[linux-elitists] Comprehensive list of Linux malware

Mike MacCana mmaccana@redhat.com
Thu Dec 9 22:55:49 PST 2004

Jim Thompson wrote:

> On Dec 9, 2004, at 4:46 PM, Mike MacCana wrote:
>>>> The technical advantages of rpm and deb over each other are minute. 
>>>> Most of what people like about one over the other is policy and 
>>>> tools that use them.
>>> s/rpm/vi/
>>> s/deb/emacs/
>> The fact that you can substitute words in my sentence doesn't prove 
>> your point.
> Just that its nearly the same argument, and what we're really 
> witnessing here is "baby duck syndrome".  The editor wars never prove 
> a point, either.

I'm not indulging in a packaging war - I'm actually saying they're 
unnecessary, as they're pretty much the same.
Vi and Emacs are sufficiently different from a design point of view (vi 
is a small editor that can be something you put into a larger program, 
emacs is the larger program consisting of many parts). RPM and Deb are not.

>> Of course, there'd be people who hate RPM anyway, cause of what the R 
>> once stood for, and the fact they used an ancient version of it with 
>> no dependency resolution tools and had a negative experience.
> Well, that was my experience.

Indeed, its a common one.

> More recently I tried FC2 on an old laptop, and it crawled.  up2date 
> crawled too.  Bleaah.  (And with Brian Chee living just over the hill, 
> its a little embarrassing to show up to the LUAU/HOSEF meetings and 
> have to rag on FCn.)
> Debian's apt has served me well.   I've got machines in colo that run 
> apt-cron and they stay nice and up-to-date (pun intended) with very 
> little
> attention.

True - up2date is slower than apt - OTOH it had some nifty features, 
like the ability to use a directory full of packages as a source, 
without having to create indexes). But that's besides the point. 
Apt-get, up2date, yum etc aren't rpm and deb. They're so similar well 
designed tools like apt can abstract them.

> however Debian sucks on a couple other fronts.  In particular, its 
> nearly impossible to make redboot build on it, because some lamer 
> decided to put
> TCL where s/he wanted to, rather than someplace ... special.    

Again, that's not a packaging system thing - highlighting my point from 
earlier that most people's complains are policies and tools that sit on 
top of the particular packaging system.

Debian is standards compliant - if it wasn't in the FHS annointed 
location, you should be able to file a bug against that package.


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list