On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 13:36, Bill Sconce wrote:
> If anyone can stand another flip comment, we have often accused Microsoft > customers of being used to their shackles, of being trapped by their biases. Absolutely. Except that with Windows, you can NEVER have the equivalent of something like Whitebox Enterprise Linux, Taos Linux, CentOS, and cAos. Not defending Red Hat's change in business, but at least its contributing back significant amounts of GPL/LGPL software. So although the company is certainly getting free development work from the Fedora Core community, I wouldn't call it a leech of a company. I just wish RHAT's stock was dividend bearing so stockholders could truly share in the profits, instead of strictly counting on 'growth'. But, alas, dividends are mostly a vestige of the past, (slightly?) more fair public market. :-( [snip] > The OP was "what to do as RH keeps changing". Libranet isn't the answer for > everyone, but it isn't sufficiently well known that there are alternaives to > RPM. <RPMBIGOT MODE=ON> This is my only real beef here. It's perpetuated myth about rpm. Rpm is not, I repeat not responsible for the so-called dependency hell that many Debianites (hehe) have pontificated about. It has to do with the much more centralized development deb packages. I can almost guarantee you that if Debian were rpm based, but preserved every single other aspect of it's development process, it would be as good as it is today and would have as few dependency problems as it does today. If that were not true, then apt and synaptic would NOT be good on Red Hat. The very fact apt and synaptic work well on Red Hat, IMNSHO, is proof positive that rpm is not the problem. It's the lack of a clear policy on rpm building that is followed. That's where Debian has a clear advantage. (That is changing, by the way, with a project called Fedora Tracker which is in it's embryonic stages right now. But Debian has definite lead in that area.) </RPMBIGOT> My personal preference for a dependency resolution tool is, however, yum. Though it's mostly historical. Apt used to make system() calls to the rpm command line tools instead of using librpm, so there was no real support for transaction type operations. If I'm not mistaken, that's now changed. And there is actually a commom xml based metadata format being worked on by the developers of apt, yum, up2date, (urpmi?), and hopefully anything else that comes along. So setting up a repository for multiple dependency resolution tools will become probably an order of magnitude easier. -- -Paul Iadonisi Senior System Administrator Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux. GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss