[lug] Debian is better?

[Gary Hodges]

Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 09:24:56AM -0700, David Morris wrote:
> >or cancel the installation.  On Red-Hat, there is no
> >guarantee of this, merely tools that help avoid
> >problems...when I was using RedHat, I once managed to make
> >my system completely unusable because of the lack of
> >dependancy checking, and I know other people still using
> 
> That must have been a very long time ago.  RPM has had dependency
> checking since Red Hat version 3, I believe...  Of course, if you
> install or remove a package with "--nodeps", you get what you deserve.
> If rpm complains about dependencies, "--nodeps" is saying "Hey, I know
> better and you should do this anyway."
> 
> The instances where I've installed packages that broke things have been
> very few and far between.  In fact, I can't think of a time when I've
> had a dependency problem with RPMs that rpm didn't warn me about.

I feel the need to second Sean.  At least since I have been using
up2date to keep several RH systems, well, up to date.  It just works
man.  up2date is one of the greatest computing advancements...  Anyway,
up2date for me really works well.  Especially for someone like me who is
more a computer user than a hacker.  I can get them up and going and
configured the way I like, than after that I just use the bugger. 
Having up2date has made keeping everything updated a breeze.

Since the subject has Debian in it I may as well comment on it.  I have
installed it a couple of times and thought it was OK.  I think if I had
more time to play around with my setup I would likely install Debian. 
It seems like it might be a little more "fun" to work with.

Gary