Linked by Jeremy LaCroix on Thu 3rd Jun 2004 07:02 UTC
During the majority of my time working with computers, Windows was the operating system of choice. Reason being, it's all I've known. In 2002, I took a college course titled "Linux Administration" which entitled me to a few cd-roms of Redhat 7.x. While this course was nothing more than a few extra credits for me, I fell in love with Linux and went through the entire textbook a week into the class. It was a nice feeling to use something "different" than what I was used to.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"True Debian apt-get is the way forward"
Is there a conceptual difference between the .rpm and .deb formats? As far as I'm aware all either of them does is combine program binaries and dependency information into one file.
All is fine with either of them as long as all the packages adhere to a single naming and versioning scheme.
Confusion only starts once packages for separate distrubutions get mixed, because they tend to name or version the same things differently.
Doesn't the .rpm format unfairly get blamed for problems that are really caused by the divergence of distributions (Redhat/SuSE/Mandrake/...)? Isn't .deb spared those problems only because there's only one major source of .deb packages, i.e. Debian itself?