3 ms·
Package managers are user-centric features and I'd certainly never install a Linux distro that doesn't use apt. It's fairly important information.
by handelaar 13y ago
Package managers are user-centric features and I'd certainly never install a Linux distro that doesn't use apt. It's fairly important information.
- dkuntz2 13y agoYou'd never install a non-apt system? You should try a pacman based system, I find it to be nicer, because it embodies the Arch philosophy of keeping things simple.
- SkyMarshal 13y agoSo simple it didn't even have package signing until a year or two ago. No thanks.
- voltagex_ 13y agoAnd SecureApt [1] didn't exist until 2003. [1]: https://wiki.debian.org/SecureApt https://wiki.debian.org/SecureApt
- dkuntz2 13y agoAnd ... ? It currently has package signing, right? What's the problem? I'm confused at how a historical problem that has been fixed even matters when discussing why or why not to use it. It's like saying you wouldn't use OS X because 10.1 didn't support Intel processors.