On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 13:21 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 19:17 +0200, Alexander Dalloz wrote: > > Am Mi, den 29.06.2005 schrieb seth vidal um 18:59: > > > > > > Keep in mind also that one of the principal points of differentiation > > > > for distros -- substantial points -- has to do with RPM vs APT. It is a > > > > difference which can carry an adoption. Each suits different people on > > > > its merits and respective frictions. All's to Good. > > > > > > rpm vs apt? > > > > > > You're kidding right? I thought we had finally put this one to bed a > > > while ago. > > > > > > okay: rpm == dpkg > > > apt == yum or apt-rpm or whatever. > > > > > > just so we're clear. > > > > > > -sv > > > > I fully agree, Seth. It has ever been incorrect to compare rpm with apt. > > On the other side it is exactly this comparison people come over with > > when there is the naming of Red Hat Linux and now for a while Fedora and > > Debian on the other side. Red Hat as a linux distribution is still in > > the heads of many, many people (at least I can say that for people I use > > to speak with here in Germany) as the "rpm dependency hell". Thats sad. > > So I think it would be good if we would place yum more into the focus > > when promoting Fedora. > > I genuinely think we should probably make the gui tools like pup and > friends Will pup have a command line version? The current 'rpm for queries and local/remote installs, yum for local and remote installs with dependencies' situation is, from a user POV, weird. Mike -- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
