> Excuse my ignorance but am I correct in assuming that means that Red-Hat's
> apt-get is differant from Debian's apt-get? If that is so Red Hat is trying
> to pull the wool over our eyes and make us fools by making people think that
> Debian's and their apt-get are the same (that's what I thought!). If DEbian
> was a company RedHat would have a messy lawsuit on their hands. Red Hat
> should have called it something else. 'dep-get' maybe. 'program-get' perhaps.
> 'wearedeceitfulscumbags-didwefoolyou' would work too! Or maybe
> 'debianisbetterthanussoweare-posers'. :-)Mike(-:

Lets see... apt-get is not a closed, proprietary application, as such any distro 
can use it even if they don't use other things like the debian repositories...

I don't understand your continued attacks against redhat and their distro... 
Besides, RH wasn't the first to add apt-get to their own distro...  Others 
ported the system over to have an apt-like interface for rpms (hence apps like 
apt4rpm...).
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss