Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

mariannemarlow · 2012-07-20 10:46:17

I am not very good with the command line - you might have guessed by the oodles of help I have had to ask for.

So if I do not want to bother you guys then I download packages directly from a website, be it Skype (which I just downloaded..), Gimp, whatever.

That is my guilty secret out in the open..

smile

So how do you prefer to download and how do you feel about doing it the other way?

Last edited by mariannemarlow (2012-07-20 10:51:44)

el_koraco · 2012-07-20 10:55:02

lol, we mostly give wget instructions for sake of brevity.

mariannemarlow · 2012-07-20 10:57:54

See now here is an example. I had to look up what wget meant! neutral

Erinsfan · 2012-07-20 11:55:10

Linux is about choice. It doesn't matter how you do it but there are sometimes better (or safer) ways of doing things. Me, I'm a bit of a GUI whore but have learnt how to be more productive using the command line.

Awebb · 2012-07-20 12:37:48

Yes, I would mind if it's GIMP, because gimp is available as a package in Debian. I wouldn't mind if it's Skype, as Skype is not available as package. Being not good with the commandline is not an excuse for not trying. We can teach you the basics, if you want. It's not complicated, all you need to learn are two commands and a few switches, while the commands are arbitrary, the switches are usually plain English.

I would mind, because one day you might come to a public place like this and ask for help, because something does not work. Your little helpers will then have to go through a painful procedure and you will consume quite an ammount of their free time, with the high probability of you losing interest in the matter and therefore having wasted that time. I'd rather invest a little time now to save even more time later.

I'd also mind, because the more you know, the more you grow into being a productive member of the community. You might be able to help others, who are in your shoes. That's not only good for the community, it feels good, because no matter how much you know, there will be somebody who knows less eventually.

So much about contribution. We use all that software for free and we have so many people to ask, everytime we run into something over our heads. It certainly would hurt my pride to not learn the basics, honouring all those volunteer hours spent into my benefit.

Cownose, the cat, I absolutely do not mind what you prefer to do with your computer. If you feel like downloading deb's from websites is the best way to obtain software, please feel free to do so. That's why it is your system, you are in charge, no matter how much I think you're on the wrong track. Just make sure you know enough about those downloads, so you do not inflict any security holes on your computer and so that your machine is not being used as a zombie in a bot net to send me spam mail.

Sometimes you won't have another choice but downloading and installing manually. I don't build my own Debian packages, I find the progress tiresome and unecessarily complex and I currently have no intention of gaining more practice in it.

fortyseven · 2012-07-20 13:48:57

I usually use apt to install stuff unless the package isn't available in the repo's. On the odd occasion, if I'm unsure about the correct spelling of a given package, I'll use Synaptic.

dkeg · 2012-07-20 14:11:56

well written Awebb....

The reason I started using cb was to spark my growth. And that it has. I use the terminal as much as possible. I enjoy the power i feel it gives me and the insight into how this thing really works. I guess for me it goes hand in hand with using LInux. When I first started using Linux, everything was GUI based operations and synaptic. I realized that sure I'm using LInux now, and yes I support open source software, but I am not learning anything. I'm using Linux like I used Windows. So that's how I ended up with cb and have stayed. I have learned a lot, and have actually been able to help others, which felt really great. Plus, when I tell people that I am a LInux user, they tend to have an expectation that I know stuff. I don't want to disappoint.

Davey_Speedstar · 2012-07-20 14:15:59

If you're not confident in using the command line, use Synaptic Package Manager. If I can't find something in Synaptic, I have to question whether I actually need it!!! smile

mariannemarlow · 2012-07-20 14:26:13

sorry. gimp was just an example. i already have it. i couldnt think of anything as an example except skype.

I did actually check the repos for skype before I went to get the deb file. I just wasn't sure I was doing it right.

I do want to gain knowledge, I am not shying away from that. But I do not seem to pick things up as easily as others.

hinto · 2012-07-20 14:55:46

As part of my new install tweak I download jEdit, NoMachine, and Netbeans. None are in synaptic ( except an old version of jEdit). I use Firefox to download them and dpkg at the command line. Why dpkg instead of something like gdebi? No Machine has interdependencies with itself, so sudo dpkg -i nx* is easier than fighting a UI.
-Hinto

Last edited by hinto (2012-07-20 14:56:12)

dkeg · 2012-07-20 15:03:02

^ @hinto so you use jEdit. I have used in the past a bit, but have swayed toward Sublime-Text.. May I ask what you code and what you like about jEdit. And I have never heard of NoMachine. Looks interesting. I have to read up on it.

back to the thread, as you do. When necessary download thru web browser, then dpkg -i to install

hinto · 2012-07-20 15:25:10

For jEdit, I like it since it's available on Linux, Mac, and Windows. (wherever Java is). I like the plugins. I code Java and C++ in it. It's also a great example of how snappy and responsive a 100% Java/Swing application can be.

No Machine is basically X over ssh. It's much faster than VNC. I can connect from home (over vpn) to my #! box at work and actually work.

</a little off topic>

-Hinto

sunfizz98 · 2012-07-20 15:41:03

+1 Awebbs advice.
Most packages should be in the repos, otherwise downloading from the main dev's website is fine.

machinebacon · 2012-07-20 15:45:51

wget -c http://www.example.com/package.deb
sudo dpkg -i package.deb

(I) Like this and only like this big_smile (Sure, you can use gdebi or gdebi-gtk to install the .deb, it would automatically take care of the dependecies and download them if available in the repos)

Of course, if it's a tarball you need to extract and check the README that is hopefully provided.

Last edited by machinebacon (2012-07-20 15:47:12)

Awebb · 2012-07-20 15:48:15

You checked the repo, it wasn't there, you went to the source site and grabbed a package. That sounds like a normal day in the life of a Linux user ;-) Your post sounded more like you didn't know how to use the repositories. Nevermind then.

Just make sure you use a trustworthy source. Ask people on the IRC, if you're uncertain.

el_koraco · 2012-07-20 15:57:47

@dpkg vs Gdebi - if there are any dependency issues, dpkg will error out. This is easily handled with

apt-get install -f

mariannemarlow · 2012-07-20 16:08:06

Awebb wrote:

You checked the repo, it wasn't there, you went to the source site and grabbed a package. That sounds like a normal day in the life of a Linux user ;-) Your post sounded more like you didn't know how to use the repositories. Nevermind then.
Just make sure you use a trustworthy source. Ask people on the IRC, if you're uncertain.

Chat? - we have chat?!

mariannemarlow · 2012-07-20 16:09:12

el_koraco wrote:

@dpkg vs Gdebi - if there are any dependency issues, dpkg will error out. This is easily handled with
apt-get install -f

Okay so I might be learning something. I actually knew that code...

disturbing..

skbierm · 2012-07-20 16:25:27

apt-cache -n search ^kde ... would show you all packages beginning mit kde, so I use mostly apt (and at the moment comparing aptitude to it).
If I need, for whatever reason, a self compiled version of the package, apt-get source foo && sudo apt-get build-dep foo .... are another choice.
Anything else, that isn't available by the distro, I clone with git/bazar, whatever.
I guess, it's a matter of, how you grew up, and what you're working with since 30 years. Maybe if I would start these days, I would become a mouse or touchpad junkie ...

mariannemarlow · 2012-07-20 16:30:26

I have many regrets, I wish I had continued with C Programming in the dark days of the 90's rather than becoming a jack of all trades and a master of none.

What does the double ampersand mean?

rhowaldt · 2012-07-20 16:32:10

@marianne: you know that piece of code because you already typed it in a hundred times. you say you have more trouble picking up the commandline than most people, but i wonder which people you are referring too here? if you mean that, for example, i know more about the commandline than you do, then yes, that's true. however, i've been consciously and purposefully using the commandline since i started using linux about 1,5 years ago. if you do the same, you'll basically share my knowledge.

the reason the commandline is so popular for giving help is because it is faster to explain someone to type something (ie. mr koraco's point of brevity), plus it will often give you useful feedback. the same is not true for most GUI apps. they'll obscure stuff and therefore aren't the biggest possible help in troubleshooting.

also, once you start to experience the speed and versatility of the commandline, you'll probably don't want to go back to that piece of bloat that is called a GUI. the difference of ease in doing a software install in, Synaptic versus doing it through apt-get is huge. Synaptic will take you through at least 6 clicks of the mouse before you have something (and it is probably much more). apt-get will give you a single command to type and you're done (oh yeah maybe pressing [ENTER] again to confirm).

i think Awebb also makes a strong point when he speaks of contributing to the community. i'm not talking about you helping people out with their wifi like master xaos, but i'm talking about people coming here just like you, being 'afraid' of the commandline (not saying you are but you know what i mean, i think). you'll be able to assure them that it isn't that difficult, that if you can learn it, anybody can, where to find more help that was useful for you, etcetera etcetera etcetera. don't underestimate this. i did the same thing when you came here and i'm sure it gave you some kind of confidence, however small, to continue your journey.

what i'm basically trying to say is that GUIs are bloat big_smile

mariannemarlow · 2012-07-20 16:37:57

@rhowaldt

Yes, I could never presume that I'll ever be the genius that the master Xaos is smile He is the closest thing to Jesus there will ever be in my eyes and he knows that (footnote, I am an atheist so I am not sure that comes across in the spirit it was intended)

I don't want to use synaptic or the GUI. I really want to be able to use the command line confidently but it's just so frustrating.

GRRRRRRRRR.

rhowaldt · 2012-07-20 16:48:07

^ take your time. just take a vow to try and use the commandline whenever you can. if you need to copy a file, use the commandline to do it.

cp file new_directory

check out my signature for The Basics, which are a whole bunch of basic terminal commands. these are the ones you'll be using, these are your tools for the future.
make yourself a 'training area' for file-manipulation. through the terminal of course.

mkdir mariannes_dojo
cd mariannes_dojo
mkdir some_directory
touch bla.txt
touch meh.txt
touch blerf.txt
mv bla.txt some_directory
mv *.txt some_directory
cd some_directory
ls
mv * ..
cd ..
ls

etc. remember that pressing [TAB] will complete your sentence. so typing 'cd mari[TAB]' will give you 'cd mariannes_dojo', for example. if no option comes, try pressing [TAB] twice to see your options.

i can keep going on but it's your turn now.
GO!

mariannemarlow · 2012-07-20 16:53:05

Cheers mate.

One of the great things is to add

--simulate

to the end.

I try stuff out in the threads all the time just to see what happens!

Last edited by mariannemarlow (2012-07-20 16:54:15)

Awebb · 2012-07-20 16:53:18

Huh, &&, some bash basics. Just read it, it's not overly complicated.

Whenever a program is done with whatever it is made to do, it returns an exit code. 0 means everything is fine, anything else (numbers, of course) means there was an error, a warning, something went wrong.

&& checks, whether the last command returns 0 (reports that everything is fine). We also say it checks, for a returned "true". If the last command returns "true", the && executes the code after itself. If the previous command returns "false" (anything but a returning 0), then nothing happens.

You can try this with a simple test:

[[ 0 == 0 ]] && echo "it's true"

Those brackets are called "test". They always return "true" or "false" (exit code 0 or 1). In this case, they test, if 0 equals 0. We use two equal signs, because a single = means something else.

So this test will return "true", as 0 equals zero, at least in our universe. The && detects, that the last statement was true (as it returned "true") and executes the code behind itself. You will see "it's true" in your terminal. Now try the following:

[[ 0 == 1 ]] && echo "it's true"

You should now see nothing. The statement "0 equals 1" is false, so && does not feel like doing anything.

The evil twin of && is ||. || checks, if the last statement is "false". So, this…

[[ 0 == 1 ]] || echo "it's false"

…will print "it's false", while this…

[[ 0 == 0 ]] || echo "it's false"

…will refuse to do anything.

People often use && to run two or more commands in one line, so they can run multiple things one after another without writing a script:

echo "I will now show you all your files." && ls && echo "I will now show you your free space." && df -h && echo "Bye."

The good thing is: It will not proceed with the next command, should any command encounter an error. This is also the "bad" thing, as most people don't know that && is a test for "true" and assume the line will go on, no matter the result. Most of them know dos/windows:

dir ! del c:/*.* ! dir

This is different, as it does not test anything, the bang in dos is just a trick to concatternate commands in one line.

CrunchBang Linux

SEARCH

#1 2012-07-20 10:46:17

Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#2 2012-07-20 10:55:02

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#3 2012-07-20 10:57:54

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#4 2012-07-20 11:55:10

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#5 2012-07-20 12:37:48

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#6 2012-07-20 13:48:57

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#7 2012-07-20 14:11:56

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#8 2012-07-20 14:15:59

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#9 2012-07-20 14:26:13

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#10 2012-07-20 14:55:46

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#11 2012-07-20 15:03:02

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#12 2012-07-20 15:25:10

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#13 2012-07-20 15:41:03

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#14 2012-07-20 15:45:51

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#15 2012-07-20 15:48:15

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#16 2012-07-20 15:57:47

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#17 2012-07-20 16:08:06

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#18 2012-07-20 16:09:12

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#19 2012-07-20 16:25:27

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#20 2012-07-20 16:30:26

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#21 2012-07-20 16:32:10

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#22 2012-07-20 16:37:57

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#23 2012-07-20 16:48:07

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#24 2012-07-20 16:53:05

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

#25 2012-07-20 16:53:18

Re: Downloading files not using the command line - frowned upon?

Board footer