Because of something I did during an anthropology lecture, I learned the hard way to read the "The following packages will be REMOVED" list when upgrading a package to backports in Debian GNU + Linux.
I upgraded pipewire from stable to backports (I want to know if this is related to my problem why essential packages were removed)
I reinstalled tlp because installing gdm3 removed it
After selecting an app search result, instead of a new window opening, an existing window was focused, and this led to me discovering that my built-in extensions were gone
While writing this post, I got the idea of using the list of removed packages in the apt history log output from apt install libpipewire-0.3-0/bookworm-backports to see what packages to install again, so I did that, then I also had to uninstall firefox-esr again
I rebooted, and my built-in extensions and other stuff were resurrected, so now I have full redemption
Another Window Session Manager restored my windows in a way that pissed me off
(Failed attempts of recovery are not listed)
Edit: actually I made the mistake 1 minute before the start of class
This was definitely one of my least favorite things when I used Debian.
It shows that we need to think about how users are performing tasks and how to intuitively make their usage more successful. The OS should try to get out of the way and always have the ability to easily revert in the case of platform failure.
There should be an undo oopsies feature you can turn on and off somewhere so in terminal when I accidentally rm -f * the entire system doesn't eat it's own tail.
While that sounds good it would be extremely complex to actually implement. The only real-world feature like this is btrfs snapshots (or filesystem snapshots generally). The good thing is that snapshots only store the difference in data and so they don't have to take up much space.
If files are removed from the Index it would only seem natural that they can be undeleted until their physical address is recycled and overwritten.
In fact I remember something like this pre Windows 95 era where files were crossed out. Undeleting them was like magic.
This is why the windows term "Recycle" is more appropriate because the data remains until the space is reused or zero'd out.
This is the kind of reexamining we need, does our current iteration make sense from an engineering perspective or is it just a evolution of a bunch of archaic stuff from a time that doesn't represent the present tech world at all.
I would be okay with replacing rm with recycle and shred as their function is more clear in the name.