On Friday 25 May 2007, John DeCarlo wrote:
> Using apt is much easier and more reliable than using rpm. Trust me, I
> used rpm and Red Hat for decades. When I switched to Ubuntu last year, I
> was delightfully amazed at how much I had been missing while using rpm.
While there is nothing wrong (and a lot right) with apt, let's compare apples
to apples here. The raw rpm command is equivalent to the raw dpkg command.
The equivalent command to apt in a Debian-inspired distribution on, say, a
Fedora Core installation, is 'yum'. You do that same sorts of things: 'yum
install kshisen' will pull in any needed RPM's from the repository, exactly
like 'apt-get install kshisen' would.
Now, with Ubuntu or plain Debian you will get a substantially larger
repository of software available; and it's not as fractured as the typical
RPM third party repositories are. But that has nothing to do with the tools
that are available.
I've been evaluating Kubuntu 7.04 in a virtual machine for a week or so, and I
like most of what I see. The biggest thing is the unified repository. The
second biggest thing is that the gnuradio and usrp packages are 'just there'
in that repository, whereas getting RPM's of same is difficult. However, I
find that adept-installer is just about as slow as pirut (GUI yum frontend on
Fedora Core 5 and above), and that's with identical hardware. Now,
adept-manager is quite a bit better.
Incidentally, there is an apt version for RPM-based systems. You can even get
synaptic on Fedora Core if you'd like.
I'm using Fedora Core 6 here on an Inspiron 640m, and most things work fine
(no headphones is an annoyance, but the sound does at least play; I haven't
worked much on the wireless, but that's a low priority for me; LCD backlight
control with Fn-UP or Fn-DOWN isn't working, etc).
Chief Information Officer
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC 28772