Harry Mangalam <hjm@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > It's interesting that your experience with apt essentially mirrors mine with > yum. Yum is an improvement on RPM or urpm, but it still seems unnecessarily > slow, and apps quite sparse compared to apt which I find near-instantaneous > and nearly always correct. Especially with things as critical as kernel > upgrades. I've hit a couple nasty wedges, but only a couple. And I can't > really comment too knowledgeably about synaptic as I use the commandline apt > commands. It's hard for me to imagine that apt could be so much faster than yum that that alone would make the basis for choosing apt, or a Debian based system. I am curious how you would have solved two problems with apt: 1) Tell me where the package is that contains sshd? 2) Given a list of "features" missing from running the configure script for Emacs, for example no X11 headers, no Xaw support, etc, how would you have obtained the requisite packages using apt? If either problem occurred on Fedora, yum search provides the requisite packages more than adequately. I will probably play with Xubuntu some more in the future, most likely using Zen on Fedora, if only because Xfce is the desktop I would have created left to my own devices, and learning more about apt is definitely in order. FWIW, Both Gnome and KDE leave me blah for one reason or another, although both have legions of believers. Thanks for your comments. -pmr
