The truth about Goobuntu: Google's in-house desktop Ubuntu Linux

From Google:

“Windows is harder because it has 'special' security problems so it requires high-level permission before someone can use it.” In addition, “Windows tools tend to be heavy and inflexible.”

“We chose Debian because packages and apt [Debian's basic software package programs] are light-years ahead of RPM (Red Hat and SUSE's default package management system.]”

~Jeff

My personal favorite is this..

Quoting:To quote, Bushnell, “You'd be a fool to use anything but Linux.”

He is right, you would be..

As I recall -- they learned the hard way...

I don't know about "packages and apt are light-years ahead of RPM." That's not exactly the same level in the first place. You either have to say that 'dpackage is light-years ahead of RPM,' or say that 'apt is light years ahead of yum, apt for RPM, and URPMI.' I'm not sure that those statements would be true. I have tended to use apt based packaging for quite a while now because I preferred it. However, it's my understanding that yum, apt for RPM, and URPMI have gotten to be pretty good over the years.

I read the "light years ahead" quote and it comes with no specifics whatsoever. I can name functionality that rpm and yum have which dpkg and apt do not have (delta rpms immediately comes to mind) but I can't do the same for Debian packaging when comparing it to Red Hat packaging. Sorry, no sale.

It might just be a sign of how long he's been using Linux -- when I started using Linux that was (in many significant ways) quite true.

I've also heard arguments (which I'm not qualified to evaluate) that this was at least as much a reflection of consistent and consistently enforced packaging policies as the inherent differences between Apt/deb and rpm-based package managers.

Anyways, these days I usually hear that aside from personal preference they are pretty much equal (though apt may be quicker).

I have and continue to use them both... I just recently started using Scientific Linux as a prep for the RHCSA and RHCE exams... And there's a point to preferring Debian package management to RedHat package management. That is one of the factors that helped propel Ubuntu to the top, many years ago, and one of the reasons there are still a lot of developers working with it, despite the "Unity" fiasco.

The key thing is that it is much easier to add smaller components and apps to the system with *.deb files than with *.rpm files. With RPM there's still the dependency hell when trying to add something. Deb just resolves those problems easier. Apt-get and Aptitude makes it easier still. That was true 6-8 years ago and is still true now.

That said, Caitlyn's got a point about things you can do with RPMs that you can't with DEBs. One additional example is SRPMs (source RPMs). SRPMs allow you to easily recompile apps against the system environment. DEB does not have the equivalent, with only DKMS adding similar functionality.

But with RPMs, I still run into the problem of having one target package being dependent on another package you are trying to install and the dependency being dependent on the target as well... preventing EITHER from installing... If RPM and YUM have gotten better over the last few years, I haven't seen it...

@JaseP: I haven't seen the dependency h#ll you describe in many, many years. That was true once upon a time. I don't believe it's true at all now.

Try to add Cairo-dock to Scientific Linux 6.3...