OSNews

Is that a problem? Its not so different from the many variations of the official Ubuntu distro.

the blurb says 3 live cds, there are 4, hence why it was identified as nitpicking

Ok, I get it.

What do you mean 'measure up' it is the same principle and who says apt-get is superior.

I have been using Red Hat since 6.0 release, and currently running FC7. I have not had any problems with rpm problems or any other issues. If you are trying to compare let me guess 'Ubuntu' since it is Debian based to Red Hat Enterprise releases (Fedora is the test bed) you got to be kidding me...

Installing software is still the same, and the argument/option is different. No different than someone running SuSE or Mandrake...

One other note Red Hat is the leader in the Enterprise and they are releasing the Global Desktop this month...

One more side note, I make a living off Red Hat (Admin) and I have my RHCT working on my RHCE...

Edited 2007-09-14 02:21

I'd say RPM is superior to APT. The only people who get caught in "RPM hell" are those who think that 'rpm' is equivalent to 'apt-get'. Once you learn that 'yum' is equivalent to 'apt-get' (and more powerful), and that 'rpm' is more like 'dpkg' (but more powerful), and that you can deal with circular dependencies by, gasp, installing the packages all on the same command line (which I figured out in about 15 seconds on my own), you find that yum/rpm is much more fun than apt-get/dpkg. Having worked extensively with yum and rpm at work, including making my own RPMs, and then trying out Ubuntu a couple of times, I was severely disappointed with apt-get. The only good thing is the number of packages in the repositories. RPM is technically superior in almost every way.

...and that you can deal with circular dependencies by, gasp, installing the packages all on the same command line (which I figured out in about 15 seconds on my own), you find that yum/rpm is much more fun than apt-get/dpkg...

You can always install any number of packages on one line using either apt-get or dpkg as well.

What about the graphical add/remove applications(or equivalent) on Fedora, last time I used it, I couldn't remove any program because of dependency problems.

Works just fine here. If you find any issues with it, file bug reports in http://bugzilla.redhat.com.

Well, occasionally you do run into problems with having yum/pup removing critical packages that you need for a functional desktop, such as when I attempted to uninstall Evolution. I did not pay attention to all the other software that it wanted to remove and at the end I was left with a system that booted into console mode. The solution was simply typing 'yum groupinstall "GNOME Desktop Environment"' at the command line to recover the lost packages.

I had much less trouble with DPKG and APT (on Ubuntu) than I did with RPM and APT-RPM (on AltLinux). RPM seemed more picky than DPKG about dependencies when it actually didn't need to, and APT-RPM worked noticeably slower than regular APT, at least on updating package lists.

"RPM seemed more picky than DPKG about dependencies when it actually didn't need to"

this has absolutely nothing to do with the package managers.

rpm and dpkg handle dependencies very simply. There's really nothing else they *could* do. The dependencies are specified in the packages themselves. If all dependencies are satisfied, rpm and dpkg install the package. If they're not, they stop and complain. That simple. No room for any differences.

In other words - what you're talking about has absolutely nothing to do with dpkg and rpm, and absolutely everything to do with Alt and Ubuntu. It's up to the *packagers* to specify the dependencies correctly. It has nothing to do with the apt or rpm formats themselves.

For the end-user there's no noticeable difference between a system that uses deb and one that uses rpm.
Pirut, the fedora package manager, is not a patch on Synaptic though. Pirut/Pup is quite awful in so many ways and is easily my biggest gripe about Fedora right now.
That and that it doesnt support my Ralink card well.

Edited 2007-09-14 03:35

I haven't used yum in a while but last time I did yum was far slower than apt-get by a huge margin and it wasn't as good as apt-get at resolving dependencies. They must have worked on that. I will still stick with apt-get and deb packages because I have yet to have any issues with dependencies using any debian based distro, I can't really say the same for Fedora when I was using it, it used to be a huge hassle all the time and it was mostly because of yum and how it handled the same version of a library across different repos. Apt-get seems to resolve things better, imo, even with unsupported repos. I don't think I'll ever move from ubuntu but I am going to install Fedora on one my old Feisty harddrives (using gutsy) and get familiar with fedora again.

Very well, I would think. In later years, I think I have had much more .deb hell in Ubuntu and Debian, than I have had rpm hell in Fedora or CentOS.

The main problem with yum is, or rather have been, lack of speed. However, if that is what it takes to avoid .deb/rpm hell I'll gladly accept it. Lately, the speed of yum have improved a lot.

RPM hell? You've been listening to too much uninformed Debian propaganda. It comes from the ancient times when Debian was the only distro that handled dependency resolution.

That said, apt is still faster. And the package availability is pretty amazing.

Aside from that, I'd take a RHEL/CentOS/Fedora system over a Debian-based system any day of the week.

Come on in. The water's fine. :-)

> Aside from that, I'd take a RHEL/CentOS/Fedora system
> over a Debian-based system any day of the week.

Could you please explain why?

In what situation would a RHEL/CentOS/Fedora system make your life easier than a Debian-based system? (For servers, I mean.)

For server:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Security/Features

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/columnItem/0,294698,sid...
http://interactive.linuxjournal.com/article/9176

kde 4 won't be out by the time fedora 8 is out.

>KDE 4 will be out between FC7 and FC8

KDE4 will be out between FC8 and FC9 that's why it can't be in FC8 and will be in FC9.

Please check the timetable of both projects!

rpm/deb .. imho doesn't matter. What does matter though is the repos. Are there many mirrors? Are those repos on high available servers? Is the control within reach of the distros policies? etc..

As long as a user can simply issue "<fill in> install <package>" and all dependancies are met automagically it's ok.

The overall gain by having every distribution use the same system is massively larger than the minor gains you may get by choosing a particular packaging system.

I second that. There are too many package systems out there.

If you're a firefox user AdblockPlus does the job nicely. With almost no configuration I got 2 small images and some ad text on that site

http://www.linuxcompatible.org/Fedora_8_Test_2_7.91_p96170.html

http://www.reviewlinux.com/index.php?m=show&opt=printable&i...

How is it looking now ?

Edited 2007-09-14 21:32

Speaking about livna and freshrpms repository,
the conflict between these two is officially over. They have recently merged into rpmfusion repository.

http://www.rpmfusion.org

Let me known when Fedora gets to distro 99999999999999 and I will consider looking at it!!!!!!!

Pah-leeze... Fedora negativity is so cliched. I have been using version 8 since the first test to do all my grad school work on. I use Exaile to listen to MP3 radio streams while I'm typing up reports on Open Office. The installer correctly picked up my Nvidia 640 board, HP 6540 printer, all my flash and external USB drives and mounted my NTFS partition. Yum is faster than it has ever been. Damn, what more do you want for free?! Oh-yeah, and the latest icon sets and themes from Gnome look great on Fedora.

Edited 2007-09-17 22:13