Wow. Welcome back for me. :)

[seth vidal]

On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 11:56 +1000, Mike MacCana wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 13:21 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 19:17 +0200, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> > > Am Mi, den 29.06.2005 schrieb seth vidal um 18:59:
> > > 
> > > > > Keep in mind also that one of the principal points of differentiation
> > > > > for distros -- substantial points -- has to do with RPM vs APT.  It is a
> > > > > difference which can carry an adoption.  Each suits different people on
> > > > > its merits and respective frictions.  All's to Good.   
> > > > 
> > > > rpm vs apt?
> > > > 
> > > > You're kidding right? I thought we had finally put this one to bed a
> > > > while ago.
> > > > 
> > > > okay: rpm == dpkg
> > > >       apt == yum or apt-rpm or whatever.
> > > > 
> > > > just so we're clear.
> > > > 
> > > > -sv
> > > 
> > > I fully agree, Seth. It has ever been incorrect to compare rpm with apt.
> > > On the other side it is exactly this comparison people come over with
> > > when there is the naming of Red Hat Linux and now for a while Fedora and
> > > Debian on the other side. Red Hat as a linux distribution is still in
> > > the heads of many, many people (at least I can say that for people I use
> > > to speak with here in Germany) as the "rpm dependency hell". Thats sad.
> > > So I think it would be good if we would place yum more into the focus
> > > when promoting Fedora.
> > 
> > I genuinely think we should probably make the gui tools like pup and
> > friends
> 
> Will pup have a command line version?
> 
> The current 'rpm for queries and local/remote installs, yum for local
> and remote installs with dependencies' situation is, from a user POV,
> weird.

yum can do local lists and local installs.

quite frankly for 80% of the user case - if they're using the command
line - they can just use yum.

-sv