RE: [TCLUG:15263] Reading Red Hat rpms

[Chris McKinley <lamfada@lugh.net>]

Actually, I do not really have anything "against" package formats.  Especially
for the base system components, packages can be great.  For some of the more
complex packages, the dependency checking done by the original package builder
can save hours.  GNOME was especially horrible pre-1.0.  They save time and 
space.  They free up the sysadmin or user's time to actually do something 
other than try to get the package to work.

But I won't use RedHat.  Don't get me wrong, they have done quite a bit to 
improve the overall quality and visibility of Linux, and I sincerely wish them
the best.  I have found their products to be user-friendly to new users, while
being very user-unfriendly to more experienced users.  Their separation of 
packages into "runtime" and "development" is extrememly annoying to me, 
although I can see its usefullness in server environments.  And my main problem
is that I tend to customize quite large packages, such as X.  This kind of 
makes it a pain to use packages.

Just my $0.02

-Chris

On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Schlough, Mark wrote:

> Hello all,
> 
> I've seen many-a-message complaining about the "evility" of rpms.  I've even
> asked for a side by side comparison of rpm vs deb but never gotten a
> response.
> 
> Maybe I could ask it this way.
> 
> What's missing/wrong with rpms?
> or 
> What's deb got that rpm doesn't
> 
> If you wan't to rant--- that's cool, just don't muddy-up the list too much.
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> (rummaging around for my asbestos suit.....)
> 
> 
> P.S. I have to use outleak for my mail client at work (against better
> judgement)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tclug-list-unsubscribe@mn-linux.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tclug-list-help@mn-linux.org
>