<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/13/2014 09:03 AM, drago01 wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMqY-Fe-X7bZn4mqV_uhvUCvKTihryT=nSfFSRmGH4Snrg2S0g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Reindl Harald <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:h.reindl@thelounge.net"><h.reindl@thelounge.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Am 13.06.2014 14:53, schrieb Jan Zelený:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">That being said, the reason for not renaming dnf to yum is that renaming this
project to yum will do nothing else than to confuse its users, as they will
think this is still yum and they should expect from dnf it what they expected
from yum. They should not. And dnf is not yum, I'm really sorry if you think
it is.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
the user expects that anyways if you replace something he
did not asked for replace it and what just worked for him
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Well there are different levels of "works" i.e just because something works that
something does not have to be the best possible implementation of
"something" ...
Horses worked too but at some point we decided that cars work better
and moved on.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Yes but who is this better for? A few developers or the mass of
people and documentation that<br>
are used to using "yum".<br>
<br>
With cars it was obviously better for me - dnf not so obvious.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Steve<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Stephen Clark<br>
<b>NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.</b><br>
Director of Technology<br>
Phone: 813-579-3200<br>
Fax: 813-882-0209<br>
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:steve.clark@netwolves.com">steve.clark@netwolves.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.netwolves.com">http://www.netwolves.com</a><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>