2009/9/15 Tomek Chrzczonowicz <chrzczonowicz@xxxxxxxxx>: > In my personal experience it is somewhat less grandoise. > > IIRC, majority of the packages is simply snapshotted from Debian Sid and > only a fraction of packages is maintained and supported by Canonical > (the "main" repo). > > The rest (the "universe") often has little to no QA nor bugfix and > security updates. Many of the obscure apps won't even start. > > On top of this, Debian and Ubuntu have loads of metapackages (empty > packages that depend on sth else) and packages with third-party manuals, > howtos and e-books that are not software. > > And then there are packages with proprietary and patented software, > which Fedora proper won't ship. > > And if one wants the latest upstream-stable versions, then one goes > hunting for .debs on third-party repos, Launchpad PPAs, GetDeb, etc. > > This is not to disparage the great work Canonical and Debian people are > doing. It's just that those numbers need to be put into proper > perspective. I collected the data not counting the virtual packages, apt-cache stats and aptitude divide packages into categories so, the count is really simple. I was not counting packages in getdeb or ppa, I simply prefere not use them, if I don't know the sources... I have a standard debian installation with all the official + debian-multimedia turned on, it should be like having a fedora+rpmfusion configuration. About your comment for ubuntu universe packages I wonder what kind of problems have you had... packages starts and works, they're not supported. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
