Questions about Ubuntu

[Ben Scott]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Darrell Michaud <dmichaud at amergin.org> wrote:
> Bruce Labitt wrote:
>> Ubuntu uses a different package manager, does it really matter?
>
> My feeling is that too much is made of this.

  I agree, although I think it goes beyond just the package manager
debate.  I believe many people incorrectly attribute problems with
software configuration management to the software tools (rpm, dpkg,
yum, apt, etc.).  The tools have little to do with it.  Ascribing
success or failure to the tools confuses the issue, and does everybody
a disservice.

  In my analysis, dependency hell tends to arise less in Debian
"stable" because:

A1. Debian has a very large package pool.

A2. Given A1, one is less likely to need a third-party package in the
first place.

A3. Given A1, I assume it must be eas(y|ier) for packagers to
contribute/maintain new packages in the distribution.  Otherwise, the
package pool would not be so large.

A4. Given A3, should someone need a package not already there, it is
likely to be added to the distribution proper.

A5. Given A4, A2 is further reinforced

B1. Debian "stable" has a long release cycle, so even if one must
resort to a third-party package, it is more likely to be built for the
same release one is already running.

  It is true that Debian was the first popular distribution to
introduce a sophisticated dependency management tool (apt).  Debian
deserves credit for that.  But it is also true that dependency
management tools for RPM-based distributions have existed for
something like a decade.  Isn't 1998 anymore.  In 1998, Debian's
first-time installation process was absolutely horrible; today, it's
quite servicable.  I don't hold Debian to their 1998 installer
performance; I don't think it's fair to hold Red Hat to their 1998
dependency management performance.  :-)

-- Ben