6 ms·

Just a note: all the ads will be removable with the command: sudo apt-get remove unity-lens-shopping --purge

• bluedanieru 14y ago
  That's very similar to many other distros except you don't need to run the command.
  • tomrod 14y ago
    You made me giggle in these bleak times. Thanks for that.
  • vacri 14y ago
    This would be a better criticism if the other distros had anywhere near the mindshare that Ubuntu has.
• dfc 14y ago
  You type too much: sudo dpkg -P unity-lens-shopping
  • andreasvc 14y ago
    In general it's not good to use that command because it can leave your system in an inconsistent state -- when there are packages which depend on the package you just removed. apt-get works out the dependencies.
    • dfc 14y ago
      What are you talking about? dpkg will not remove packages with dependencies unless you force it to: root@fw:~# dpkg -P libssl1.0.0 dpkg: dependency problems prevent removal of libssl1.0.0:amd64: python-openssl depends on libssl1.0.0 (>= 1.0.0). openssh-client depends on libssl1.0.0 (>= 1.0.1). ntp depends on libssl1.0.0 (>= 1.0.0). ...SNIP... bind9-host depends on libssl1.0.0 (>= 1.0.0). tor depends on libssl1.0.0 (>= 1.0.1). tcpdump depends on libssl1.0.0 (>= 1.0.0). libruby1.8 depends on libssl1.0.0 (>= 1.0.0). postfix depends on libssl1. dpkg: error processing libssl1.0.0:amd64 (--purge): dependency problems - not removing Errors were encountered while processing: libssl1.0.0:amd64 or root@fw:~# dpkg -P coreutils dpkg: error processing coreutils (--purge): This is an essential package - it should not be removed. Errors were encountered while processing: coreutils Take a look at --force-help for more info on forcing things.
      • andreasvc 14y ago
        Okay but it doesn't change my point: better use apt-get.
        • dfc 14y ago
          You said: "In general it's not good to use that command because it can leave your system in an inconsistent state -- when there are packages which depend on the package you just removed." I demonstrated that dpkg will not remove packages with dependencies. Furthermore some packages are so crucial (ie: essential) that dpkg does not even bother checking dependencies before erroring out. How does that not change your point?
          • andreasvc 14y ago
            The reason I gave was incorrect (I was confused with what happens when you install a .deb file without installing its dependencies), but the point of apt-get being better than dpkg for this still stands.
            • dfc 14y ago
              Your unsubstantiated claim still stands...
              • andreasvc 14y ago
                I don't understand why you're making such a big fuss about this rather inconsequental point. All I'm saying is that you should generally use apt-get and not the lower level tool dpkg. I used an incorrect justification for that (removing doesn't lead to an inconsistent state), but you still should preferrably use apt-get. Let's get back to debating more interesting stuff now.
                • dfc 14y ago
                  I'm not the only one that thinks your claim is left wanting. I cannot speak for them but I am interested in why you think apt-get is preferred over dpkg in this case because I am a decade long loyal user of Debian. My original point was that the dpkg command is shorter and that is why I have used it over the longer apt-get invocation. I am generally interested in learning more about Debian. If the way I have been doing things is wrong I would like to know why so that I can improve my skills. Does that make sense? I'm not being snarky, I'm generally interested in learning more about Debian and it seems that you might be able to improve my knowledge.
  • aeflash 14y ago
    My favorite bash aliases: alias canhaz='sudo apt-get install' alias donotwant='sudo apt-get remove'
    • etfb 14y ago
      Excellent! Pasting that into my bash_aliases now.
• mariuz 14y ago
  or you can install xubuntu sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop
  • tomrod 14y ago
    Meh, Lubuntu or just go Openbox.
    • keithpeter 14y ago
      Or, presumably, use the Gnome Shell? I take it Canonical are not changing the search packages in GS.
    • scythe 14y ago
      When I used LXDE, it had a long way to go before it could be considered equivalent to Xfce, and I ended up switching back. The ultra-lightweight window managers may be in fashion, but Xfce is mature and polished and easy enough for my mother to use, and I can't say that about Lubuntu. The typical Ubuntu user probably won't miss much on Xubuntu. When they find that mrxvt doesn't let them use Ctrl-C/V to copy and paste, they'll be mystified. Ditto for Openbox's wu wei panel management.
      • tomrod 14y ago
        Wu Wei?
        • tomrod 14y ago
          Oh, I see what Wu Wei is now. I use tint2 as a "panel" of sorts in Openbox, and modify menu.xml for anything else I need. I like it well enough. Also, modifying rc.xml allows one to set hotkeys.
      • mmagin 14y ago
        I had a similar experience. Xfce could handle my differently-sized dual-monitor setup easily. LXDE failed such that it thought to put some things off-screen where I could never reach them.
• drivingmenuts 14y ago
  I would much rather type sudo flay the-marketroid-who-came-up-with-that -v -v -painful -transcript -violate-human-rights right now.
• adgar 14y ago
  If this is an important part of the user experience, why can't Canonical provide an "Advertisements" or "Amazon" settings UI that can turn these features on and off by a checkbox? My guess is because they know if they make it too easy to turn off, and the ads aren't actually improving their users' lives (ads for books when you search for apps?! Might make sense for technical books I guess...) everyone will just turn off the ads. Making it this hard to turn off a new feature because you don't trust it will help the users... must be heartbreaking to sell out your users like that.