Oh no, here we go:

"apt sucks"

"no, RPM sucks"

"no, apt sucks"

"no, RPM sucks"

I can't wait for the constructive discussion which will follow.

Reading Hohndel's remarks raised a couple of points in my mind.

As a long time user of Mandriva nee Mandrake I've used and suffered with the RPM system for nearly ten years. Anyone remember "dependency hell"? Things have improved over time but having recently tried PClinuxos and apt-get I feel that moving away from the Debian system to RPM is a real step backwards. Still I suppose that if Hohndel is ex Suse then perhaps he feels more comfortable with RPM. Still a mistake imho.

Secondly, FOSS users and developers are particularly sensitive to perceived bad behaviour and the difficulties that Intel has been having with the EU over allegations of improper business practices. This may well have deterred a number of developers. After all how many free and open source developers are queing up to work with Microsoft?

isn't that kind of like trading your car for a pogostick?

Hohndel's background is - hmm let's think , hmm Suse, hmm erstwhile ex suse CTO - so no vested interest there at all hmm?

With Ubuntu far outstripping any other Desktop Linux distro is this just a chance for Hohndel to throw a little 'gotcha' onto the embers of a past flame?

Whether or not apt is better or worse than rpm, it seems like one of the more trivial reasons to choose between quite different distros.

The problem with RPM is that it's not well architected. and they have to stick with what they have because of all those proprietary rpm packages out there.

Have created packages in both RPM and DEB I'd go with DEB any day of the week; for developer ease, for sanity's sake and for user ease.

ok, so they are going to drop Ubuntu, the most widely adopted linux distro, for fedora to attract developers?... under what premise does the distro change helps attract people?... If anything, a better change would be to try and make it platform independant... I call a bad move on this

also, I don't really find RPM to be better than DEB in anyway... if he wanted to change it because that's what he likes, ok... but it's not because RPM is better

Apt v rpm is trivial? It directly impacts how users aquire and install software, and what is available for them to run. As such, it is one of the most significant differentiating points between distros.

I cannot say I see the point here. Myself I use Debian for servers, Fedora for experiental systems (It tends to be cutting edge, but not always completely stable), Ubuntu and a few others for stable destops. I find that, from a user's point of view, there is very little difference. From a development point of view, DEB is easier to use and make, and RPM has no significant advantages. But the margin is so slim that I can't see a benefit of switching just for packaging reasons.

Sounds more like they are hiding political reasoning behind a half-baked technical smokescrean.

Without developer support, it's definitely an academic discussion - this little foray into trying to get yet another OS stack into the mobile device arena will die on its arse, the marketplace is seeing CPUs which are powerful enough to run full-blown OSs, we've got ~128GB flash SATA drives coming through (low power) - the tectonic plates of device demarcation are shifting again. Smartphones don't need to be quite that smart (unless you're a geek or a businessman in a sharp suit who doesn't want to carry a palmtop bag)...

I guess I'm trying to say that I don't think Intel have a hope in hell of getting this platform widely adopted, and their decision to throw away one platform with some history behind it and move to _another_ linux, on the basis of what sounds like one person's opinion of a package management system, just goes to show the program is rudderless and developerless.

Bill, because he and Intel have some history :)

If we're going to have the package (manager) argument, could we at least agree to compare RPM with DEB and then compare YUM with APT ?

No, I thought not....

One of the main reasons I left red hat and switched to ubuntu was to get rid of the RPM dependency nightmare.

Got an RPM, want to install it, no, you need these 12 other RPM's. OK found them, want to install one of them, nope you need another 4 RPM's. 3 hours later and the thing you want to install is a distant memory and you have a head ache.

or, sudo aptitude install ... easy peasy

RPM packages, yes, but the default package manager, on my 1and1 CentOS server anyway, is yum, which handles most of the dependency hell problems of RPM by using repositories - rpm(1) was really only designed as a local packaging tool. In that respect, yes, it's only a matter of choice, and anyway, Ubuntu and Debian have alien(1) available to handle rpms if necessary.

Everybody is comparing apples to oranges. RPM is to dpkg as yum is to apt. I remember dependency hell very well - that and needing to reinstall with every release is why I moved to Ubuntu full time at home three years ago. Now I use both CentOS and Ubuntu on a daily basis (between work and home). Since Red Hat started using yum, the horrors of dependency hell have diminished to tolerable. However, I do agree with everyone else that this is a drastic step without good reasoning.

Amazing how some posts are comparing two different packages managers for sheer of misconceptions or ignorances. Better compare apples (dpkg and rpm) and oranges (apt-deb, apt-rpm, smart, yum, urpmi, zypp and tutti quanti).

My POV on RPM vs DEB is exactly that is like RPM, because i use every day, for its sane and robust beaviour and simplicity in building.

Sure i am also a team member of rpm5.org, so you can not trust my opinion. But i tell you who i am. Martin Owens do the same ?

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MartinOwens

Apologize if the comment don't come from ubuntu member MartinOwens.

I take it you havn't used yum then ?

try

yum install hugin

It does all the RPM dependancy checking / resolving. in much the same way that apt does

just my 2p

Everyone who is arguing whether .deb or .rpm packages are better is missing the point entirely.

Gentoo's Portage system wipes the floor with them both!

If you want to download an .rpm or a .deb, then you have to download the correct one for your distribution and your processor architecture, because they contain pre-compiled binaries; and if you want to compile extensions from source or basically do anything besides just run the program then you need to download the corresponding -devel or -dev package which contains the rest of the files that would have been generated if you had compiled it yourself. It may have made good sense back in the days of slow processors, dial-up internet and memory costing several pounds a megabyte, but it's doing nobody any favours now.

There are no -devel packages in Gentoo; and furthermore, one package fits all architectures.

For small files on small systems, Openmoko uses ipkg, not deb or rpm. Developers get full access to a source code repository, and you can download new compilations of the whole system more than once a week.

They should be backing Slackware and .tgz.

./configure;make;make install

lather rinse repeat ;)

I don't know the details but I am sure it is like with most things in life. Follow the money.

Because saying "We moved to Fedora from Ubuntu to get the advantages of RPM". Is really like saying "We switched from Honda to Toyota to get cooler rims".

They have given up Canonical's support. The popularity and brand namededness of Ubuntu. Ubuntus investment in UMPC and mobile devices. The Ubuntu repositories and the Debian repositories. And the Ubuntu Support Forums.

What do they gain? Because going over the list above what I see is the following.

Red Hat cares about commercial server space. Not the desktop, UMPC's or mobile devices. So the parent company behind the distribution does not seem to be a gain. The name "Red Hat" is hardly a house hold word and "Fedora" is even less well known. (Maybe they think the big sales will be to companies). Again, Red Hat does not seem to show any interest in mobile devices. The Fedora repositories are good. But there is more software to choose from with Debian plus Ubuntu. Ubuntu is even providing a distro with all of the things they need for mobile/UMPC devices. It has been 2 years since I have needed to get help from the Fedora forums. But I don't see them being better than Ubuntu support, and maybe not even as good. It remains to be seen if they will provide better support for mobile devices.

With no offense to Fedora users. It seems that Intel is moving from what looks like a great platform to a "just good enough" platform.

Maybe it is the willingness to accept DRM?

Double fail!

Firstly, Slackware .tgz archives are binary packages: they contain everything that would be installed by `make install` in a straighforward copy of the system directory structure. So you would unpack them by

# tar xzf foo.tgz -C /

(Side note: to install Ubuntu packages on Slackware, use ar -x foo.deb followed by tar xzf data.tar.gz -C / but if you already use Slackware, you'll already know that.)

Secondly, it's not ./configure;make;make install -- it's ./configure && make && make install . The double "and" sign means "only do the next bit if the bit you just did succeeded". A subtle difference, I know, but if make fails then you don't want to run make install, and if configure fails then you don't want to run make.

damn, Mike, you beat me to it! :-)

i actually have RPM to thank for helping me discover Slack. it was my inability to compile software from source (due to not being able to find the right bloody RPMs) on a Red Hat box without having to seriously re-adjust compile options (due to so many broken paths, etc) that led me to look for a new distro.

i actually find now that i compile a lot less due to finding linuxpackages.net and (more recently) slacky.eu.

@ A J Stiles: _IF_ make fails?? i think not, sir! surely you refer to some other distro! ;-)