There’s a four-syllable word that stirs up emotions in Ubuntu users like no other word: Automatix<\/i> <\/p>\n
The fans of Automatix swear by it. The opponents of Automatix can go off in a rage at the mere mention of it. <\/p>\n
I’m a little bit in between. <\/p>\n
The relative non-issue of breakage<\/b>
I’ve heard it often said that Automatix will break your Ubuntu system. I’ve also heard the Automatix apologists say that it’s not Automatix itself that breaks your system but the extra software Automatix installs… or Ubuntu breaking itself with its own updates. It’s also possible that Automatix may have broken Ubuntu in the past during upgrades but no longer. Who knows for sure? I’ve searched all over the web, and I haven’t seen any technical explanation of either how Automatix breaks your system (detailing which part of Automatix disrupts the normal functioning of Ubuntu) or doesn’t (detailing Automatix’s non-intrusive nature). <\/p>\n
Breakage doesn’t concern me that much. I know that’s a strange thing to say, but it really doesn’t. The Automatix proponents have a point—Ubuntu could break by itself. That doesn’t exclude Automatix from breaking Ubuntu, but it also means you can’t falsely reassure people that by refraining from installing Automatix that their Ubuntu installations will remain intact. I had a HAL update (granted, it was a proposed update) break my resume-from-suspend. Breakage happens. Automatix may<\/i> be responsible for some of it, but it isn’t happening in such great numbers as to cause Automatix fans to stop using Automatix. <\/p>\n
The red herring of the command-line<\/b>
Neither side of the Automatix debate is solely to blame for this, but in debates about Automatix, inevitably the question of the command-line (or terminal) comes up—with the Automatix fans saying that not everyone wants to learn the command-line and the Automatix anti-fans saying that learning the command-line is a good thing or that the command-line is faster to use than Automatix. <\/p>\n
That argument may be interesting on one level, but those are not the only two options (Automatix or terminal). A lot of what Automatix does and, more disturbingly, most of what people recommend Automatix for, can be achieved easily through the already existing GUI (graphical user interface)—either through Add\/Remove or Synaptic Package Manager. While this isn’t true of all<\/i> the software or tweaks Automatix handles, it is true of many<\/i> of the packages people recommend Automatix for. <\/p>\n
The root of the problem part one: panacea<\/b> Install Wine with Automatix<\/i> <\/p>\n Install Wine with Synaptic Package Manager<\/i> <\/p>\n See the difference? There are some cases where Automatix may be a good solution, but most times I see it recommended, the person needing help would be better off just using traditional (and, yes, point-and-click) methods of installing software. I might recommend Automatix if someone wanted every single popular non-free codec and software package. That might be a good situation for it. But for one or two programs, no. <\/p>\n The root of the problem part two: inertia<\/b> Final thoughts<\/b> I’m grateful that the Automatix developers created Automatix. It filled a real need when it first arrived, and many users have grown to appreciate it. Still, the insanity (both the anti-Automatix and pro-Automatix) must stop. It’s a piece of software. It won’t solve or create the world’s problems.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There’s a four-syllable word that stirs up emotions in Ubuntu users like no other word: Automatix The fans of Automatix swear by it. The opponents of Automatix can go off in a rage at the mere mention of it. I’m a little bit in between. The relative non-issue of breakage I’ve heard it often said… Continue reading Why I don’t recommend Automatix (not what you may think)…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-314","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ubuntu","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=314"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1903,"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314\/revisions\/1903"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
My main objection to people recommending Automatix isn’t anything I have against Automatix itself so much as the way<\/i> people recommend Automatix. Automatix is not a panacea. And it is not always the best solution. But many times on the Ubuntu Forums<\/a>, an Automatix fan will jump in and suggest Automatix for just about anything: How do I install Flash for Firefox? Just use Automatix. How do I install Wine? Just use Automatix. <\/i> No, people. No. Automatix is not the solution for everything. Automatix is a piece of software that has appropriate uses and less-than-ideal uses. It is far easier to install Flash than it is to install a helper program that will install Flash. By the same token, it is far easier to install Wine than it is to install a helper program that will install Wine. Consider this comparison: <\/p>\n\n
\n
Ubuntu’s codec and general software installation has improved a lot with recent releases, especially Ubuntu 7.04 (nicknamed Feisty Fawn). I don’t know how many Automatix users are aware of how easy it is to install codecs (easy codec installation and Ubuntu restricted extras) or other software (some extra repositories enabled by default) now. Once you get used to depending on a piece of helper software, you may not realize eventually that you don’t need it any more. Some people may need it, but if you refuse to take a bandage off, how will you know when your wound has healed? <\/p>\n
On a related note, I’ve heard that the Automatix developers have been talking with the Ubuntu developers, but I don’t know if they’re working together. If they are, great. If they’re not… well, they should be. Part of the beauty of open source it the ability to contribute back patches and improvements to a project. If the Automatix developers note deficiencies in the way Ubuntu handles packages, maybe they could help develop a better Ubuntu instead of a workaround? As I said before, they may be doing this already. I don’t know. <\/p>\n