pretty up2date vs reliable yum?

[Matt Morgan]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:10:51 -0800, Tim Alberts <talberts at msiscales.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I try to stick with up2date because I want the nice GUI tools, something
> Linux is trying (or should be trying) to brag about.  However, I get
> up2date to completely download and install updates maybe one out of a
> dozen times (broad band connection).
> 
> I've been on this list before and noted that most of the 'experts'
> always answer questions about updates with 'just use yum'...Note, this
> is my impression, I may be wrong.  Also note I define 'experts' as the
> folks on this list whom always seem to have an answer for every
> question.
> 
> If yum is so much better that the experts just go to it, why is up2date
> the program on the start bar?  Why isn't yum given the nice icon on the
> start bar by default?

Lots of other good answers to this already; but here's one that I
haven't seen. Updating is something you should never have to worry
about yourself, so a GUI shouldn't be necessary. Clearly you may want
it for special installs, but for literal updates, why be bothered at
all?

Indeed, once yum is set up correctly (which is quick and easy), it's
very automatic. In fact, in a default FC install, cron will be set up
automatically to run yum updates nightly, and anacron will take over
on computers that aren't powered on all the time. So the GUI is just
not something I ever have to worry about in this case (although in
general I am a GUI kind of guy).

On my desktop at work all I did for automatic yum updates,
post-install, was follow the instructions at

http://www.fedorafaq.org/#installsoftware 

and I was done with updating by hand, forever. At home, I made one
other change, since that computer is only on for about an hour a day,
and that was to edit /etc/anacrontab to cut the delays to 5, 15, and
25 minutes from 65 and up.

I do not consider myself an expert, but with yum I can play one on TV!

--Matt