Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57

Thread: Fedora 18 Will Preview A New Package Manager

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Yumex sucks. Apper should be the default package manager. But i wish the yum backed for apper could be better,faster. The pacman backed for Archlinux is really fast.

    Ratings and screenshots for apps is a nice feature that should be implemented in Fedora

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    All of your points apply equally well to the systems used by debian/ubuntu.
    Not exactly:
    1) Their package manager works faster.
    2) It does not getting OOM on 128Mb machines, ever.
    3) They don't have to download some strange binary sql databases just to do things in reasonable time.

    There is no perfect things in this world. But some things are better than others. When it comes to comparison, yum suxx.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    So I don't know why Ubuntu's updates work while F17's updates break my x64 setup: Core i5, GeForce GTX 560Ti - nothing weird nor fancy
    You don't give much to go on (and no, "nothing weird nor fancy" doesn't cut it). Did you use a custom disk layout? Existing partitions (including MBR)? Multi-boot? Clean install or upgrade?

    There's lot's of stuff to be wary about with Fedora releases, which are Red Hat's testing branch (by their own admission).

    If you want the rock-solid experience, go with RHEL (or one of the clones) instead.

    Or stick with ubuntu.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    I am really considering fedora at the moment as a replacement for ubuntu ^^ but when I read that stuff here I get frustrated ^^. I want a good gnome-shell distribution, I think fedora is the best in this way if you like the normal gnome-shell and want the true gnome-feeling ^^.

    I tried also arch linux but I had problems to install stuff that was experimental what under ubuntu with a ppa did work without problems at the same time. So I am a bit between the chairs right now, I dont like rpm and I think I will not like yum much ^^ so I thought no problem, just use the gui thing, I dont need a softwarecenter with preview images and stars and stuff, but if you say that crashes very often, that is not good in that point. ^^

    pfff really hard days for gnome(shell) users. using always ppas sucks and have old totem versions and stuff because of unity sucks too. gentoo is not got any better than 5-10 years ago only that it has newer programm packages ^^, arch seems also not totaly good usable because there are earlier packages that work in ppas than you get problemles working packages für AUR.

    Debian also sucks when you want the newest gnome-shell ^^ maybe linux mint? but to get it to make it a normal clean gnome-shell its also some work you have to do, because its basicly the distro for people who hate kde, gnome-shell (pure) and unity ^^ basicly for gnome2-lovers that need support to make gnome3 look more like gnome2 or something like that.

    It really sucks for gnome-shell users today.
    I think you don't know what these things are.
    RPM is just a package manager (check, install, remove, etc.) -- roughly equivalent to DPKG.
    Using the 'rpm' command to directly install a package is a losing proposition, in much the same way as using dpkg for the same. Here you get into stupid crap like multi-layered dependencies, circular dependencies, etc.

    YUM is a FRONT END to RPM -- roughly equivalent to APT, which is a FRONT END to DPKG.
    Yum is used to install a package, either locally, or from a remote repository, while verifying and resolving all levels of dependencies, including circular.
    ** they do approximately the same thing.
    apt-get install == yum install
    etc.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
    Not exactly:
    1) Their package manager works faster.
    No it doesn't. Performance limitations are by network and disk write performance, and yum will hit those limits just fine. You can't violate the network or disk by using super magic sauce.

    2) It does not getting OOM on 128Mb machines, ever.
    Everything can run out of memory. EVERYTHING. No exception. And FYI: I've used yum quite successfully on systems with only 64 MB, maybe even 32, though that might not even boot a modern kernel. I suggest that you don't forget to enable swap. There should be no memory problems.

    3) They don't have to download some strange binary sql databases just to do things in reasonable time.
    Huh? Well if apt just goes through a blob mess of packages, that must make it EXTREMELY slow.... in fact, this would directly contradict your first point! Guaranteed!

    There is no perfect things in this world. But some things are better than others. When it comes to comparison, yum suxx.
    And when trying to compare similar things fairly, YOU "suxx". You've got a bunch of preconceptions and are bring it out in an ignorant puke of worthless contradictions.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    I think you don't know what these things are.
    I know its not my fault that they use the same name for the format (rpm) as for the programm rpm in debian its clear when I talk about the format or the programm. so I meant the format not the rpm command. and even the programm because what is basicly yum or apt, they are databases and some kind of a loop of dpkg commands or over rpm commands. so your yum will call 100 times rpm -i .... if you install a programm with 99 dependencies.


    But on the rpm side you used to use that program much more often because a concept like ppa was not very common, today maybe yum does a good job, yes. but then again I hear here that it sucks more than debian even in speed and mem-usage, I dont like the file-dependency crap also not I think package dependencies is the way to go.

    Ok I see that file dependencies are only optional at least today? but even the posibility to do such stupid shit, sucks, because somebody could come to the idea to do that, then you become such crap package and have problems with it.

    So shure, its not the big problem anymore I guess. But in earlier times there was a big problem that there was 3-4 rpm based distros (suse, fedora/redhat, mandrake) and it got mixed very hard what did cause many problems. in Ubuntu and in debian it is prette clear, dont use that its even nearly impossible to do that, in ubuntu there is also a clearer hirarchy you have debian the big dady of all, then there is ubuntu and you have many ubuntu-meta-distributions so its very clear what works and what not...

    so ok we dont have to follow that stuff more, basicly I said that I dont like maybe today less factbased than in the past and more of a bad feeling deb more than rpm (formats). Redhat/fedora thought longer and maybe even today that rpm should be shared as packages between different distributions, and I dont agree to that. Most of the time that causes big problems, and I cant think of problems between dependencies on a debian/ubuntu system but I remember searching libxy.rpm files and try which one could work or so... that just sucks. I know its more a problem of the past but it was there. And I am used 10 years of debian/ubuntu using, and maybe a bit gentoo what is also more from the directory structure like a debian than a redhat... so I am at least a bit uncomfortable in switching to the other side of the power ^^

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    I know its not my fault that they use the same name for the format (rpm) as for the programm rpm in debian its clear when I talk about the format or the programm. so I meant the format not the rpm command. and even the programm because what is basicly yum or apt, they are databases and some kind of a loop of dpkg commands or over rpm commands. so your yum will call 100 times rpm -i .... if you install a programm with 99 dependencies.


    But on the rpm side you used to use that program much more often because a concept like ppa was not very common, today maybe yum does a good job, yes. but then again I hear here that it sucks more than debian even in speed and mem-usage, I dont like the file-dependency crap also not I think package dependencies is the way to go.

    Ok I see that file dependencies are only optional at least today? but even the posibility to do such stupid shit, sucks, because somebody could come to the idea to do that, then you become such crap package and have problems with it.

    So shure, its not the big problem anymore I guess. But in earlier times there was a big problem that there was 3-4 rpm based distros (suse, fedora/redhat, mandrake) and it got mixed very hard what did cause many problems. in Ubuntu and in debian it is prette clear, dont use that its even nearly impossible to do that, in ubuntu there is also a clearer hirarchy you have debian the big dady of all, then there is ubuntu and you have many ubuntu-meta-distributions so its very clear what works and what not...

    so ok we dont have to follow that stuff more, basicly I said that I dont like maybe today less factbased than in the past and more of a bad feeling deb more than rpm (formats). Redhat/fedora thought longer and maybe even today that rpm should be shared as packages between different distributions, and I dont agree to that. Most of the time that causes big problems, and I cant think of problems between dependencies on a debian/ubuntu system but I remember searching libxy.rpm files and try which one could work or so... that just sucks. I know its more a problem of the past but it was there. And I am used 10 years of debian/ubuntu using, and maybe a bit gentoo what is also more from the directory structure like a debian than a redhat... so I am at least a bit uncomfortable in switching to the other side of the power ^^

    RPM based distros did used to have issues, but I can assure you its not true today. On my machines yum from the command line seems to install applications as quickly as apt-get, and I haven't noticed any performance or dependency issues at all. Arch's pacman is faster than them both anyway

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    I know its not my fault that they use the same name for the format (rpm) as for the programm rpm in debian its clear when I talk about the format or the programm. so I meant the format not the rpm command. and even the programm because what is basicly yum or apt, they are databases and some kind of a loop of dpkg commands or over rpm commands. so your yum will call 100 times rpm -i .... if you install a programm with 99 dependencies.
    Formats are just format. package.rpm is clear enough. apt-get can also call dpkg install many times. What is so different?

    But on the rpm side you used to use that program much more often because a concept like ppa was not very common, today maybe yum does a good job, yes. but then again I hear here that it sucks more than debian even in speed and mem-usage, I dont like the file-dependency crap also not I think package dependencies is the way to go.
    It seems you do not know what you are talking about. Before pushing further assumption, please review about the functionality of a package manager like yum or apt. It is all about configuration. Fedora has more agressive update than Ubuntu which inherited Debian conservative approach.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    I don't know - maybe before sending updates the folks at Canonical test them on a wide(r) range of hw, ask them about such details, have you?, they might be kind enough to actually tell your team some better or new ideas. Just saying.
    They do indeed. In fact, most of their updates likely get tested by millions of Fedora users, before Canonical ever sends them out to their own users.

    While more/better testing is always welcome, I'm afraid that's just the price you have to pay sometimes when using a bleeding-edge distro. The entire purpose of Fedora is to make those early tests, so that others can see how they go when deployed to a large audience of users/hardware, and if that's not your cup of tea then Ubuntu is probably the better choice for you.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by finalzone View Post
    Formats are just format. package.rpm is clear enough. apt-get can also call dpkg install many times. What is so different?
    I just wanted to say that if rpm (as programm sucks) thats also a problem of yum... that was my point, and if dpkg would suck, then apt would also have problems.

    so to say yum is not rpm (programm) and therefor when I say rpm sucks does not matter because yum != rpm is not true...

    Quote Originally Posted by finalzone View Post
    It seems you do not know what you are talking about. Before pushing further assumption, please review about the functionality of a package manager like yum or apt. It is all about configuration. Fedora has more agressive update than Ubuntu which inherited Debian conservative approach.
    for that I could strangle you like homer does bart ^^. You can have a different opinion than mine, no problem with that, but to say without any proof or any anything to say you dont understand what you are talking about (and therefore you are not allowed to have a opinion sucks, and is just a lie).
    The commend between my last and yours did agree to my point (that rpm had (big) issues) that was my point, not more not less. But also its true that rpm allowes file-dependencies, I thinkt thats very dangerous and some murrons will use that, that would cause problems.

    So maybe you have the oposite opinion than I do, thats your right, but dont say to me that I dont know what I am talking about just because you dont get my point.

    (sorry for that aggressiv tone, but if you have 10-15 years of experince with linux use it for nearly all, I have even made own deb packages, and did write some small gentoo install-scripts) used (shurly not the last few years but before that) a bit suse, more mandrake and stuff, so I have a (small) clue what I am talking about and I think I know enough to at least have a own opinion to that topic)

    BACK TO FEDORA

    back to fedora testet it, not so bad, packaging wasnt the problem, what was problem was that I could not use my ubuntu home, so I needed to use a selinux command (I did not select it in the installer but replaced it later manually) thats a bit confusing surely a better error could come that just not allowed to change directory to my home dir when I try to login...

    But ok, solved... now I have a bigger problem I think its only a problem of pulseaudio or the usb-driver of my usb-soundcard, under linux that works without problems, in fedora I tried it at the moment only with minitube, will try it with other sourced but at the beginning it works that some dmest usb-errors pop up and it stops working and nearly freezes my desktop ^^ So you will not fix it here, just wanted to give a bit a feedback to my experince ^^ its a U-Control UCA202 usb-soundcard btw....

    else I had no issues with yum, oh yes chromium is very old version that also crashes very often which I had from a "stable" repo what I installed like descriped here:

    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Chromium (so the semi-official package) ^^ thats a bit sad.

    else than that I had no problem ohh ok the installed said that It could not install grub and then the old ubuntu grub was still there, so I had to mount the lvm partition under ubuntu and then update-grub found it and added it. (without the nice grafical boot, instead oldschool text-scroll-boot ^^ but it boots so good enough ^^)

    I the case somebody is interested in my experience ^^

    And btw, when the stable chromium package is buggy and very old (crashed in 10 minutes like 5 times) as the ubuntu (stable) chromium package is stable there should maybe be a current unstable package but the last unstable package is for fedora 15 and is a year old... so at least dont link to that package in the wiki I tried to install that and removed the package only to find out that there was no newer package anyway and I have to reinstall the old "stable" one...
    Last edited by blackiwid; 06-20-2012 at 08:05 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •