yum versus apt

[Craig White]

On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 08:14 -0700, JT Moree wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Charles Jones wrote:
> > Anyone want to talk about why they like yum versus apt or vice versa? :)
> 
> Well since you ask.  Yum is the biggest piece of crap that exists on
> Linux.  To be fair to yum it's partially because rpm has major
> problems--but some of the problems are it's own fault.
> 
> RPM is slow so yum is slow.  rpm cannot ask for user input so apps may
> or may not be configured correctly after installation.
> 
> the output from yum is horrible.  yum search is a poor shadow of
> apt-cache search.  I'd hate to try to maintain GUI tools built on top of
> yum.
> 
> yum does an extremely poor job of accepting Ctrl+C--probably bc rpm does
> a poor job too.
> 
> YUM CANNOT DOWNLOAD A PACKAGE WITHOUT INSTALLING IT.  This is extremely
> annoying because it means I can't have my servers download the updates
> and sit on them until I install them myself.
> 
> There's more. but I'm tired of thinking.  For most people they will
> never come in contact with any of this (except the slowness) because
> they will use GUI tools for managing apps.
> 
> P.S. apt on rpm based systems suffers from some of the same problems but
> at least they got the output right.
----
apt (at least apt on rpm based systems) was rendered moot because it
does not have the ability to handle architectures.

there are yum plugins such as the download plugin that permits download
but not install.

rpm is slow but it's getting better.

Craig