On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 11:53:03 +0200 Max <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It uses DEB packages, which are apparently better, but > software (I find) is much easier to find in RPM format.
I find this a bit of a deceptive impression. It is easier to find *third party* RPMs. OTOH, the Debian distribution makes it far easier for me to find DEB packages than RPM for the VAST majority of packages. That is to say, there are far better central repositories of DEB packages, even though they don't as often packaged by the original software authors. I think this is because DEBs, due to their finer dependency system are harder to make (but easier to keep). So it's a bit like proprietary software proponents who point to the local CompUSA and say "Look at all the software available for Windows, and one tiny shelf for Linux -- there must be more software for Windows", ignoring the fact that the one tiny shelf may well have more software on it than the rest of the store combined. Don't be snowed by the boxes. Similarly, I see RPMs by ones and twos all over the place, and only a few places with DEBs. But the DEB repositories are HUGE. > Also, it tries to emulate a Windows-style file > hierarchy. This is very irritating because: "it"=Ubuntu, Red Hat, or Debian? > a) Windows-style file hierarchy is ugly and stupid, and > certainly not worth emulating > b) it is emulated badly. Hmm. Not sure what you mean. I first thought you were criticizing FHS, but now I don't think so. If you're talking about the KDE/Gnome menus, that may be interesting. I've seen a lot of conflicting and inconsistent layouts, and I'm not sure how I would do it, given the chance. -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
