Brad Fuller wrote:
> Forest Bond wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 05:30:11PM -0800, Brad Fuller wrote:
>>
>>> every time there is a new Fedora Core, I usually get around to moving to
>>> the next version. However, for me, it's a bit of a pain to do because
>>> you really have to wipe the disc and start all over.. ."upgrading"
>>> Fedora doesn't really work well. At least for me it doesn't.
>>>
>>> Don't you find this a bit irritating? I do. It's not hard, it just seems
>>> unnecessary.
>>>
>> I don't know why people tolerate this sort of thing. Debian and Ubuntu have
>> _always_ upgraded well for me. These are projects that recognize that one of
>> the most important (if not _the_ most important) responsibilty of a distribution
>> is dependency management, including versioned dependencies through upgrades.
>>
>> I recently started maintaining a RHEL server at work, and up2date is one of the
>> crudest tools I've ever seen. It just barely does anything right at all.
>>
>> I guess I've just been spoiled by apt-get, aptitude, synaptic, update-manager,
>> et. al... (And the package maintainers for the above-mentioned projects --
>> package managers need good data to do their jobs well).
>>
> Upgrading applications is easy as pie on Fedora, as long as you get the
> right repos. I use Smart Manager and it's very nice, once you get it setup.
>
> My concern is not applications, but the distro itself.
apt-get, Synaptic, etc all handle distro updates, too. Even kernels.
I've updated kernels a couple of times using Synaptic.
I guess you could say that Debian, in a sense, really doesn't have the
RH/Fedora idea of "upgrades."
-- David gnome@email-addr-hidden authenticity, honesty, communityReceived on Wed Nov 15 12:15:04 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 15 2006 - 12:15:04 EET