apt or yum

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 21:07, Patrick Allaire wrote:
> Sorry I cant give you an answer. But I was wondering the same kind of thing ...
> 
> I have read posting about how to configure each systems, but wich one to use ?
> 
> apt-get / yum / up2date ?
It depends. 

apt-get is the most flexible and fasted one of these, but not officially
supported by RedHat/FC1, however it also is the most complex one.

yum is easier to use and to get started with but less flexible and
significantly slower than apt, however it is officially supported by
RedHat/FC1.

up2date .. well, I don't see much reasons to use it at all ;)

My standard answer: Beginners will prefer yum, advanced users will
prefer apt.

> Wich one is more stable ?

yum and apt are comparably stable in their basic features, i.e. both
work sufficiently well for standard usage and both have minor problems
at some spots.

> Wich repository is more complete ? with testing/contrib package ?
Redhat/FC1 supports yum and up2date.

Some third party packagers have pretty long records in providing apt
repository, and nowadays provide apt and yum repositories.

I'd say there isn't much difference wrt. completeness of contributed
repositories.

> I guess we dont use the 3 systems ?
Probably.

>  you get use to one and you use it ?
Most likely. 

I got used to using apt for local installation on my local net and then
made myself accustomed to yum during the Fedora Core testing phase when
apt-repositories were not widely available - I still prefer apt.

Ralf