hire its authors to be a systems administrator.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]elishadilmon
2008-08-10 11:42 pm UTC (link)
At PM on 06 Feb David Hanlon wrote: What a surprise, Microsoft have done what has always worked in the past by releasing a partly tested product with fully tested marketing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]tylersantisteb, 2008-08-11 12:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nickyvliet, 2008-08-11 03:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mariannayounge, 2008-08-11 04:24 am UTC
if automatix is dangerous, then help us do it another way.
(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 06:06 pm UTC (link)
when i started with ubuntu i thought automatix was a godsend. i still use it. if automatix is dangerous, then i ask the developers, board members, forum moderators, etc to post a guide to the forums that shows newbies how to install everything that automatix installs. people need something like automatix. please address that need if automatix is harmful.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: if automatix is dangerous, then help us do it another way.
[info]ajaxxx
2007-08-04 07:35 pm UTC (link)
Presumably, the things automatix does are not done directly in Ubuntu because they are things that Ubuntu has decided it cannot do (or even talk about doing) for legal reasons. That said, Matthew does describe how automatix could work better, in the second-to-last paragraph above. The tools are all there, automatix is just willfully ignoring them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: if automatix is dangerous, then help us do it another way. - [info]maco.myopenid.com, 2007-08-04 09:16 pm UTC
Re: if automatix is dangerous, then help us do it another way. - (Anonymous), 2007-08-05 01:17 am UTC
Re: if automatix is dangerous, then help us do it another way. - (Anonymous), 2007-08-04 11:40 pm UTC
Re: if automatix is dangerous, then help us do it another way. - (Anonymous), 2007-08-05 09:37 am UTC
It worked for me, with minor issues
(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 06:47 pm UTC (link)
Automatix has worked for me. I am not a specialist in Linux, so it was the only way for me to install some applications that otherwise I was having difficulty installing.

I am concerned about the issues raised, but I would not make of user-friendliness such a minor issue. For me it is a very important one!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: It worked for me, with minor issues
[info]wechsler
2007-08-04 07:08 pm UTC (link)
"But using a shotgun to open bottles has always worked for me!"

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Good outweighs the "bad"
(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 08:50 pm UTC (link)
Automatix is a relatively young software package only in it's second iteration. All software requires time to mature. Automatix is a very useful tool that saves time and frustration for many people in many instances. Is it perfect yet? No. Does it deserve a shrill announcement of it's current flaws and shortcomings as dangerous and out of control with looming disaster just up ahead. Absolutely not. Many many tools and software packages in the linux realm can cause system issues and I think this is common knowledge. Linux itself is very young compared to other operating environments.

Is this forum the first place the author has aired their grievances? If so, the more appropriate and civil place to begin this discussion would be on Automatix's development and user's forums (unless the author is just interested in seeing Automatix fail at it's mission). If the Automatix team were to completely ignore the complaints over the next version iteration then I would be unimpressed.

I have been watching Automatix mature and become more refined over the past couple of years and overall I am impressed and applaud Automatix for fulfilling a major need for many users. Keep up the good work Automatix! =)

Open Source is about cycles of user input being used to continually improve functionality and quality. In the case of Automatix, in my opinion the process is working wonderfully and I look forward to the next version and it's attendant improvements in functionality and overall quality.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Good outweighs the "bad"
[info]maco.myopenid.com
2007-08-04 09:17 pm UTC (link)
The developer has been told many times that it breaks systems and he needs to fix it, but he won't hear it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Good outweighs the "bad" - (Anonymous), 2007-08-04 11:22 pm UTC
Re: Good outweighs the "bad" - (Anonymous), 2007-08-05 02:04 am UTC
Oh my god
(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 11:21 pm UTC (link)
It's like a bad dream.

Who the hell gave the author of this abomination the illusion he could perform any kind of software development, and I use the term extremely fucking loosely.

If he can't understand just how badly his "software" fucks up and violates the whole principle of Debian/Ubuntu, please take him the hell out of his misery.

Christ.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Oh my god
(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 11:53 pm UTC (link)
So I failed to see why the fuss .. little me using 6.10 and using update-manager to update to 7.04 when it was alpha and running it all the way to full .. always running automatix right then it said didnt work with 7.04. then automatix for 7.04 comes out and re-adding it right to I grabbed the alpha 7.10 and I wait again and I have had only firefox crashes and thats it and I grabbed 6.10 the day after it was an iso

So in summaration , what crap are you using on your systems to end with un-bootable and messed up systems that you need to bitch about automatix .

I have added it to 25 pcs and no issues on any of them

So sure fix the minor issues so it fits the ubuntu way or the debian way
and then post me a list of the system configs of all the people who had breakage then I will stop using it completely

In the meantime I say . two points . one who makes perfect software (no one) and two who makes perfect systems . ( no one else) so read and re-read and be aware of what you install and good luck

Anon with 10 years as a linux user


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oh my god - (Anonymous), 2007-08-05 01:55 am UTC
Why not submit these Issues to Arnieboy?! - (Anonymous), 2007-08-05 12:00 am UTC
Re: Why not submit these Issues to Arnieboy?! - (Anonymous), 2007-08-05 12:54 am UTC
Thank you!
(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 11:51 pm UTC (link)
Thank you for doing this review, it was much needed.
Several of us tried to give arnieboy (creator of automatix) lots of advice (in irc as well as the ubuntu forums) and patches but he wouldn't listen. He chose to reply with childish remarks and name-calling, so we gave up - maybe his feelings were hurt due him seeing people attacking "his baby".

I keep hearing "works for me", so I'll reply to that. "It may work for you "now", but someday you're going to have problems and not be able to troubleshoot or track them because you used automatix."

I have a perfect fix for problems caused by automatix:
1) Backup all personal files
2) Re-install your operating system
3) Never touch automatix again

Seriously, automatix is one very bad piece of software. You can easily learn the proper way to do eveything automatix does. If you learn how to do things yourself, you'll be in a better position to troubleshoot/fix any problems that arise later.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Thank you!
(Anonymous)
2007-08-05 12:29 am UTC (link)
Easiest way to fix the problem.

Install windows.

Because, well, no one uses Linux for home use anyways (not in the real world - please don't try and justify that Linux ont he desktop is "coming real soon" now).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Thank you! - (Anonymous), 2007-08-05 12:35 am UTC
Re: Thank you! - (Anonymous), 2007-08-05 02:13 am UTC
Heh. - [info]lionsphil, 2007-08-05 11:35 am UTC
Re: Thank you! - (Anonymous), 2008-01-17 12:36 am UTC
Thank you
[info]Michael Trausch [trausch.us]
2007-08-04 11:57 pm UTC (link)
… for the very informative read. I never did feel quite right about using this (in favor of doing the work myself), but then again I have pretty much always felt that way about my own systems. However, getting the word out there is a good thing.

The thing is that many people that provide third-party packages (including backports) tend to not have considerations for the system. Granted, I am pretty sure that the backports I've worked on (http://www.trausch.us/pidgin) are probably not perfect, but I have seen far worse out there, and I can understand how the Ubuntu project might feel when things break in seemingly unrelated parts of the system and they start getting reports of it.

(Reply to this)

Automatix works great ... until it breaks something.
(Anonymous)
2007-08-05 01:32 am UTC (link)
I used Automatix from Breezy on. I recommended it to others. I couldn't imagine Ubuntu without it.

But a couple of months ago, I hit a problem with recognition of USB memory cards and external hard drives. The system no longer recognized anything I plugged into it. It seemed to coincide with my use of Automatix to install the NTFS automount utility. Nothing I did remedied the problem. I finally gave up on "fixing" it and did a complete reinstall of Feisty. Problem solved and has not returned. Of course I have not reinstalled Automatix or the NTFS automount utility.

Can I say for sure it was a problem with Automatix? No, of course not without some kind of complete analysis (which I am unable to do). But I do have a sneaking suspicion.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Automatix works great ... until it breaks something.
(Anonymous)
2007-08-05 01:59 am UTC (link)
And I bet up until the time of the problem you were thinking, "automatix works for me". This is one of the reasons it's so hard to fix problems caused by automatix; it can work fine for a while or it can break things right away.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Automatix works great ... until it breaks something. - (Anonymous), 2007-08-05 07:54 pm UTC

[info]blindingraven
2007-08-05 02:18 am UTC (link)
Ye, Automatix is great.

Were just dealing with elitest guru's who like to make life hard and swear by anything easy being "a lesser" form.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mjg59
2007-08-05 02:24 am UTC (link)
Absolutely. We put huge amounts of effort into making it easy to do things with graphical tools in Ubuntu because we secretly want to force everyone to type in arcane commands.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]jeffreyatw, 2007-08-05 02:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]madsen.myopenid.com, 2007-08-05 03:21 am UTC
Unofficial shell scripts
[info]boltronics.myopenid.com
2007-08-05 03:25 am UTC (link)
I personally don't trust any shell scripts that were not created by the distro maintainers for whatever I happen to be using - especially if they must run as root! I've seen crappy scripts by IBM, GentooX (Gentoo made to run on the Xbox easily), a touchscreen manufacturer and others that all have problems (or potential problems). If I didn't write it myself (or I don't read it first), I don't run it. I recommend the same to everyone.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Unofficial shell scripts
(Anonymous)
2007-08-05 04:24 am UTC (link)
Very good advice indeed.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(228 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…