OT: What's the deal with Ubuntu?

[John Summerfied]

Les Mikesell wrote:

>>
>>Well, for one thing, Fedora started off as a 4-CD set while Ubuntu
>>had the advantage of starting fresh.
> 
> 
> Ubuntu started with debian packages - I'd argue that Fedora is a
> better starting point.

Debian beats Fedora here. There are 13,000 or so packages already built 
for Debian.

If you don't like sendmail & postfix, then maybe exim is to your taste? 
Or even zmailer?.

Want a light-weight desktop? fvwm is there. Dillo for a featherweight 
browser. links (the real one), w3m....


> 
> 
>>Making Fedora fit on one CD means removing packages and not everyone
>>agrees on which packages should be moved to Fedora Extras.
> 
> 
> Moving, not removing.  The idea is to re-arrange things so most
> installs only need one CD, but all the other packages are still
> available.  Rather than argue over what should be on that one

Debian does this already, supporting my contention Debian's a better 
base the Fedora Core.


As one who's been maintaining RHL since 3.0.3 and Debian since the death 
of RHL was announced, I will assert I regard Debian's package-management 
tools are better.

It's not dpkg vs rpm - they provide roughly equivalent functionality, 
but Debian's apt-get vs yum and up2date.

Anything I can do with yum or up2date I can also do with apt-get, but 
apt-get does more that I find useful.




-- 

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaa at computerdatasafe.com.au  Z1aaaaaaa at computerdatasafe.com.au
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/