Vic wrote:
>> That's a bit harsh Vic.
>>
>
> If this were the first time this discussion had occurred, you'd be right.
>
> But it isn't. It's the latest in a long line of RH-bashing from someone
> who has been repeatedly told that a direct comparison of rpm to apt is
> ludicrous, just as a direct comparison of dpkg to yum would be.
>
> That we keep getting tales of many years ago stated as gospel truth goes
> beyond ignorance; it is FUD. If the tales ever were true (and I doubt this
> - I was using apt on Cobalt 6.0, which was basically RH6), they aren't
> now, and continuing to whine about the same outdated issues - whether they
> are true or not - is exactly the same as the naysayers who claim that
> Linux users have to do everything from the command line, have to recompile
> the kernel every five minutes, have no driver support, etc.
>
> I *suspect* that what is being said was never really true - it's just a
> feature of individuals not knowing what was available. But whether or not
> that was the case many years ago, it certainly isn't the case now.
> Continuing to harp on about it means that someone is either being wilfully
> ignorant, or is deliberately spreading FUD.
Well, let me add my own anecdotal evidence to that then.
Around Redhat 5/6, and for some time thereafter, I had all sorts of
issues around installing software with rpm-based systems that prompted
me to explore Debian, Libranet and latterly Ubuntu as an alternative. I
am pretty sure that there are other people on the list far smarter than
I and with a lot more experience who will be able to relate similar
experiences too.
And, yes, it may well have been down to ignorance on my part, but then
it's perhaps worth mentioning that the same level of ignorance got on a
lot better with the Debian-based systems and their way of handling
package installation and system upgrades. In fairness it's worth adding
that I have had issues with dpkg, apt-get, aptitude along the way too,
but these have generally been easier to unravel than those I experienced
back then with Red Hat and Mandrake and the various handles they put on rpm.
Things have certainly moved on and I would agree wholeheartedly with the
person who said that these days it comes down largely to personal
preference rather than any significant advantage offered by one system
over another. However, that does not mean that there weren't issues with
rpm-based systems and dependencies or with Debian with regard to the ice
ages that would come and go between releases, for that matter. There
were, and these issues have driven development to the point where we
have a healthy number of choices (too many perhaps?) that are of a
decent and comparable standard.
Sean
--
www.funkygibbins.me.uk
