I completely broke Kubuntu

Linux@lemmy.ml – 72 points – 4 months ago

So like I was trying to install Davinci resolve (an editing program) and while doing so it basically said "removing" followed by that appears to be everything installed on my computer

So I nope right out of there and I notice a bunch of important things are missing ex: the terminal, file manager, etc

So I just decided Maybe if I reboot everything will be a ok

And now on this screen and it won't even let me enter my logic

This was the latest update of Kubuntu And idk what I did wrong or how I got here

I've only been using Kubuntu for probably about 4 months ish

Edit: please help

Edit 2: I got it working by reinstalling Kubuntu as suggested, Thank you for the help :>

You are viewing a single comment

View all comments Show the parent comment

On your phone, do you search the software you want to install through your browser? After which, do you download the install script and try to run it?

No, of course not. Instead, you pay a visit to the accompanied software center. Searching, installing and upgrading all occur through that.

Similarly, on Linux, your chosen distro comes with a (or perhaps multiple) package manager(s) and a software center. Those should first and foremost be consulted. And for 99% of the cases; this is the intended, supposed and supported way of installing said software.

This should suffice for the sake of brevity. If you've still got questions, please feel free to ask them.

On your phone, do you search the software you want to install through your browser?

Yes. Not everything I have is installed through the Google store. I grew up in an era before walled-gardens.

Similarly, on Linux, your chosen distro comes with a (or perhaps multiple) package manager(s) and a software center. Those should first and foremost be consulted. And for 99% of the cases; this is the intended, supposed and supported way of installing said software.

I should clarify - I know what a package manager is. But you're acting like one needs to have some expert skills to install things outside of the package manager. It's generally preferred for a number of reasons but it's not bad "per se" to install something outside of it.

Used to be a time where the install instructions were ./configure && make && make install...

Yes. Not everything I have is installed through the Google store.

I understand from this, that it is implied, that the majority of what you have installed, has been done through the Google store though. By extension, I assume that -by default- you entrust installing software to the Google store. Hence, if all of the above is correct, then you actually don't commit to 'the Windows-way' by default; but only by exception. Which is exactly my point.

But you're acting like one needs to have some expert skills to install things outside of the package manager.

I feel you're reading too much into it. In my first comment, I didn't even mention package managers. In the second comment, I only wrote -and I quote- "Those should first and foremost be consulted. And for 99% of the cases; this is the intended, supposed and supported way of installing said software.". I don't see where expert skills are implied if one chooses to go outside of it. Please feel free to help me understand where I did.

It's generally preferred for a number of reasons but it's not bad "per se" to install something outside of it.

I never implied otherwise.

I hope you’ve now understood why -on Linux- you should never try to install stuff like how you were used to on Windows. Unless, you 100% know what you’re doing.

That's pretty strong language and what I was responding to. Perhaps you were being hyperbolic.

Thanks for clarifying!

That’s pretty strong language

I agree. But in this case it was 100% justified as OP just (hopefully reversibly) destroyed their installation.

and what I was responding to.

Thanks for properly nuancing my stance. Though, perhaps consider to do so right away next time 😜.

Perhaps you were being hyperbolic.

It was deliberate. But I wouldn't refer to it as hyperbolic. Perhaps more in the style of an elder sibling scolding their younger sibling to be better next time 😉. Apologies if I missed the mark, though.

I agree. But in this case it was 100% justified as OP just (hopefully reversibly) destroyed their installation.

And yet they did so using the package manager. They just installed a apt.source that they shouldn't have. THAT I would say one should not do unless one really knows what they are doing. If they had just installed some .appimage or compiled something from source they would have been fine.

Thanks for properly nuancing my stance. Though, perhaps consider to do so right away next time 😜.

And yet:

It was deliberate. But I wouldn’t refer to it as hyperbolic.

So... I'm not going to nuance your stance if it shouldn't be nuanced. It's a bit up to you to be clear about your nuance. And in this case you're being very ambiguous about it.

And yet they did so using the package manager.

So, Davinci Resolve's .run file used for installation definitely somehow interacted with the package manager. Otherwise, the system wouldn't break the way it did. While, technically the package manager was in use (at least at some point), the user -i.e. OP- did not intentionally invoke its use consciously. So, I wouldn't refer to this as "using the package manager".

They just installed a apt.source

What is an apt.source? Search engines and LLMs failed at resolving this. They did explain what apt source is or could refer to, though*. Regardless, what leads you to understand that they've installed an apt.source? Please be elaborate as I'm not a Debian/Ubuntu user; consider shedding light on it through the RPM world.

THAT I would say one should not do unless one really knows what they are doing.

How does one know which apt.source they should and should not install? Doesn't this imply "expert skills" (using my understanding of your logic)? On Windows, you can install software with almost no fear; as long as the source is trusted.

If they had just installed some .appimage

Assuming they've installed libfuse2. Which actually is not present in modern Ubuntu installations.

or compiled something from source they would have been fine.

So, in this case, you believe that compiling a gargantuan program like Davinci Resolve would not have caused a ton of issues related to dependencies even if it was supported on Ubuntu?

So... I'm not going to nuance your stance if it shouldn't be nuanced.

I thought that my writing was sufficiently easy to comprehend and would not lead to any misunderstandings. Therefore, within that context, nuance was not needed. However, your engagement in the conversation implies that some actually did misunderstand it. Thus, nuance was (seemingly) needed and I only became aware of it afterwards.

It's a bit up to you to be clear about your nuance. And in this case you're being very ambiguous about it.

My stance is pretty simple:

Use whatever is provided, intended and supported by the 'distro'.
For that which goes beyond this, you're on your own and should be prepared to face the consequences.

So, if one can't deal with the consequences, like how OP had to come here for help, then one should stick to the first point.