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 :>
Yes. Not everything I have is installed through the Google store. I grew up in an era before walled-gardens.
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...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.
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.
I never implied otherwise.
That's pretty strong language and what I was responding to. Perhaps you were being hyperbolic.
Thanks for clarifying!
I agree. But in this case it was 100% justified as OP just (hopefully reversibly) destroyed their installation.
Thanks for properly nuancing my stance. Though, perhaps consider to do so right away next time 😜.
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.
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.
And yet:
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.
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".
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.
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.
Assuming they've installed
libfuse2. Which actually is not present in modern Ubuntu installations.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?
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.
My stance is pretty simple:
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.