[lug] Debian is better?

[David Morris]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 03:25:31PM -0700, Gary Hodges wrote:
> 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.

I was using version 6.2 at the time I specifically had
dependancy problems, and I know of other people who have had
problems in 7.something as well.  The problem is not that
there is no dependancy checking, but rather that there is no
dependancy *requirement*.  The RPM format itself does not
require any dependancy checking, it just recommends
dependancies...which in a time of only super-hackers using
Linux (when RPM was first designed) works *very* well.  Now,
though, there is room for error that the average user cannot
handle.  Now, the reason it does work is that up2date and
similar programs fill in the gaps of the package format.

The benefit of Debian here is that the basic package format
does not allow broken packages.  When you get a deb package
from the debian archives (or mirror) in a stable branch, you
cannot install the package improperly even using dpkg,
something which (as far as I know at least) cannot be said
about rpm (the program, not the package format).

I'll be the first to admit I don't have as much experience
with RedHat as I do Debian, but the experience I *do* have
shows that you can dig yourself into a far deeper hole in
RedHat than in Debian (without resorting to flags that
ignore dependancies).  It might not be common to create
problems on a RedHat system through depandancy nightmares,
but it can happen....a fact which (as far as I know) is not
true of Debian.  Even on the most iffy packages the worst I
have managed is to have apt-get and dpkg yell at me with so
many problems I eventually give up and remove the package.

Furthermore, any package that *does* install completely
works, requiring only a bit of configuration in the most
complex packages.  This is not necessarily true of a RedHat
package from my experience (at least as of 7.0)...a lot more
configuration is generally required to get something to
work smoothely.

--David