How Fedora chose me

[davide]

2009/9/15 Tomek Chrzczonowicz <chrzczonowicz at gmail.com>:
> In my personal experience it is somewhat less grandoise.
>
> IIRC, majority of the packages is simply snapshotted from Debian Sid and
> only a fraction of packages is maintained and supported by Canonical
> (the "main" repo).
>
> The rest (the "universe") often has little to no QA nor bugfix and
> security updates. Many of the obscure apps won't even start.
>
> On top of this, Debian and Ubuntu have loads of metapackages (empty
> packages that depend on sth else) and packages with third-party manuals,
> howtos and e-books that are not software.
>
> And then there are packages with proprietary and patented software,
> which Fedora proper won't ship.
>
> And if one wants the latest upstream-stable versions, then one goes
> hunting for .debs on third-party repos, Launchpad PPAs, GetDeb, etc.
>
> This is not to disparage the great work Canonical and Debian people are
> doing. It's just that those numbers need to be put into proper
> perspective.

I collected the data not counting the virtual packages, apt-cache
stats and aptitude divide packages into categories so, the count is
really simple.
I was not counting packages in getdeb or ppa, I simply prefere not use
them, if I don't know the sources...
I have a standard debian installation with all the official +
debian-multimedia turned on, it should be like having a
fedora+rpmfusion configuration.

About your comment for ubuntu universe packages I wonder what kind of
problems have you had... packages starts and works, they're not
supported.