I actually don't, imgur is blocked where I work. But I know the error you're talking about.
> Yeah, I interpret that to mean I had broken packages. After updating. Not before.
Yeah the error reporting is bad, which is where the whole unix philosophy of small cooperating programs goes completely wrong. (Or possibly the error is correct and the package is broken - Ubuntu maintainers in particular seem to make bad packages quite often. But the package manager isn't the problem there)
> Notice it has >17k views, only 2 answers, and no accepted answer? Yeah, I guess it's not so easy to resolve.
More likely the user who asked it (3 questions, 0 answers) got bored and never "accepted".
> Even if I ignore the above and pretend nothing there is currently broken, a system that cannot be updated is, uhm, broken.
In as much as you now can't use the package manager to update all your programs? I mean I'd agree that this qualifies as "broken", but it's exactly as broken as a system that doesn't have a package manager in the first place. You could still update all the individual programs manually like you would on windows. Which is what I thought you were advocating?
