The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Debian
by anon on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @12:46
|
And why aren't these debain distros not using gentoo instead? By your rationale it would make life much easier for me.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Debian
by Thiago Macieira on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @12:47
|
LSB 3.2 was released in January. See:
http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Specifications
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Debian
by Josefine Wiesend on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @13:33
|
Why aren't just all distributions RPM based? This would make life much easier ...
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Debian
by Jeremy on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @13:39
|
The is where sometimes choice can be a bad thing. I like RPM distributions more then Debian, though, I wish there was only one binary package. There just isn't a need for 10 of them.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Debian
by Morty on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @15:24
|
In fact it had been better if it had been the other way, more binary packages. There should have been one for each distribution, RPM, MPM, SPM, FPM etc(RedHat, Mandriva, Suse and Fedora respectively).
That RPMs are installable across different distributions are one of the main causes of RPMs bad reputation(Late in getting dependency resolvers are the other). If the packages are not carefully created to be distribution independent, installing RPMs from a different distribution has always been a efficent way to mess up your installation.
Installing RedHat RPMs on Mandriva(Mandrake) was always unwise, and trying to do it on on Suse was worse. Unlike Mandriva, Suse was never even based on RedHat making the difference even greater.
Naturally, this has never been a problem for Debian. And any problems caused by mixing stable and unstable repositories has always been firmly placed as the users own fault. And there are reports on the net of funny thing happening when mixing Ubuntu and Debian repositories, so despite having a historic good reputation .deb packages can give you much the same problems as RPMs.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: Debian
by Sarah on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @13:41
|
Why aren't they all .exe and .msi based? That's really simple!
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Debian
by ad on Friday 04/Apr/2008, @05:12
|
Ok Sarah, everybody was having fun in this thread and you had to come up and cross the line. Shame on you.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: Debian
by miggols99 on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @14:01
|
Why aren't all distributions Pacman based? Then everyone would have fast package management :)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Debian
by txf on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @14:54
|
Rpms are more powerful and flexible than debs, but they are so slow and seemingly all distros that use them suck at package management in comparison to debian based distros.
That may be because their tools suck, but seeing as they all use different tools the only element of commonality is the fact that they use rpms. This leads to the conclusion that either rpm should be chucked, or that the tools should be improved a lot seeing the way they are now.
debian by way of ubuntu already has masses of users using and loving debs
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Debian
by apokryphos on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @15:09
|
> seemingly all distros that use them suck at package management in comparison to debian based distros.
ZYpp (package management stack for openSUSE) in the upcoming version -- 11.0 -- is actually faster than APT, and has even more useful features, like installation of local/remote RPMs. It also features a much cleverer and flexible solver.
Of course it also supports 1-click-install, which is much more "what the masses want".
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Debian
by LP on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @15:24
|
RPMs are gzipped cpio archives and DEBs are gzipped ar archives. Not a big difference when you install a single package with the rpm or dpkg tools.
Apt-get *seems* to be faster than many other tools because it don't automatically refresh it's package cache. Running apt-get update && apt-get install xxxx takes a longer time.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Debian
by apokryphos on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @15:47
|
> RPMs are gzipped cpio archives and DEBs are gzipped ar archives.
In fact, this is another new change in openSUSE Factory. We're switching to LZMA which actually offers better compression (so smaller downloads), and faster decompressing (for faster installation).
See coolo's blog for some figures: http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/3326
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Debian
by Martin Fitzpatrick on Sunday 06/Apr/2008, @05:15
|
Out of interest, whats the deal with the two versions of RPM? I haven't used RPM based distros for ~8 years so I was kind of suprised to find out that the codebase split?
Good/bad thing? Which does SUSE use?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: Debian
by reihal on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @22:49
|
Why aren't all distributions based on recipes (and packages)?
(GoboLinux 014.01 is just out)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Debian
by Anonymous on Friday 04/Apr/2008, @07:37
|
You shout for LSB which declares RPM format the standard? :-)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Debian
by window washer on Friday 04/Apr/2008, @10:45
|
'How you package it' is now basically became the first priority of people then having a solid desktop/application. There may be a single developer, but another 100+ is busy in packaging it!!! Sheer waste of brain/time. And at the end of it what do u gain? Every distro (should kill this word) behaves like a monolithic application.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Debian
by Max on Saturday 05/Apr/2008, @19:49
|
Why aren't all distributions KDE 4.1 based?
That would make life so much easier for me. :)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
