Fedora vs. Ubuntu

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 07:05 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote:
> Rahul wrote:

> > Apt wasn't chosen at that time because it was basically unmaintained and 
> > not multi lib capable. Now those reasons are not a roadblock and it is 
> > available in Fedora Extras.
>   I might try apt just to see its performance compared to yum.
Performance-wise apt has somewhat regressed in comparison to older
versions and to the deb-based versions, because apt could not avoid to
adopt the metadata repo-format (aka "yum-repos"), because RH and Fedora
do not support apt's native repository format.

Unfortunately the metadata repository format is not a design to make it
an ideal choice for apt. It definitely introduces a lot of ballast to
apt and causes apt to regress on network traffic, memory demand and
speed. Apt still has advantages wrt. stability, reliability and
portability.

Apart of this, apt and yum's behavior and features are still
sufficiently different, both with pros and cons, to justify their (co-)
existence.

>  I 
> preferred yum over apt back when both were used to pull in packages 
> outside of RedHat, before the Fedora/Redhat merge back in RH10 (Fedora 
> Core 1) timeframe.
I use both, because both have pros and cons ;)

Ralf