3 ms·

More mature in what way exactly? In the fact that it's faster? Because I wouldn't call starting services by default, or replacing conflicting services very matu

More mature in what way exactly? In the fact that it's faster? Because I wouldn't call starting services by default, or replacing conflicting services very mature. Maturity I would associate with stability and predictability. And regarding the speed, which is what most people mention online when they compare the two, it's only faster because apt-get update is a separate step.

thriftwy 3y ago
That does not sound like package system issue. Around 2003, Yum was a Python tool which took ages just to build dependency graph to do basic things.
- INTPenis 3y ago
  Yes it was Python for a long time actually. And yet it still had very useful features like rollback and history. Things large government contracts kinda required.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    They don't require it at the OS level though, contracts like that require it on the state of the system as a whole and the typical way to deal with this is by using versioned backups and audit trails.
  - curt15 3y ago
    >And yet it still had very useful features like rollback and history. yum/dnf rollback is unreliable even today because the previously installed versions of packages might no longer be present in the repos.
    - dralley 3y ago
      Old versions are cached on your system for a few days, and most distros do keep a few old versions around just in case.
      - BossingAround 3y ago
        I use Fedora as my daily driver for work and DNF rollback might as well not exist. It's atrocious. Even when turning on the local repo cache function (which keeps RPM packages on your system for some time in case you want to roll back), I have never been able to successfully roll back an upgrade that contained more than ~10-20 packages. I love Fedora, but DNF has atrocious UX.
    - INTPenis 3y ago
      That's mostly true for Fedora, because it's a fast rolling release they don't keep old packages around. It's not true for RHEL who strive to maintain backwards compatibility and stability.
hnfong 3y ago
I doubt "apt-get" was more advanced, but the breadth and quality of Debian's packages were unparalleled. Debian "stable" always just worked, and if you preferred newer packages, Testing and Unstable were usually a good compromise between stability and shiny. I haven't run Linux on my local machines for a couple years though, so maybe things have changed a bit, but if we're talking about the years where Debian gained "market" (mind?) share, then these are the reasons IMHO.
midasuni 3y ago
From memory when I moved to Debian about 2000, apt just worked, and redhat 5.2/6.0) had nothing to compare. It’s the main reason I changed. Wikipedia says yum wasn’t even a thing until 2002.
- mekster 3y ago
  I think it even came from another distro called YellowDog Linux or something, hence the command name.
  - petepete 3y ago
    That's correct. YellowDog was based on Red Hat Linux but built for PowerPC computers.

thriftwy 3y ago

That does not sound like package system issue. Around 2003, Yum was a Python tool which took ages just to build dependency graph to do basic things.

INTPenis 3y ago
Yes it was Python for a long time actually. And yet it still had very useful features like rollback and history. Things large government contracts kinda required.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  They don't require it at the OS level though, contracts like that require it on the state of the system as a whole and the typical way to deal with this is by using versioned backups and audit trails.
- curt15 3y ago
  >And yet it still had very useful features like rollback and history. yum/dnf rollback is unreliable even today because the previously installed versions of packages might no longer be present in the repos.
  - dralley 3y ago
    Old versions are cached on your system for a few days, and most distros do keep a few old versions around just in case.
    - BossingAround 3y ago
      I use Fedora as my daily driver for work and DNF rollback might as well not exist. It's atrocious. Even when turning on the local repo cache function (which keeps RPM packages on your system for some time in case you want to roll back), I have never been able to successfully roll back an upgrade that contained more than ~10-20 packages. I love Fedora, but DNF has atrocious UX.
  - INTPenis 3y ago
    That's mostly true for Fedora, because it's a fast rolling release they don't keep old packages around. It's not true for RHEL who strive to maintain backwards compatibility and stability.

hnfong 3y ago

I doubt "apt-get" was more advanced, but the breadth and quality of Debian's packages were unparalleled. Debian "stable" always just worked, and if you preferred newer packages, Testing and Unstable were usually a good compromise between stability and shiny. I haven't run Linux on my local machines for a couple years though, so maybe things have changed a bit, but if we're talking about the years where Debian gained "market" (mind?) share, then these are the reasons IMHO.

midasuni 3y ago

From memory when I moved to Debian about 2000, apt just worked, and redhat 5.2/6.0) had nothing to compare. It’s the main reason I changed. Wikipedia says yum wasn’t even a thing until 2002.

mekster 3y ago
I think it even came from another distro called YellowDog Linux or something, hence the command name.
- petepete 3y ago
  That's correct. YellowDog was based on Red Hat Linux but built for PowerPC computers.