← Back to context

Comment by account42

7 hours ago

I agree that recommends makes sense but this is a bullshit argument:

> On the other hand, apt and aptitude provides previews before doing something. You don't have to accept them. In aptitude's case, you can fine tune before the final commit, even.

You can't expect the average user to understand the entire dependency tree and read the description of dozens of random packages that the average program pulls in. RTFM is not a valid excuse for bad defaults.

I don't expect average user to read an entire dependency tree. However, apt and aptitude does a relatively good job of explaining their actions' reasons.

Let me rephrase:

    1. Installation of recommended packages is a good default for the average user, because it provides functionality they expect.
    2. If the user is not happy with what's happening, changing defaults are not hard.

IOW, if you don't like how your system behaves, read the documents. Otherwise, I argue, current defaults is good for the benefit of the newcomer and average Linux user. If you are at a point where you are caring which package is doing what, you're leaving "average user / beginner" realm.

In the case of StarDict, as I noted elsewhere, I think the developer's answer is fishy, or ill-informed at least.

  • Why does "caring what a package does" mean that someone is no longer a beginner?

    All the people I know care what their software does.