Fedora 12 just like Ubuntu

[ceed]

Hi,

I ran the new Fedora 12 live CD last night. When the desktop came up it =
=

looked like a blue Ubuntu. Most of the controls and applications in the =
=

default start menu are also the same. Gnome has come a long way and is =

able to put a UI on a distro which is very similar across distros. =

However, I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good a=
s =

deb ones. Why is that? I didn't look too much under the hood of Fedora 1=
2, =

but if someone had told me Fedora now is based on Ubuntu I would not hav=
e =

protested.

-- =

> <(((=C2=B0> ceed

HARDFAIL("Not enough magic.")

[Jon Solberg]

On 2009-11-18, ceed <cdposter-***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> [...] I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good
> as deb ones. Why is that? [...]

FUD?

I've used both a couple of rpm and deb based distros (and those
entirely without a package handling system) and I haven't experienced
any major differences between them.

--
Jon Solberg (remove "nospam." from email address).

[ceed]

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:16:40 -0600, Jon Solberg <***@jonsolberg.nospam.s=
e> =

wrote:

> On 2009-11-18, ceed <cdposter-***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> [...] I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good
>> as deb ones. Why is that? [...]
>
> FUD?

Possibly. However someone in this group recently said: "But it doesn't =

matter as they [rpm based distros] are innately inferior to the .deb =

format"
group of distros." I've seen these kind of claims quite often, but it ma=
y =

just be as you say FUD.

>
> I've used both a couple of rpm and deb based distros (and those
> entirely without a package handling system) and I haven't experienced
> any major differences between them.
>
There's a while since I've used a RPM based distro (Mandrak back in =

2002-03) so I can't produce a recent comparison.

-- =

> <(((=C2=B0> ceed

HARDFAIL("Not enough magic.")

[John F. Morse]

ceed wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:16:40 -0600, Jon Solberg
> <***@jonsolberg.nospam.se> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-11-18, ceed <cdposter-***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [...] I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good
>>> as deb ones. Why is that? [...]
>>
>> FUD?
>
> Possibly. However someone in this group recently said: "But it doesn't
> matter as they [rpm based distros] are innately inferior to the .deb
> format"
> group of distros." I've seen these kind of claims quite often, but it
> may just be as you say FUD.
>
>>
>> I've used both a couple of rpm and deb based distros (and those
>> entirely without a package handling system) and I haven't experienced
>> any major differences between them.
>>
> There's a while since I've used a RPM based distro (Mandrak back in
> 2002-03) so I can't produce a recent comparison.
>

You can believe the "FUD" FUD if you want, but some of us have
first-hand experience.

Since some of us are not likely to ever have any believable
creditability, due to preconceived ideas and misunderstandings, you may
need to find out for yourself.

One place to start is here:

http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=article-rpm

One thing I can guarantee you, there will be those FUDaholics who will
disagree with the above, me, and whether the Earth is flat.

An RPM-based distro can be just as good as a DEB-APT distro, but there
is a difference between RPM and APT (or any of the other package
managers). Your only route for escape is program source with
"./configure && make && make install" in most cases. I.e. compile it.

And for a list of which package manager each distro uses:

http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=packagemanagement


--
John

[ceed]

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:22:01 -0600, John F. Morse <***@example.invalid>=
=

wrote:

> ceed wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:16:40 -0600, Jon Solberg
>> <***@jonsolberg.nospam.se> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-11-18, ceed <cdposter-***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [...] I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good
>>>> as deb ones. Why is that? [...]
>>>
>>> FUD?
>>
>> Possibly. However someone in this group recently said: "But it doesn'=
t
>> matter as they [rpm based distros] are innately inferior to the .deb=

>> format"
>> group of distros." I've seen these kind of claims quite often, but it=

>> may just be as you say FUD.
>>
>>>
>>> I've used both a couple of rpm and deb based distros (and those
>>> entirely without a package handling system) and I haven't experience=
d
>>> any major differences between them.
>>>
>> There's a while since I've used a RPM based distro (Mandrak back in
>> 2002-03) so I can't produce a recent comparison.
>>
>
> You can believe the "FUD" FUD if you want, but some of us have
> first-hand experience.

I was asking here since I do not know what to believe.
>
> Since some of us are not likely to ever have any believable
> creditability, due to preconceived ideas and misunderstandings, you ma=
y
> need to find out for yourself.

Why do you say that? I am asking here because I think there are people i=
n =

this group capable of credible answers, you being one of them.
>
> One place to start is here:
>
> http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=3Darticle-rpm

Thank you for the pointer. I have also read this piece:

http://lwn.net/Articles/223173/
>
> One thing I can guarantee you, there will be those FUDaholics who will=

> disagree with the above, me, and whether the Earth is flat.

What I wanted to get was opinions on the claim that "deb is better than =
=

rpm". I do not have an opinion on it myself.
>
> An RPM-based distro can be just as good as a DEB-APT distro, but there=

> is a difference between RPM and APT (or any of the other package
> managers). Your only route for escape is program source with
> "./configure && make && make install" in most cases. I.e. compile it.
>
> And for a list of which package manager each distro uses:
>
I was perfectly happy with Mandrake for a while. The reason I switched t=
o =

something else had nothing to do with the package management. It was muc=
h =

more trivial: One distro had support for my wireless card
on a new latpop.

> http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=3Dpackagemanagement
>
>
Again, thank you for the pointer.

-- =

> <(((=C2=B0> ceed

HARDFAIL("Not enough magic.")

[John F. Morse]

ceed wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:22:01 -0600, John F. Morse
> <***@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> ceed wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:16:40 -0600, Jon Solberg
>>> <***@jonsolberg.nospam.se> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-11-18, ceed <cdposter-***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [...] I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good
>>>>> as deb ones. Why is that? [...]
>>>>
>>>> FUD?
>>>
>>> Possibly. However someone in this group recently said: "But it doesn't
>>> matter as they [rpm based distros] are innately inferior to the .deb
>>> format"
>>> group of distros." I've seen these kind of claims quite often, but it
>>> may just be as you say FUD.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've used both a couple of rpm and deb based distros (and those
>>>> entirely without a package handling system) and I haven't experienced
>>>> any major differences between them.
>>>>
>>> There's a while since I've used a RPM based distro (Mandrak back in
>>> 2002-03) so I can't produce a recent comparison.
>>>
>>
>> You can believe the "FUD" FUD if you want, but some of us have
>> first-hand experience.
>
> I was asking here since I do not know what to believe.
>>
>> Since some of us are not likely to ever have any believable
>> creditability, due to preconceived ideas and misunderstandings, you may
>> need to find out for yourself.
>
> Why do you say that? I am asking here because I think there are people
> in this group capable of credible answers, you being one of them.
>>
>> One place to start is here:
>>
>> http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=article-rpm
>
> Thank you for the pointer. I have also read this piece:
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/223173/
>>
>> One thing I can guarantee you, there will be those FUDaholics who will
>> disagree with the above, me, and whether the Earth is flat.
>
> What I wanted to get was opinions on the claim that "deb is better
> than rpm". I do not have an opinion on it myself.
>>
>> An RPM-based distro can be just as good as a DEB-APT distro, but there
>> is a difference between RPM and APT (or any of the other package
>> managers). Your only route for escape is program source with
>> "./configure && make && make install" in most cases. I.e. compile it.
>>
>> And for a list of which package manager each distro uses:
>>
> I was perfectly happy with Mandrake for a while. The reason I switched
> to something else had nothing to do with the package management. It
> was much more trivial: One distro had support for my wireless card
> on a new latpop.
>
>> http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=packagemanagement
>>
>>
> Again, thank you for the pointer.


You are welcome, and I hope those links shed some light.

I might add that reading your comments above, it seems like you were
looking to generate a poll or a vote. This would be likened to a
trolling attempt, because you know the nature of the users of this
group. Some will give you good "advice" based on facts, and others based
on opinion.

Then there are the troublemakers who will "vote" the opposite just for
their sick fun.

Numbers don't work, but study for yourself, trying out the various
distros and package managers in this case, and see what you like.

You may want a certain distro based on RPM, and if so, then the package
manager used is secondary in importance.


--
John

[ceed]

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:33:28 -0600, John F. Morse <***@example.invalid>=
=

wrote:

> ceed wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:22:01 -0600, John F. Morse
>> <***@example.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> ceed wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:16:40 -0600, Jon Solberg
>>>> <***@jonsolberg.nospam.se> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2009-11-18, ceed <cdposter-***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [...] I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as goo=
d
>>>>>> as deb ones. Why is that? [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> FUD?
>>>>
>>>> Possibly. However someone in this group recently said: "But it does=
n't
>>>> matter as they [rpm based distros] are innately inferior to the .d=
eb
>>>> format"
>>>> group of distros." I've seen these kind of claims quite often, but =
it
>>>> may just be as you say FUD.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've used both a couple of rpm and deb based distros (and those
>>>>> entirely without a package handling system) and I haven't experien=
ced
>>>>> any major differences between them.
>>>>>
>>>> There's a while since I've used a RPM based distro (Mandrak back in=

>>>> 2002-03) so I can't produce a recent comparison.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can believe the "FUD" FUD if you want, but some of us have
>>> first-hand experience.
>>
>> I was asking here since I do not know what to believe.
>>>
>>> Since some of us are not likely to ever have any believable
>>> creditability, due to preconceived ideas and misunderstandings, you =
may
>>> need to find out for yourself.
>>
>> Why do you say that? I am asking here because I think there are peopl=
e
>> in this group capable of credible answers, you being one of them.
>>>
>>> One place to start is here:
>>>
>>> http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=3Darticle-rpm
>>
>> Thank you for the pointer. I have also read this piece:
>>
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/223173/
>>>
>>> One thing I can guarantee you, there will be those FUDaholics who wi=
ll
>>> disagree with the above, me, and whether the Earth is flat.
>>
>> What I wanted to get was opinions on the claim that "deb is better
>> than rpm". I do not have an opinion on it myself.
>>>
>>> An RPM-based distro can be just as good as a DEB-APT distro, but the=
re
>>> is a difference between RPM and APT (or any of the other package
>>> managers). Your only route for escape is program source with
>>> "./configure && make && make install" in most cases. I.e. compile it=
.
>>>
>>> And for a list of which package manager each distro uses:
>>>
>> I was perfectly happy with Mandrake for a while. The reason I switche=
d
>> to something else had nothing to do with the package management. It
>> was much more trivial: One distro had support for my wireless card
>> on a new latpop.
>>
>>> http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=3Dpackagemanagement
>>>
>>>
>> Again, thank you for the pointer.
>
>
> You are welcome, and I hope those links shed some light.
>
> I might add that reading your comments above, it seems like you were
> looking to generate a poll or a vote. This would be likened to a
> trolling attempt, because you know the nature of the users of this
> group. Some will give you good "advice" based on facts, and others bas=
ed
> on opinion.

No, all I wanted was the arguments for why deb based distros could be =

better than rpm based one by design.
>
> Then there are the troublemakers who will "vote" the opposite just for=

> their sick fun.

>
> Numbers don't work, but study for yourself, trying out the various
> distros and package managers in this case, and see what you like.
>
> You may want a certain distro based on RPM, and if so, then the packag=
e
> manager used is secondary in importance.
>
>


-- =

> <(((=C2=B0> ceed

HARDFAIL("Not enough magic.")

[J G Miller]

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:18:57 -0600, Ceed asked:

> No, all I wanted was the arguments for why deb based distros could be
> better than rpm based one by design.

But better in what way?

An RPM based distribution can be far superior in terms of usability
than an DEB based distribution -- it is not the form of the packages
which matter but what is in them.

But when it comes to package managment, DEB based packages are generally
better in terms of management -- dependency handling, conflicts (eg
overwrite problems), downloading and repository management than RPM.

In relation to Fedora, there was a big problem at one time of two competing
RPM "extra" respositories which had major compatibility problems. The
arrival of the smart package manager eliminated some of the potential pitfalls
and also I think that the two groups finally settled their differences
and merged (corrections to this comment welcomed).

The two things which RPM has which I would really, really like to see
added to DEB are "date of installation of installed package" and
"installed package change listing". The latter shows if any of the files
or their permissions have been changed from the original contents of the rpm.

There is also the issue of whether the local dpkg database under /var/lib/dpkg
of packages should remain primarily as text files or change to a binary
database as is the case for RPM, due to the ever increasing number of packages
(more than 28 000 for Ubuntu 9.10) to improve speed of processing.

[Moe Trin]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.ubuntu, in article
<***@vo.lu>, J G Miller wrote:

>An RPM based distribution can be far superior in terms of usability
>than an DEB based distribution -- it is not the form of the packages
>which matter but what is in them.

Excellent answer - and recall that rpm and deb is not the only package
management scheme in existence, even in Linux.

>But when it comes to package managment, DEB based packages are
>generally better in terms of management -- dependency handling,
>conflicts (eg overwrite problems), downloading and repository
>management than RPM.

That's why Conectiva (a Brazilian distribution now borged into
Mandriva) and YellowDog added dependency resolution into rpm.
Repository management and downloading? Depends - it's been around
for at least 14 years in Red Hat.

>In relation to Fedora, there was a big problem at one time of two
>competing RPM "extra" respositories which had major compatibility
>problems.

I don't consider Fedora to be a production grade. OpenSUSE is a
similar bleeding edge mess.

>The two things which RPM has which I would really, really like to see
>added to DEB are "date of installation of installed package" and
>"installed package change listing". The latter shows if any of the
>files or their permissions have been changed from the original
>contents of the rpm.

That's the 'rpm -V' option. It compares several things (size, mode,
MD5sum, device and link parameters, ownerships and timestampts) with
data from the package database. This is selectable by the package
author, such that it DOESN'T check some things that will obviously
change as part of a normal installation. For example:

[compton ~]$ rpm -Vf /etc/passwd
S.5....T c /etc/hosts.allow
S.5....T c /etc/hosts.deny
S.5....T c /etc/printcap
S.5....T c /etc/profile
..?..... c /etc/securetty
[compton ~]$

The "?" means it can't read the file - not surprising because I'm me
and not root. Here, these files are showing size, MD5sum (meaning
contents) and timestamp changes. But notice that I asked it to look
at the package that "owns" /etc/passwd - and that file doesn't show up
as being changed (although it obviously has to have). This cuts down
the "noise".

Two other nice tricks rpm can do are '--setperms' and '--setugids'.
I'm sure you've encountered a situation where someone has fumble
fingered a 'chown -R' or 'chmod -R' command, and then had the joy of
trying to reset ownership/permissions to sane values. Guess what?

Old guy

[WhoKnew]

ceed wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:22:01 -0600, John F. Morse <***@example.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> ceed wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:16:40 -0600, Jon Solberg
>>> <***@jonsolberg.nospam.se> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-11-18, ceed <cdposter-***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [...] I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good
>>>>> as deb ones. Why is that? [...]
>>>>
>>>> FUD?
>>>
>>> Possibly. However someone in this group recently said: "But it doesn't
>>> matter as they [rpm based distros] are innately inferior to the .deb
>>> format"
>>> group of distros." I've seen these kind of claims quite often, but it
>>> may just be as you say FUD.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've used both a couple of rpm and deb based distros (and those
>>>> entirely without a package handling system) and I haven't experienced
>>>> any major differences between them.
>>>>
>>> There's a while since I've used a RPM based distro (Mandrak back in
>>> 2002-03) so I can't produce a recent comparison.
>>>
>>
>> You can believe the "FUD" FUD if you want, but some of us have
>> first-hand experience.
>
> I was asking here since I do not know what to believe.
>>
>> Since some of us are not likely to ever have any believable
>> creditability, due to preconceived ideas and misunderstandings, you may
>> need to find out for yourself.
>
> Why do you say that? I am asking here because I think there are people
> in this group capable of credible answers, you being one of them.
>>

Uh, sorry. Nothing but Linsucking Upyourbuttooo Morons in here. They
know nothing.

[Nico Nachtitagall]

Am Wednesday 18 November 2009 16:16 Jon Solberg schrieb:

> On 2009-11-18, ceed <cdposter-***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> [...] I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good
>> as deb ones. Why is that? [...]
>
> FUD?

Positive. Just FUD.

But Jon when I got you here. Can you tell me what is the corresponding dpkg
switch for:

rpm --help | grep -A1 justdb
--justdb update the database, but do not modify the filesystem

cheers
/nicoen

--
http://www.hochzeit-fotograf.org/

[Jon Solberg]

On 2009-11-18, Nico Nachtitagall <***@arcor.de> wrote:
> Am Wednesday 18 November 2009 16:16 Jon Solberg schrieb:
>
>> On 2009-11-18, ceed <cdposter-***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [...] I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good
>>> as deb ones. Why is that? [...]
>>
>> FUD?
>
> Positive. Just FUD.
>
> But Jon when I got you here. Can you tell me what is the corresponding dpkg
> switch for:
>
> rpm --help | grep -A1 justdb
> --justdb update the database, but do not modify the filesystem

What do you want to do? If I recall correctly (but I may remember
wrong since it was quite a some time since I meddled with rpm-based
distros), one use of --justdb is removing single packages from the rpm
database (for example, when you don't wish to receive updates for
them, but this is quite an ugly solution, if you ask me). If it's
_keeping_ certain package versions you'd like to achieve, I'd hold
packages with apt's 'pin' functionality. But perhaps I don't
understand what you're after?

I never saw a reason to tamper with individual packages in the rpm db
(and meddling with individual entries in it while retaining the files
kind of goes against using a package manager in the first place). In
case of a _corrupted_ rpm database, I used the --updatedb option which
always saved me.

--
Jon Solberg (remove "nospam." from email address).

[WhoKnew]

Nico Nachtitagall wrote:
> Am Wednesday 18 November 2009 16:16 Jon Solberg schrieb:
>
>> On 2009-11-18, ceed <cdposter-***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [...] I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good
>>> as deb ones. Why is that? [...]
>> FUD?
>
> Positive. Just FUD.
>
> But Jon when I got you here. Can you tell me what is the corresponding dpkg
> switch for:
>
> rpm --help | grep -A1 justdb
> --justdb update the database, but do not modify the filesystem
>
> cheers
> /nicoen
>
F*cking moron Linsucking hijacker

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2009-11-18, Jon Solberg <***@jonsolberg.nospam.se> wrote:
>
>
> On 2009-11-18, ceed <cdposter-***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> [...] I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good
>> as deb ones. Why is that? [...]
>
> FUD?
>
> I've used both a couple of rpm and deb based distros (and those
> entirely without a package handling system) and I haven't experienced
> any major differences between them.

Try installing GNOME, KDE or GNUstep without a package manager of
some sort and get back to us. The idea that you can get by in this day
and age without a package manager is beyond absurd.

Also, the ability of something like "get-me kdenlive" that actually
fetches it and installs it with all of it's dependencies is going to be
head and shoulders abovea distro that doesn't.

Been there. Did that. Left.

Now that is quite distinct from the question of whether or not yum
and apt-get are equals and whether or not there are comprehensive enough
repositories for either.

--
The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals |||
for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs / | \
the social value of copyright to begin with.

[Ignoramus30503]

On 2009-11-18, ceed <cdposter-***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I ran the new Fedora 12 live CD last night. When the desktop came up it
> looked like a blue Ubuntu. Most of the controls and applications in the
> default start menu are also the same. Gnome has come a long way and is
> able to put a UI on a distro which is very similar across distros.
> However, I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good as
> deb ones. Why is that? I didn't look too much under the hood of Fedora 12,
> but if someone had told me Fedora now is based on Ubuntu I would not have
> protested.
>

They run the same Gnome software for UI, which is actually a good
thing.

I have never been able to upgrade a Fedora install from one release to
the next one without major troubles.

RPM dependencies are also very troublesome for me, at least they were
until I gave up on Fedora, they may have improved something since then.

As much as I complain about Ubuntu bugs, Fedora was much worse.

i

[WhoKnew]

Ignoramus30503 wrote:
> On 2009-11-18, ceed <cdposter-***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I ran the new Fedora 12 live CD last night. When the desktop came up it
>> looked like a blue Ubuntu. Most of the controls and applications in the
>> default start menu are also the same. Gnome has come a long way and is
>> able to put a UI on a distro which is very similar across distros.
>> However, I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good as
>> deb ones. Why is that? I didn't look too much under the hood of Fedora 12,
>> but if someone had told me Fedora now is based on Ubuntu I would not have
>> protested.
>>
>
> They run the same Gnome software for UI, which is actually a good
> thing.
>
> I have never been able to upgrade a Fedora install from one release to
> the next one without major troubles.
>
> RPM dependencies are also very troublesome for me, at least they were
> until I gave up on Fedora, they may have improved something since then.
>
> As much as I complain about Ubuntu bugs, Fedora was much worse.
>
> i
You're just a Linsucker moron

[Jon Solberg]

On 2009-11-20, WhoKnew <***@whoknew.com> wrote:

> You're just a Linsucker moron

--------------------------
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ the trolls |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

Eh... *Plonk*

Ah. Much better.

--
Jon Solberg (remove "nospam." from email address).

[Death]

Jon Solberg wrote this, with guidance from inner voices:

> On 2009-11-20, WhoKnew <***@whoknew.com> wrote:
>
>> You're just a Linsucker moron
>
> --------------------------
> /| /| | |
> ||__|| | Please don't |
> / O O\__ feed |
> / \ the trolls |
> / \ \ |
> / _ \ \ ----------------------
> / |\____\ \ ||
> / | | | |\____/ ||
> / \|_|_|/ | __||
> / / \ |____| ||
> / | | /| | --|
> | | |// |____ --|
> * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
> *-- _--\ _ \ // |
> / _ \\ _ // | /
> * / \_ /- | - | |
> * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
>
> Eh... *Plonk*
>
> Ah. Much better.
>

It looks like your little drawing is taking a plonk.

--
Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

[Van Chocstraw]

ceed wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I ran the new Fedora 12 live CD last night. When the desktop came up it
> looked like a blue Ubuntu. Most of the controls and applications in the
> default start menu are also the same. Gnome has come a long way and is
> able to put a UI on a distro which is very similar across distros.
> However, I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good
> as deb ones. Why is that? I didn't look too much under the hood of
> Fedora 12, but if someone had told me Fedora now is based on Ubuntu I
> would not have protested.
>


Not the same. I would use Opensuse for RPM package management instead of
Fedora which is based on Red Hat not Ubuntu.

Ubuntu is better than both and you don't have the dependency conflicts
of RPM in DEB package installation.

[Terry Porter]

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:08:31 -0600, ceed wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I ran the new Fedora 12 live CD last night. When the desktop came up it
> looked like a blue Ubuntu. Most of the controls and applications in the
> default start menu are also the same. Gnome has come a long way and is
> able to put a UI on a distro which is very similar across distros.
> However, I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good
> as deb ones. Why is that?

It's not true from a user perspective as package management is just as
easy and seamless with both Fedora and Debian these days.

I swore I'd *never* use RPMS again in 1998 after I stripped the RPM
database out of my Redhat 4.1 install, but after running fedora11 for 4
months recently, I have to admit, theyre no longer the dependency hell
they once were.

Probably due to apps like Yum etc.

For myself, I prefer *.debs


>I didn't look too much under the hood of
> Fedora 12, but if someone had told me Fedora now is based on Ubuntu I
> would not have protested.

It's not, and there are a lot of differences. To the casual user, it
would be no big deal, both work fine.



--
This machine running Gnu/Linux Ubuntu 9.10 and posting via Pan.
Get your Free copy NOW! http://www.ubuntu.com/

[Terry Porter]

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:08:31 -0600, ceed wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I ran the new Fedora 12 live CD last night. When the desktop came up it
> looked like a blue Ubuntu. Most of the controls and applications in the
> default start menu are also the same. Gnome has come a long way and is
> able to put a UI on a distro which is very similar across distros.
> However, I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good
> as deb ones. Why is that? I didn't look too much under the hood of
> Fedora 12, but if someone had told me Fedora now is based on Ubuntu I
> would not have protested.

Fedora have some interesting "spins" also :-
http://spins.fedoraproject.org/

including a neat "FEL"

Fedora's Electronic Laboratory, an opensource hardware design and
simulation platform, is dedicated to support the innovation and
development brought by opensource Electronic Design Automation (EDA)
community.

Fedora Electronic Laboratory provides a complete electronic laboratory
setup with reliable open source design tools in order to help you keep in
pace with current technological race. It reduces the risk assessment of
open source hardware development and enable electronic designers tapeout
quickly and efficiently.

Fedora Electronic Lab targets mainly the Micro-Nano Electronic
Engineering field. It introduces:

* A collection of Perl modules to extend Verilog and VHDL support.
* Tools for Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) Design
Flow process.
* Extra standard cell libraries supporting a feature size of 0.13µm.
(more than 300 MB)
* Extracted spice decks which can be simulated with gnucap/ngspice or
any spice simulators.
* Interoperability between various packages in order to achieve
different design flows.
* Tools for embedded design and to provide support for ARM as a
secondary architecture in Fedora.
* A tool set for Openmoko development and other open source hardware
communities.
* A peer review eeb-based solution coupled with an Eclipse IDE for
Embedded/Digital Hardware IP design.
* PLA tools, C-based design methodologies, simulators for 8051 and
8085 microcontrollers and many more.

http://spins.fedoraproject.org/fel/#about


--
This machine running Gnu/Linux Ubuntu 9.10 and posting via Pan.
Get your Free copy NOW! http://www.ubuntu.com/

[Dan C]

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:08:31 -0600, ceed wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I ran the new Fedora 12 live CD last night. When the desktop came up it
> looked like a blue Ubuntu. Most of the controls and applications in the
> default start menu are also the same. Gnome has come a long way and is
> able to put a UI on a distro which is very similar across distros.

Ummmm... Gnome is Gnome, regardless of which distro it's running on,
other than the cosmetic "tweaks" one may put on it.

> However, I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good
> as deb ones. Why is that?

"As good" is a stupid expression. Is a Chevy "as good" as a Ford? Those
that claim this are likely referring to a phenomenom known as "dependency
hell", which can sometimes occur on an RPM based system. However, this
is usually induced by stupid mistakes by clueless n00bs attempting to
admin a Linux system without any knowledge whatsoever.

> I didn't look too much under the hood of
> Fedora 12, but if someone had told me Fedora now is based on Ubuntu I
> would not have protested.

See the last sentence in the above paragraph, starting with "clueless
n00bs...".


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he garotted another passing Liberal.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

[J G Miller]

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:38:17 +0000, Dan C wrote:

> Ummmm... Gnome is Gnome, regardless of which distro it's running on,
> other than the cosmetic "tweaks" one may put on it.

Generally yes, except for things like openSuSe's version of Gnome
which had a different style of "start menu" as far as I recall.

And KDE is KDE, except in over version of RedHat where they tried to
make KDE like Gnome and replaced most of the KDE menu entries of
KDE programs with their Gnome equivalents. That did not go down
well with KDE lovers at the time as far as I recall ;)

[Gordon]

On 2009-11-18, ceed <cdposter-***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I ran the new Fedora 12 live CD last night. When the desktop came up it
> looked like a blue Ubuntu. Most of the controls and applications in the
> default start menu are also the same. Gnome has come a long way and is
> able to put a UI on a distro which is very similar across distros.
> However, I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good as
> deb ones. Why is that? I didn't look too much under the hood of Fedora 12,
> but if someone had told me Fedora now is based on Ubuntu I would not have
> protested.
>

You are getting confused between pacakage managers and desktops.

Ubuntu has a Gnome desktop by default, as does Fedora. However KDE desktops
work on both of them.

Like humans, Linux flavours may look different but that is about all they
are compared to how they are the same

[ceed]

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:22:14 -0600, Gordon <***@clear.net.nz> wrote:

> On 2009-11-18, ceed <cdposter-***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I ran the new Fedora 12 live CD last night. When the desktop came up =
it
>> looked like a blue Ubuntu. Most of the controls and applications in t=
he
>> default start menu are also the same. Gnome has come a long way and i=
s
>> able to put a UI on a distro which is very similar across distros.
>> However, I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as goo=
d =

>> as
>> deb ones. Why is that? I didn't look too much under the hood of Fedor=
a =

>> 12,
>> but if someone had told me Fedora now is based on Ubuntu I would not =
=

>> have
>> protested.
>>
>
> You are getting confused between pacakage managers and desktops.

I don't think I am.
>
> Ubuntu has a Gnome desktop by default, as does Fedora. However KDE =

> desktops
> work on both of them.

The reason the two seem are so similar is that both run Gnome. Fedora =

looks like a blue Ubuntu. Under the hood they are different, and it was =
=

that difference I ws interested in.
>
> Like humans, Linux flavours may look different but that is about all t=
hey
> are compared to how they are the same


-- =

> <(((=C2=B0> ceed

HARDFAIL("Not enough magic.")

[Andy]

ceed wrote:

> I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good as
> deb ones. Why is that?

I've no idea.

It's complete nonsense, however.

Andy.

--
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
XPN 1.2.6 <-> Leafnode 1.11.7.rc1 | Kernel 2.6.30.9-generic

[ceed]

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:09:51 -0600, Andy <***@invalid> wrote:

> ceed wrote:
>
>> I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good as
>> deb ones. Why is that?
>
> I've no idea.
>
> It's complete nonsense, however.

It's been said by someone regularily posting in this group, and it was n=
ot =

opposed. The reason I brought it up is that I have seen the same in othe=
r =

places also lately.
>
> Andy.
>


-- =

> <(((=C2=B0> ceed

HARDFAIL("Not enough magic.")

[Dan C]

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:23:00 -0600, ceed wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:09:51 -0600, Andy <***@invalid> wrote:
>
>> ceed wrote:
>>
>>> I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good as deb
>>> ones. Why is that?
>>
>> I've no idea.
>>
>> It's complete nonsense, however.
>
> It's been said by someone regularily posting in this group, and it was
> not opposed. The reason I brought it up is that I have seen the same in
> other places also lately.

Translation: Trolling. He brought it up to start another shitstorm
argument about which is "better". A classic, textbook troll move.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he garotted another passing Liberal.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

[Andy]

Dan C wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:23:00 -0600, ceed wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:09:51 -0600, Andy <***@invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> ceed wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good as deb
>>>> ones. Why is that?
>>>
>>> I've no idea.
>>>
>>> It's complete nonsense, however.
>>
>> It's been said by someone regularily posting in this group, and it was
>> not opposed. The reason I brought it up is that I have seen the same in
>> other places also lately.
>
> Translation: Trolling. He brought it up to start another shitstorm
> argument about which is "better". A classic, textbook troll move.

Oops. The subject line should've given it away immediately.

I eagerly await the thread devolving into how difficult it is to get
stupid proprietary audio formats working.

--
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
XPN 1.2.6 <-> Leafnode 1.11.7.rc1 | Kernel 2.6.30.9-generic

[ceed]

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:47:53 -0600, Andy <***@invalid> wrote:

> Dan C wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:23:00 -0600, ceed wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:09:51 -0600, Andy <***@invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ceed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good as de=
b
>>>>> ones. Why is that?
>>>>
>>>> I've no idea.
>>>>
>>>> It's complete nonsense, however.
>>>
>>> It's been said by someone regularily posting in this group, and it w=
as
>>> not opposed. The reason I brought it up is that I have seen the same=
in
>>> other places also lately.
>>
>> Translation: Trolling. He brought it up to start another shitstorm
>> argument about which is "better". A classic, textbook troll move.

No, the post I am talking about it came as a comment. It was not trollin=
g =

at all.
>
> Oops. The subject line should've given it away immediately.

Given what away exactly?
>
> I eagerly await the thread devolving into how difficult it is to get
> stupid proprietary audio formats working.
>
Why would it? For me it was about getting some insight into why deb base=
d =

distros by some are deemed superior. I have already chosen my distros, b=
ut =

have used both.

-- =

> <(((=C2=B0> ceed

HARDFAIL("Not enough magic.")

[Dan C]

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:40:09 -0600, ceed wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:47:53 -0600, Andy <***@invalid> wrote:
>
>> Dan C wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:23:00 -0600, ceed wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:09:51 -0600, Andy <***@invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ceed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good as deb
>>>>>> ones. Why is that?
>>>>>
>>>>> I've no idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's complete nonsense, however.
>>>>
>>>> It's been said by someone regularily posting in this group, and it
>>>> was not opposed. The reason I brought it up is that I have seen the
>>>> same in other places also lately.
>>>
>>> Translation: Trolling. He brought it up to start another shitstorm
>>> argument about which is "better". A classic, textbook troll move.
>
> No, the post I am talking about it came as a comment. It was not
> trolling at all.
>>
>> Oops. The subject line should've given it away immediately.
>
> Given what away exactly?
>>
>> I eagerly await the thread devolving into how difficult it is to get
>> stupid proprietary audio formats working.
>>
> Why would it? For me it was about getting some insight into why deb
> based distros by some are deemed superior. I have already chosen my
> distros, but have used both.

Who do you think you're bullshitting, troll? This thread was an
*obvious* attempt at creating a shitstorm over Fed vs Ub, and you know it
as well as I do. Quit trying to pretend you're the innocent victim.
You're a fucking troll, and not even a good one. Bugger off.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he garotted another passing Liberal.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 11/19/2009 09:40 AM, ceed wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:47:53 -0600, Andy <***@invalid> wrote:
>
>> Dan C wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:23:00 -0600, ceed wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:09:51 -0600, Andy <***@invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ceed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good as deb
>>>>>> ones. Why is that?
>>>>>
>>>>> I've no idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's complete nonsense, however.
>>>>
>>>> It's been said by someone regularily posting in this group, and it was
>>>> not opposed. The reason I brought it up is that I have seen the same in
>>>> other places also lately.
>>>
>>> Translation: Trolling. He brought it up to start another shitstorm
>>> argument about which is "better". A classic, textbook troll move.
>
> No, the post I am talking about it came as a comment. It was not
> trolling at all.
>>
>> Oops. The subject line should've given it away immediately.
>
> Given what away exactly?
>>
>> I eagerly await the thread devolving into how difficult it is to get
>> stupid proprietary audio formats working.
>>
> Why would it? For me it was about getting some insight into why deb
> based distros by some are deemed superior. I have already chosen my
> distros, but have used both.
>
I use both and like both. My workhorse machine has Fedora on it. My
netbook has Ubuntu.

There are some differences in packages and also the esoteric "Logical
Volume Management" (whatever that means) thingy that Fedora uses.

When you fresh install each distro you will notice differences in things
as subtle as how you download and install Flash.

For disk partitioning I prefer booting into Ubuntu LiveCD and using
GParted over Fedora's LVM.

[Joe]

On 2009-11-20, *Hemidactylus* <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/19/2009 09:40 AM, ceed wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:47:53 -0600, Andy <***@invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Dan C wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:23:00 -0600, ceed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:09:51 -0600, Andy <***@invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ceed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good as deb
>>>>>>> ones. Why is that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've no idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's complete nonsense, however.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's been said by someone regularily posting in this group, and it was
>>>>> not opposed. The reason I brought it up is that I have seen the same in
>>>>> other places also lately.
>>>>
>>>> Translation: Trolling. He brought it up to start another shitstorm
>>>> argument about which is "better". A classic, textbook troll move.
>>
>> No, the post I am talking about it came as a comment. It was not
>> trolling at all.
>>>
>>> Oops. The subject line should've given it away immediately.
>>
>> Given what away exactly?
>>>
>>> I eagerly await the thread devolving into how difficult it is to get
>>> stupid proprietary audio formats working.
>>>
>> Why would it? For me it was about getting some insight into why deb
>> based distros by some are deemed superior. I have already chosen my
>> distros, but have used both.
>>
> I use both and like both. My workhorse machine has Fedora on it. My
> netbook has Ubuntu.
>
> There are some differences in packages and also the esoteric "Logical
> Volume Management" (whatever that means) thingy that Fedora uses.
>
> When you fresh install each distro you will notice differences in things
> as subtle as how you download and install Flash.
>
> For disk partitioning I prefer booting into Ubuntu LiveCD and using
> GParted over Fedora's LVM.

LVM is not a Fedora trait. It is a Linux Volume Management system,
and is available under Ubuntu, as well. It has many advantages, which
is why the Fedora team opted to default to using it.

--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 11/20/2009 07:07 PM, Joe wrote:
> On 2009-11-20, *Hemidactylus*<***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/19/2009 09:40 AM, ceed wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:47:53 -0600, Andy<***@invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dan C wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:23:00 -0600, ceed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:09:51 -0600, Andy<***@invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ceed wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good as deb
>>>>>>>> ones. Why is that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've no idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's complete nonsense, however.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been said by someone regularily posting in this group, and it was
>>>>>> not opposed. The reason I brought it up is that I have seen the same in
>>>>>> other places also lately.
>>>>>
>>>>> Translation: Trolling. He brought it up to start another shitstorm
>>>>> argument about which is "better". A classic, textbook troll move.
>>>
>>> No, the post I am talking about it came as a comment. It was not
>>> trolling at all.
>>>>
>>>> Oops. The subject line should've given it away immediately.
>>>
>>> Given what away exactly?
>>>>
>>>> I eagerly await the thread devolving into how difficult it is to get
>>>> stupid proprietary audio formats working.
>>>>
>>> Why would it? For me it was about getting some insight into why deb
>>> based distros by some are deemed superior. I have already chosen my
>>> distros, but have used both.
>>>
>> I use both and like both. My workhorse machine has Fedora on it. My
>> netbook has Ubuntu.
>>
>> There are some differences in packages and also the esoteric "Logical
>> Volume Management" (whatever that means) thingy that Fedora uses.
>>
>> When you fresh install each distro you will notice differences in things
>> as subtle as how you download and install Flash.
>>
>> For disk partitioning I prefer booting into Ubuntu LiveCD and using
>> GParted over Fedora's LVM.
>
> LVM is not a Fedora trait. It is a Linux Volume Management system,
> and is available under Ubuntu, as well. It has many advantages, which
> is why the Fedora team opted to default to using it.
>
I haven't figured it out yet, which is why I opted for GParted via an
Ubuntu Live disc to wipe this drive before installing Fed12 on it.

There's some differences between Ub and Fed that I notice when it comes
to installing stuff from repos and websites, but I always deal with them
as they come and haven't bothered to catalog them, so I forget the
details. They certainly aren't the same. Even the placement of stuff on
menus differs a bit.

I just spent an annoying amount of time getting a clock setting conflict
issue figured out between Fedora 12 and Win7 on my dual boot. Everything
else went smoothly, but that really sucked. Kept causing a 4 hour
discrepancy between the Fedora clock and Windows clock. Some UTC thing
that comes up during install. I finally unchecked the box and solved it
(I think).

I HATE trying to figure out what anti-malware tools to use in Windows.
Linux has spoiled me rotten. Reading reviews on cnet.com made me wonder
if the reviews are locked in a battle of advocates and FUD-trolls (and
hapless dimwits). At least I've got the Windows Media Player, so I won't
have to worry about frickin codecs! And I'd not disgrace a Linux system
with some Win-friendly virtualization app.



--
~it ends here~
*Hemidactylus*

[Andy]

On 11/19/2009 09:40 AM, ceed wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:47:53 -0600, Andy <***@invalid> wrote:
>
>> Dan C wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:23:00 -0600, ceed wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:09:51 -0600, Andy <***@invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ceed wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good as deb
>>>>>> ones. Why is that?
>>>>>
>>>>> I've no idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's complete nonsense, however.
>>>>
>>>> It's been said by someone regularily posting in this group, and it was
>>>> not opposed. The reason I brought it up is that I have seen the same in
>>>> other places also lately.
>>>
>>> Translation: Trolling. He brought it up to start another shitstorm
>>> argument about which is "better". A classic, textbook troll move.
>
> No, the post I am talking about it came as a comment. It was not
> trolling at all.
>>
>> Oops. The subject line should've given it away immediately.
>
> Given what away exactly?

The troll.

By your logic, OpenSolaris is just like Fedora as it uses the same
GNOME default desktop, with a blue background by default.

--
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
XPN 1.2.6 <-> Leafnode 1.11.7.rc1 | Kernel 2.6.30.9-generic

[Harold Stevens]

In <9tuft6-***@unique_and_different_just_like_everyone_else.westnet.com.au>,
Andy:

[Snip...]

> subject line should've given it away immediately

Indeed. Threaded straight to the bozobin from gitgo, for my part.

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
I toss GoogleGroup (http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 11/18/2009 10:08 AM, ceed wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I ran the new Fedora 12 live CD last night. When the desktop came up it
> looked like a blue Ubuntu. Most of the controls and applications in the
> default start menu are also the same. Gnome has come a long way and is
> able to put a UI on a distro which is very similar across distros.
> However, I've heard said that a rpm based distro can never be as good as
> deb ones. Why is that? I didn't look too much under the hood of Fedora
> 12, but if someone had told me Fedora now is based on Ubuntu I would not
> have protested.
>
I'm running Fedora 12 on this machine and Karmic NBR on my netbook. They
are definitely different. Does Fedora have anything equivalent to the
UNR? Does Fedora 12 work well on netbooks? After problems trying a
previous version on my AAO, I'd hesitate to go there again.

OpenSUSE works great on a netbook. Compiz even does that cool cube twirl
between workspaces.

I'd hazard that Fedora is closer to OpenSUSE than Fedora as they are rpm
based, though the former uses YUM and the latter YaST. The Gnome look of
Open SUSE is different as there's only a single panel at the bottom.

Also there's a workaround for getting Ubuntu to work with Poulsbo's GMA
500. Not so sure about Fedora (or OpenSUSE).



--
~it ends here~
*Hemidactylus*

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 11/22/2009 12:14 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
[snip to correct error]
>
> I'd hazard that Fedora is closer to OpenSUSE than Fedora as they are rpm
> based, though the former uses YUM and the latter YaST. The Gnome look of
> Open SUSE is different as there's only a single panel at the bottom.
>
>
I meant that Fedora is closer to OpenSUSE than to Ubuntu...sorry. Oops :-)




--
~it ends here~
*Hemidactylus*