[lug] new distro

David Morris lists at morris-clan.net
Mon Oct 7 11:45:06 MDT 2002

On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 11:58:33AM -0600, Timothy C. Klein wrote:
> * Peter Hutnick (peter-lists at hutnick.com) wrote:
> > Finally, apt: Okay, it is pretty good.  But I don't believe that it is
> > substantively better than RPM*.  If anything I think that the Debian
> > package maintainers do a better job . . . but that just takes us full
> > circle to the "Broken"/"Stale" debate.  IOW, the selection of packages is
> > really good, and all the dependency stuff works pretty well (not as well
> > as the Debinistas would have you believe) but you are stuck with a choice
> > between a system that is (generally) less tested/stable than, say, the
> > current Red Hat release, or one that is rock-solid, and roughly up to
> > speed with the previous Red Hat /major/ rev, or older.  Not much of a
> > choice IMO.
> You are somehwat right to say that the Debian package maintainers do a
> better job.  They certainly do.  And that, really, is the crux of the
> issue.  All the technology in the world is useless if there is not
> thoughtfull human support and use behind it.  The dependency is actually
> significantly better in apt vs rpm, as well, which rpm has to address
> one day if it really wants to seriously improve.

You have a good point there that should be noted:  Lazy
programmers are the source of many problems from bugs to
dependancy hell.  Debian offers more strict guidelines which
means the lazy programmers don't usually become package


More information about the LUG mailing list