MX Linux Forum

Even when I don't agree with him, I always appreciate his taking the time to look carefully and craft a genuine critique:

https://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/mx-linux-mxpi.html

This kind of articles makes me want to stop programming, I developed MXPI all by myself, D_O helped a bit and Fehlix fixed some stuff https://github.com/MX-Linux/mx-packagei ... ntributors
I give it away for free, what do I get in return? People who bitch that the tool is too nerdy. Nice.

Adrian wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 5:41 pm This kind of articles makes me want to stop programming, I developed MXPI all by myself, D_O helped a bit and Fehlix fixed some stuff https://github.com/MX-Linux/mx-packagei ... ntributors
I give it away for free, what do I get in return? People who bitch that the tool is too nerdy. Nice.

He wants a "store". MXPI is not a "store". Therefore, MXPI suxs.

Screw him.

uncle mark wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 5:51 pm He wants a "store". MXPI is not a "store". Therefore, MXPI suxs.

Yeah, nothing short of a fancy "store" was gonna please Dedoimedo. He wants to see that sort of thing. Me, I'd be kinda disappointed to see something like that in MX Linux; but maybe that's the direction folks want to go in, not sure.

This makes me so tired. No matter what people may want, the virtual world will never be the real world.
Enough with calling a software manager a "store".
The one "store" I dealt with in another distro had reviews (oh boy! ) that were outdated and rather juvenile.
The "store" did nothing for me more than MXPI. In fact, I thought it cluttered and silly.
No, Adrian et al have done a fine job.
It's clear - to me, at least - and gets the job done.
I've never had a problem using the various tabs.

Actually I would tell him (and have told him directly in the past) that his premise is wrong, but it's a premise that he can't shake: no colors, no images, no good.

Aside from the store question there are some valid points to think about IMO.

Just for sake of history, MX Package Installer (and mind you, it's not called "Store" or even "Package Manager") was meant only to install some pieces of software that were not available in the common repos, the rest of the tabs, Regular Debian repo, MX Test, Backports were added later on when people requested them, heck, the program was not even meant to uninstall stuff, I added that later on and was never meant to replace Synaptic or whatever other "professional" program managers. The GUI is very much inspired from an old program called Metapackage Installer from Sidux I think, but with 100% original code (Metapacakge Installer was a GTK program I think, our tool is Qt)

his premise is wrong, but it's a premise that he can't shake: no colors, no images, no good.

It's not that the premise is wrong, he's right to ask for that, but he can get that in other distros, I doubt MXPI will become anything else unless people start to add code, till then if I'm the main contributor of the program it will never be anything that a nerdy package installer that some people in MX community will find useful -- hopefully.

As for programs that crash or don't work as they should a bug report is more useful than a blog post.

I have to take issue with his comment that MXPI makes it much easier to break the system, when IMO it does very little toward that, and does warn the user.

Opinions of his.. how much do they really matter? Do they even matter? No.

Let the 'importance' of his opinion go, and just do what we think works.

I read this as more of him lamenting we didn't solve a problem he thinks we have, or rather that the linux ecosystem has. we don't actually see this as a problem, ergo about half the review does not apply.

when he actually talks about mx-packageinstaller itself, its not bad really.

nerds unite. all other can use ubuntu.

dolphin_oracle wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 6:42 pm nerds unite. all other can use ubuntu.

Yes! You're a wise man, lol.

I tried to read his article but got stopped by the cookie manager. I couldn't figure out which way to set the toggle so that a cookie was off. If a guy can't design (or use) an unambiguous toggle how can they claim the right to criticize the complex program decisions of a developer.

Adrian wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 5:41 pm This kind of articles makes me want to stop programming, I developed MXPI all by myself, D_O helped a bit and Fehlix fixed some stuff https://github.com/MX-Linux/mx-packagei ... ntributors
I give it away for free, what do I get in return? People who bitch that the tool is too nerdy. Nice.

Dedoimedo wants coffee to taste like tea and when it doesn't, it's bad coffee... Don't pay attention to reviews like that. While Dedoimedo sometimes has valid observations, the main problem with his reviews is "out of context" assumptions like MXPI should be compared to Android/iOS/Windows Store for example.

I think MX Linux is the distro that has done more meaningful contributions to the Linux desktop than any other distro. Dedoimedo seems more concerned that Linux isn't as "easy" as Android.

I do feel a little sadness for the entire MX team, because developing a LInux distro and supporting it is a rather thankless task. For every word of appreciation there are 10 problems to solve somewhere in the millions lines of code in the distro.

Just out of curosity I did a test installation of the Falkon browser on a Live MX-19.4 USB Flash Drive and it worked fine for me - zero problems.

Edit: To give context to what I said above, in the MX Package Installer review that Dedoimedo did (the reason this thread was created), he tested the Falkon and Chromium browsers in MX Linux. His conclusion was that it was a "50% success" in that Chromium worked fine but Falkon "crashed majestically". He never goes any further in detailing the cause of the crash or what if anything he did to solve the problem.

How on earth could the time be found to fully test integration of all packages with user's machines? Even the resources of MS can't achieve that. Does he understand what MX Linux and similar distro are, and how they are created?

How is Falkon crashing the fault of the Package Installer? No matter how you install it, you get the same thing! (It's always been a bit flaky for me since Qupzilla.)

I love our Package Installer. I still try other Xfce based mainstream distros on their main releases, just to see if there is any part of them we might add. I hate the graphics-heavy 'stores', and can never easily find what I want. When I want to add anything to test in distros that have those, I use Synaptic.

I equate Dedoimedo to some of the low-brow newspapers we have in the UK; they have nothing to say to the masses, so create something. I think he is best ignored.

Chris

Opinions are good. Opinions based on non-facts, are invalid. Examples:

Another problem - in addition to hazard warnings you get going through the different repo tabs, the actions do not get saved. Say you select a couple of applications on the first tab, click on the second, boom, the selection is gone. So you must commit actions on the same tab before moving away to the next, if at all.

This is good.

You have the choice to install packages from conflicting repositories and break your system in a really convoluted way. In general, Linux packaging and dependency management is hard, and this exposes the hardship in a friendly way, inviting people to make mistakes.

This is invalid.

Ideally, every software component would have a clearly defined, rigorous test procedure. Every system would have a chain of these tests, declared, defined, interlinked. No application would be allowed for inclusion or publication without successful testing that proves the components work great on their own and as part of the overall complex system.

This is conflicting with the previous one.

I can say that MXPI is the only tool that invited me into using Test Packages on my main machine; no dual-booting, no multiple user accounts, no hassle. Thank you guys for this great distro.

He doesn't understand the whole concept that the test and backport tabs don't permanently enable repos, just turn them on and off like a tap. That's why it's not an invitation to breaking your system with all the tabs and diff repos. Also those repos don't or shouldn't conflict. He probably thinks test repo is Debian testing.

And the "tap" thing is why you can't remember and save checked packages from a past tab when you move to a new one in mxpi.

Usually I find at least one point of criticism in his various MX reviews that makes sense and can help improve things. This time, not a single one.

I like Dedoimedo. His articles are usually interesting. But I disagree when he says that the average user needs this or that. His average user is a kind of amoeba that moves by visual impulses, absolutely irresponsible for everything, and with absolute needs that must be satisfied. Any other type of user is a «nerd».

I don't want to be the average user as Dedoimedo describes it. This average user is unable to distinguish a refrigerator from a computer.

For me, MXPI is a very good tool that I haven't seen in any distro. I don't care if he likes it or not.

I appreciate Dedoimedo's reviews, though. I kinda skim through to get to the parts that might be important to me. Whether he likes a distro or not, I can tell from his reviews if the distro might be useful to me. As for MXPI, I don't use it or any GUI package manager, but MXPI isn't why I keep MX on a flash drive here.

Adrian wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 5:41 pm This kind of articles makes me want to stop programming, I developed MXPI all by myself, D_O helped a bit and Fehlix fixed some stuff https://github.com/MX-Linux/mx-packagei ... ntributors
I give it away for free, what do I get in return? People who bitch that the tool is too nerdy. Nice.

Well, I think MXPI is amazing. It simplifies installation of packages that would otherwise be tedious or maddening, like Wine, Mullvad VPN, Calibre, Flatpaks, the list can go on and on. Please never doubt that you are appreciated.

One thing I can say that is amazing is our users! Thanks!

bwhawk wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 5:46 am Well, I think MXPI is amazing. It simplifies installation of packages that would otherwise be tedious or maddening, like Wine, Mullvad VPN, Calibre, Flatpaks, the list can go on and on. Please never doubt that you are appreciated.

Exactly this. I use this first when I install something, it takes care of things, makes life easy.

So yeah.. THANKS!

OK, I'm going to retract my statement that we can't learn anything from his review. The fact that (I believe) he has confused Test Repo for DEbian Testing (otherwise it wouldn't be a "conflicting" repo leading to dependency issues) is something we should address, because he is not the only one.

Check out the first review dated 12 May 2021 in DW's review page for MX: https://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resou ... &distro=mx

That's the latest person who thinks he's installing packages from DEbian Testing when using MXPI Test Repo. This is a dangerous assumption for uninitiated users to make. Next thing you know, they are accessing Debian Testing repo themselves, thinking that if they just download and install one .deb file from Testing, it'll be fine.

And how many times have you seen forum posts referring to Test Repo as Testing repo? I've seen a fair number of such posts.

It might make the message wordy but perhaps the warning pop-up when you first access Test Repo tab should add the following words:

"MX Test Repo is not Debian Testing Repo. It contains packages built to be compatible with Debian Stable that have not been fully tested. Debian Testing packages should not be used with Debian Stable....[continue with rest of cautionary message]"

That's just my own personal view bearing in mind I've seen this confusion arise for so long.

What if we name the tab "Package testing"?

the word "test" will always indicate potential issues. and the fact that while nothing in test conflicts with stable, there are things in stable that conflict with test, particularly multimedia libraries.

its murky, and when things are murky I like to call them what they are. its called "MX Test Repo" now. At a minimum its accurate.

I think we can keep calling it MX Test Repo, BUT we should try to educate users in that first popup that it is NOT Debian Testing.

Yeah, but reading popups is nerdy...

Adrian wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:36 am What if we name the tab "Package testing"?

I don't think that's needed, its says what it is right on the tab "MX Test Repo".

Maybe combine the text below the tab right now onto one line and add another line with a note saying what the tab is for "MX Test Repo ... NOT Debian Testing Repo".
But I honestly don't think it is needed.


I think its just another biased, narrow, and half baked review. He didn't really test or research.

If he did he wouldn't have said many of the things he said, he would have pointed out many of the things folks are pointing out here, and he would have focused on the strengths and actual weaknesses of MXPI.
Instead he just nitpicked, blabbed on his opinions, and said things as facts that aren't even close to the truth.

There are better actual, more thorough, and researched reviews on MXPI on YouTube made by 11yr kids touching Linux for the first time.

MXPI is awesome, not perfect, but its awesome in its own right. But, it's extremely functional and covers many functions well.

What really irked me was the complaints about having the options to even install from all those MX Test Repo, Debian Backports, and the Flatpaks.
Like this is a con in some sort of way, complete rubbish.

The whole "not testing" thing is a joke, he doesn't actually know what we or users do, how could he? He doesn't even know what the MX Test Repo is.

FWIW, we test everything that we do in both the MX Stable and Test Repos. Sometimes I spend more time testing than I do packaging.
- Everything is built off MX Stable, any non-MX stable repo packages are added individually in a local repo at build time.
- I often first test installs in a VM using a local repo or if its a single .deb sometimes just manually installing.
- Then I actually open the application both via terminal and Whisker menu.
- Next (I'll be honest) I usually poke around in applications as much as I can. I'm not going to learn full blown applications just to test them completely. But they are tested a bit.
- Then I send them up to the repos, once I see them show up there, I'll test another install.

The blog post is saddening because I'm hard pressed to find anything actually useful to take away from it to actually improve MXPI.

However, my point is that other people have also confused Test Repo with Debian Testing. It's not just him or that recent DW review post.

If we can stop real users of MX from making that mistake and messing up their system, perhaps we should try.

how about a haiku in a tooltip

MX Test (not Debian)

instead of MX test repo.



Put that in the tab title, is clear enough.

asqwerth wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 10:26 am However, my point is that other people have also confused Test Repo with Debian Testing. It's not just him or that recent DW review post.
If we can stop real users of MX from making that mistake and messing up their system, perhaps we should try.

I'm certainly not meaning to be denigrating to those that have made the mistake, but how much clearer can "MX Test Repo" be? It doesn't say Debian Testing.
As people read less and less, and spend less and less time to contemplate what they read, how far to we have to go to make everyone happy and "safe"?
Sure we should try to accommodate the world, but again, how far?

Adrian wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:58 am Yeah, but reading popups is nerdy...

... and about as likely as them reading the manual.

Adrian wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:58 am Yeah, but reading popups is nerdy...

The hackers should put an ad blocker in the app store to ban all those popups.

Yes, dolphin-oracle. unite.

malspa wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 5:00 am I appreciate Dedoimedo's reviews, though. I kinda skim through to get to the parts that might be important to me.

Maybe that's the problem.
As a whole, the article makes sense. He raises some valid points which should be considered.

Maybe Dedoimedo will be happy with KDE and KDE Discover.

He reviewed MXPI as a "Software Center" and maybe to avoid all this confusion it would have been better to say no "Software Center" (his definition) exists in Xfce version, which I guess is what he originally wrote in the MX-19.3 review.

I'm still surprised that Dedoimedo or his imagined target audience (which isn't MX Linux real audience) wants big icons and pointless reviews in a "Software Center".

dreamer wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 7:04 pm big icons and pointless reviews

Big icons are useful, and reviews are not pointless.

Bamber wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:13 pm

dreamer wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 7:04 pm big icons and pointless reviews

Big icons are useful, and reviews are not pointless.

Icons are nice and all, but they take up space.

What is an icon going to be useful for exactly?
Icon based on the system theme or the official icon of the application?
The better the icon the better the application?

The problem with reviews are they get out of hand, can be biased, and can be very limited. And really in the end aren’t too helpful for FOSS application installers cause it ain’t like it costs anything to install, try it, then uninstall if you don’t like it. No harm no foul.

People should be wanting to learn and explore a bit with Linux and FOSS applications, so many great applications get overlooked or never tried because of this. What works for someone doesn’t work for everyone.

The best reviews will probably be found online somewhere else anyway.

Now something that may be useful is maybe the full description or a link to the application website.

There is a large part of the population that prefers bling over substance aka form over function, but I doubt that many of them would venture away from Apple or Microsoft products.

So why should the dev team spend their limited time to try to cater to them?

Part paper-tiger click-bait, seasoned with a little constructive criticism - always laid-back yet passionate.
Classic.
It's always a challenge for those who know what's going on - in detail - to label things well for those who don't.
Let the water run off your thick hide, and chew on the useful points. It'll make you better at what you do.

Bamber wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 6:03 pm

malspa wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 5:00 am I appreciate Dedoimedo's reviews, though. I kinda skim through to get to the parts that might be important to me.

Maybe that's the problem.
As a whole, the article makes sense. He raises some valid points which should be considered.

I'm looking forward to incorporate your patches into the program. Talking is cheap.

Until we have universal Linux packaging that can match Windows packaging in size/performance and application developer friendliness I think it's a "waste of time" to target "consumers" with Linux. All consumer systems depend on packaging by application developers.

I might be naive, but I don't think it would be hard technically to create a universal Linux package format for standalone applications (no package dependencies, only basic system requirements). A lot of software is delivered like this, for example Firefox. We only need a package format/script that extracts to for example /opt and puts a desktop file in /usr/share/applications. Uninstall would just delete the program folder and the desktop file. Upgrade would extract over old program folder (maybe delete old folder first).

Windows software easily bundles Qt dependencies without getting fat. It's harder with gtk, but we could assume that gtk3 is a stable system requirement at this point. The killer feature for Linux would be a stable basic toolkit (think gtk2) that makes it possible to run a binary without unnecessary bundling after 10 years, just like Windows.

I know at least one nice Software Center was created using Electron so that can be forked and used on every distro. So if a talented dev wants an unpaid full time job I think this could be done. The key is making application devs do the limited packaging and the Software Center dev could just do a quick check before uploading. Ultimately it's the user that is responsible for the software that they install on their machine.

I think it's a cool idea (at least in my mind). It would unite the Linux desktop users since they are using the same binaries and it would connect users to application developers in a more straight-forward manner. It would also make troubleshooting easier since it is the same binary on every distro.

This Software Center wouldn't replace distro specific packaging. It would be a complement, just like Flatpak and Snap. Compared to Flatpak and Snap it would lack sandboxing, but hopefully bring many times smaller package size and no dependencies. I think package size would be max double that of native packages and in many cases only marginally bigger. The way I see it, Linux desktop world domination depends on lean standalone universal Linux packaging and a universal Linux Software Center.

So maybe Dedoimedo is right in a way when it comes to consumers and big icons, but I feel he left out 90 % of the story.

Except it won't really be "universal" but just another portable format after Flatpak and Snaps. People invested in the latter 2 won't let go of them. Then you have appimage, which may not be perfectly compatible for all distros (there was a recent thread where an ubuntu-based appimage gave errors when attempted to be run in MX).

I'm actually happy that our MXPI is lean and mean. My main concern is to try to remove some confusion abt Test Repo. I think it is a valid confusion some will make. But I accept that HOW to do it such that users actually read/notice the explanation, is a problem.

Dolphin_Oracle's haiku tooltip suggestion tickles my funny bone.

german saying:

What does the oak care, if the pig rubs against it!

as i stated beofre in othter threads on this guy and his reviews: i have seen so many trash comments with minimal exploration of distros that i no longer read his trash. you devs here have done a superb job on MX and i am very pleased and happy to have switched to MX. Took me a year to ponder the switch but glad i did. keep on truckin' team! and thanks!!!

he's done OK, we just don't need to be like everyone else.

at least he doesn't ever say Xfce looks like windows 98, which is what the stock phrase is for a whole bunch of youtube reviews.

Re MX Test Repo vs Debian Testing
FWIW when I started with MX many months ago I was (like probably quite a few others) coming from Windows with a (long-term) view to replace Windows 7 with a Linux distro. I had used a Unix workstation in the 'eighties and played with the odd distro in a VM but I had absolutely no clear concept of what either Debian Testing or MX Test Repo meant. I found out eventually but a clearer hint, eg in MXPI, would have made things somewhat easier.

Perhaps a small video by you-know-who (if it doesn't exist already) could be made and its URL featured prominently in MXPI? Just an idea.

sorry DO. my post was a serious compliment to you and the rest of the team here!

thinkpadx wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 10:15 am sorry DO. my post was a serious compliment to you and the rest of the team here!

and I thank you for it @thinkpadx

thinkpadmx "… devs here have done a superb job on MX …" - Amen. (That's why they're )

dolphin_oracle "I read this as more of him lamenting … a problem he thinks … the linux ecosystem has …" - exactly, it's one of his favorite soapbox talking points, MXPI being just the chosen example for another article.
…
dreamer "Until we have universal Linux packaging that can match Windows packaging" - or better (not impossible), but that's quite a challenge. So many tails want to wag the dog, and insert layers of "platform/DE/..." disruption.

As several here have noted, there may be room for improvement of MXPI, the MX Package Installer.
(switching to pedantic hat)
The challenge of UI is to inform (and sometimes educate) the user - the more accurately and completely, the better.
For example, when using terminal as root, it helps to change the terminal appearance, as a reminder.
In using MXPI (or any package/app "store"), perhaps switching to Testing should likewise start with a notice (perhaps a longer first-time version congratulating the user on their Bold and Fearless choice, a note that the MX TEST repo is activated Temporarily, and offering a link to Feedback Guidelines?), and involve at least a change in appearance that gently but firmly reminds the user of the difference - without greatly reducing readability, of course.
(Nobody said this would be conveniently easy.)

jeffreyC wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:29 pm There is a large part of the population that prefers bling over substance aka form over function, but I doubt that many of them would venture away from Apple or Microsoft products.

So why should the dev team spend their limited time to try to cater to them?

^this

We certainly can vigorously disagree with Dedoimedo on specific points he makes. But in general over the last couple of years he has been very complimentary to MX. It is the human condition at times to focus on the negative. Let us try to remember all the positive comments he has made about MX. Using MX Linux I have access to Discover, the fancy "store" but most often use MXPI and Synaptic. That is my choice . But I do understand that others may prefer the "fancy".
As far as MXPI opening the system to breakage, I can thoroughly disagree with that without totally condemning him.

Yep. Dedoimedo can be very critical even when it's a distro he likes and uses. He does seem to like MX. Another example, latest review: https://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/kub ... rsute.html

And he uses Kubuntu. By the way, I like Kubuntu, too, but like Dedoimedo I prefer to stick with the LTS releases.

Perhaps I am stepping a bit far into making a greater workload, but thought this may be worth mentioning for consideration at least.
Could a page on the website be added similar to the wiki where users can submit programs, vote for programs, and consider different programs with other users?

This could give the packaging team a good idea of what programs people would like to see.
It would give a quick list that could be referenced when making the popular applications tab in mx package installer.
Also through the votes you would have a metric that could be shown in mx package installer as to "star rating" / popularity reference. (also icons or whatever other data is in the webpage). Similarly you could have a link to the appropriate webpage using mx-viewer for more information and other peoples thoughts on the program.
A help / search more button or menu item could be added to the package installer to reference this website. Then if a program is popular (according to the user) but is not found because it cannot be in the repo / package installer for licensing reasons or it is simply not compatible (sysv vs systemd) or what not this could be explained in the webpage.
etc.

The testing tab could be hidden unless checked off in a drop menu or something; but I thought the whole idea of adding the testing tab was to make people more aware of the programs that need testing and make it easy for them to do so.

To my way of thinking, and I may be a little "special" here, a package installer needs to be just what it's name says it does. I truly can not stand any of the "stores" I have seen and I will avoid them at all costs. There is one I can not avoid, Googles Play store and when I use it, I grab what I want and get out very quickly, I have no time in my life to be bombarded with advertising, junkware and useless "opinions" all too often offered by those with little to no knowledge.

Can we make MXPI a little better? of course, there's always room for improvement, but at what cost? Deidemodo lamented about losing all selections when crossing over to a new tab, but in doing so, he simply missed, forgot or neglected to say while standing on his long-time soap-box that enabling that feature is the exact potential nightmare he is speaking of because additional upstream (and incompatible with each other) repos will have been enabled, therefore making it inevitable an operator will be assembling a frankendebian without even knowing it. To this, my response is an emphatic and resounding NO !

How could this issue be overcome? Maybe a session only volatile / non-volatile "cookie" that offers to hold a users selections within a tab that is populated only if the operator selects another tab without first performing an action on existing selections within a tab. Volatile in the sense the cookie is cleared/removed on exit, irrespective of whether an action has taken place and non-volatile in that it records data in real time that can be parsed and actioned on return to a tab, but only within an single session.

Regarding applications I think both Synaptic and MXPI are semi-geeky and I wouldn't want them to change. They serve slightly different purposes and I think they complement each other well. I use Synaptic for basic updates and software install/uninstall. I use MXPI for popular applications and the test repo.

Anything related to voting, community/comments etc. I wouldn't want in MXPI. I want MXPI to be clean. I think it's one of its strengths.

I haven't used Discover, but the UI looks pretty nice. This seems like an application suited for casual users where votes and comments may be a helpful factor.

I have the impression that MX-21 will be released before December so I assume remaining work is mostly about trying to achieve MX-19 quality (which is a pretty high bar) with some updates/integration to MX apps.

Just like Dedoimedo I like some things from Ubuntu/Mint, but I wouldn't necessarily think it would be a good idea to work on them.

Dedoimedo is still employed as a technical writer by Canonical and he is writing on the Snap blog. So now I remember why he seldom mentions software availability in his reviews (which isn't great in Ubuntu without PPAs). However, if you accept Snap format and Canonical Store and connect Snap to Discover then you might not need additional repos/PPAs. For "consumers" it might not be a bad idea and I think this is the perspective Dedoimedo has in his reviews.

MXPI, losing selections when switching a tab?

I just selected opera for install in popular, switched to another tab, and yes the install button then greys out. But as soon as I switch back to the popular tab it becomes available again and I can click it and install opera.

D indicated he'd installed other packages from another tab after having made selections from an earlier tab and he expected all package selections from both tabs would be taken care of in 1 action. I've seen this when I was testing a good way back so will vouch for the selections on the first tab to be lost after performing an action on a second tab.

Did a bit more testing and indeed the behavior is funny. Checked kmail in popular, then 0ad in stable, went back to popular, found kmail checked, back in stable 0ad not checked.

Checked that again, went to test, checked aldo, went back to stable, 0ad unchecked, went to popular, kmail still checked, back to test, aldo unchecked.

Eadwine Rose wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 7:10 am Did a bit more testing and indeed the behavior is funny. Checked kmail in popular, then 0ad in stable, went back to popular, found kmail checked, back in stable 0ad not checked.

Checked that again, went to test, checked aldo, went back to stable, 0ad unchecked, went to popular, kmail still checked, back to test, aldo unchecked.

Popular tab use a different object to hold info, all the other tabs: stable, test, backports reuse the object so they need to reset stuff when they display the table. Frankly I'm perfectly fine with that, MXPI started with one tab, a way to install "popular apps", the rest is extra that I added because I could and some people found useful.

Again, I don't understand how people expect an app that was written in a week to have the features of Synaptic or other program managers. It's NOT meant to replace and package manager and I mean it. What's next, complaining that mx-viewer is not a great browser?

Adrian wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 9:58 am Again, I don't understand how people expect an app that was written in a week to have the features of Synaptic or other program managers.

That being said, I love its simplicity (geekiness?), and the temporary enabling of repositories. What was the preferred way of installing test packages and debian backports before MXPI? Did users have to set up repositories on a per-package basis?

radonrose wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 10:16 am

Adrian wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 9:58 am Again, I don't understand how people expect an app that was written in a week to have the features of Synaptic or other program managers.

That being said, I love its simplicity (geekiness?), and the temporary enabling of repositories. What was the preferred way of installing test packages and debian backports before MXPI? Did users have to set up repositories on a per-package basis?

the preferred way was to enable the repo, update sources, install thing, disable repo, update sources. which is what the tab does now.

doing it manually is fine, but their were a large number of users that did dist-upgrades with the test repo enabled and that can cause issues. its less of an issue these days because of some changes in the way the test repo works on the server side, but I still consider leaving the test repo disabled as best practice.

Adrian wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 9:58 am

Eadwine Rose wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 7:10 am Did a bit more testing and indeed the behavior is funny. Checked kmail in popular, then 0ad in stable, went back to popular, found kmail checked, back in stable 0ad not checked.

Checked that again, went to test, checked aldo, went back to stable, 0ad unchecked, went to popular, kmail still checked, back to test, aldo unchecked.

Popular tab use a different object to hold info, all the other tabs: stable, test, backports reuse the object so they need to reset stuff when they display the table. Frankly I'm perfectly fine with that, MXPI started with one tab, a way to install "popular apps", the rest is extra that I added because I could and some people found useful.

Again, I don't understand how people expect an app that was written in a week to have the features of Synaptic or other program managers. It's NOT meant to replace and package manager and I mean it. What's next, complaining that mx-viewer is not a great browser?

Oh I'm not complaining. Was just checking to see what the poster above me had seen.

It works fine for me, so.. *shrug* I don't care, I like it :)