apt vs yum

[Michael Clewley]

On 17, Noah Silva [Mailing list] wrote:
> > > I find it odd to hear that you (Justin) found yum to be slower
> > > than apt.  It's my understanding that apt (for rpm) suffers from
> > > far more bloat and frankly sucks the life out of my old pentiums.
> > > But it's so damn effective and convenient, that I admin shy of two
> > > dozen redhat servers with it. Again, I've not tried YUM..
> >
> > I don't recall saying that yum is slower.

Sorry Justin.. my eyes were probably crossed or something x).

> I was the one that said that.  On every system I have tried so far,
> apt is an order of magnitude faster than yum.  Worse yet, unless you
> explicitly tell it not to, yum tries to do certain things
> -every-single- time you run it.  (i.e. I really don't want to see
> "downloading headers" then I do "yum install gimp").  Then again, a
> lot of things I just haven't found an apt repo for, so...

Thanks for clearing that up. That behaviour does seem a bit unecessary,
atleast by default. Not to say that I can't see the benefit of having
the functionality -available-.

-mike

-- 
Michael Clewley <miketclew at nepotia.org>