pretty up2date vs reliable yum?

Paul Howarth paul at
Tue Jan 25 17:16:43 UTC 2005

Tim Alberts wrote:
> Redhat comes with the nice program up2date to install latest updates.
> It's got the nice icon on the start bar that says 'updates available'
> click on it log in and download...
> Yum seems to be found nowhere except for the people who know Linux and
> command line etc...
> I try to stick with up2date because I want the nice GUI tools, something
> Linux is trying (or should be trying) to brag about.  However, I get
> up2date to completely download and install updates maybe one out of a
> dozen times (broad band connection).
> I've been on this list before and noted that most of the 'experts'
> always answer questions about updates with 'just use yum'...Note, this
> is my impression, I may be wrong.  Also note I define 'experts' as the
> folks on this list whom always seem to have an answer for every
> question.
> If yum is so much better that the experts just go to it, why is up2date
> the program on the start bar?  Why isn't yum given the nice icon on the
> start bar by default?

It's much easier to give a clear, concise answer to a question about how 
something should be installed or updated by giving the exact 
command-line command that would need to be run rather than to describe a 
GUI method for doing the same thing, which might involve navigating 
several levels of menus, clicking several buttons, filling in several 
fields etc., and may be different for KDE or gnome users. So that's why 
responses tend to favour the command line I think.

However, there is a command-line version of up2date that could be used 
in much the same way as yum (indeed, I use it regularly for the RHEL 
boxes at work) so I think the choice of yum rather than up2date there is 
more a case of personal preference.


More information about the users mailing list