I am really sick of Windows

[Nothinman]

YUM was much slower than APT and now is only a bit slower than APT, yet that doesn't mean YUM doesn't have it's own advantages over APT too.
And if someone likes APT so much they can have that on Fedora right next to YUM and in addiiton to Synaptics package manager if they like.

The fact that yum is done in python means that it will always be much slower than APT which is done in C++. It may have gotten faster over time but it'll always feel like a snail to someone who's used to APT. The only thing I can of that YUM has that could be considered an advantage is the localinstall option and that's not very useful on Debian or Ubuntu since just about everything is already in the repositories.

And I love how yum-updatesd will sit there in the background eating 100% CPU for almost 5 minutes after booting up when there's a decent number of updates available. So if you try to run the GUI update tool or yum from the cli yourself it'll fail since the yum database (or whatever it uses) is already locked.

Why not? Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

Depends on whether you like being a guinea pig or not I guess.

 

[DarkThinker]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

YUM was much slower than APT and now is only a bit slower than APT, yet that doesn't mean YUM doesn't have it's own advantages over APT too.
And if someone likes APT so much they can have that on Fedora right next to YUM and in addiiton to Synaptics package manager if they like.

The fact that yum is done in python means that it will always be much slower than APT which is done in C++. It may have gotten faster over time but it'll always feel like a snail to someone who's used to APT. The only thing I can of that YUM has that could be considered an advantage is the localinstall option and that's not very useful on Debian or Ubuntu since just about everything is already in the repositories.

And I love how yum-updatesd will sit there in the background eating 100% CPU for almost 5 minutes after booting up when there's a decent number of updates available. So if you try to run the GUI update tool or yum from the cli yourself it'll fail since the yum database (or whatever it uses) is already locked.

Why not? Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

Depends on whether you like being a guinea pig or not I guess.

That is such a biased point of view Nothinman, I expected a more open minded approach from a person like you. RedHat is a leading company in it's field, it's software is used in critical operations and it's one of the main contributor to the Linux kernel, why shouldn't they allow users of Fedora test out technologies Red Hat intends to deploy in the future for?
Last time I checked users for the most part can select what to use and what not to use, those who think SELINUX is some kind of unethical lab experiment can go ahead and drop it I don't see where the big deal is.
And I can say that Ubuntu users are guinea pigs that Mark Shuttleworth experiments around with in his search for the next big mone maker but that doesn't make it valid does it?

 

[drag]

The fact that yum is done in python means that it will always be much slower than APT which is done in C++. It may have gotten faster over time but it'll always feel like a snail to someone who's used to APT.

Actually I don't think that python has anything to do with it. At least much. If it was written in C++ it would still be slow.

When I run a yum command like 'yum search cow', it takes over 46 seconds to run on this computer. (600mhz computer, 256megs, 5400 rpm drive.) Keep in mind that this is also after repeated runs. Out of that the CPU was only used at full capacity for 6-8 seconds.

Which means that if it was written in C++ it would only realy be able to knock 4-5 seconds off the total run time, assuming that Python is a 100% slower then C++.

The slowness of Yum as to do with how its's designed and how it spends all its time shuffling around big files stored on the harddrive. It's spending 85% of it's time waiting on I/O...

 

[M00T]

Originally posted by: DarkThinker
That is such a biased point of view Nothinman, I expected a more open minded approach from a person like you. RedHat is a leading company in it's field, it's software is used in critical operations and it's one of the main contributor to the Linux kernel, why shouldn't they allow users of Fedora test out technologies Red Hat intends to deploy in the future for?
Last time I checked users for the most part can select what to use and what not to use, those who think SELINUX is some kind of unethical lab experiment can go ahead and drop it I don't see where the big deal is.
And I can say that Ubuntu users are guinea pigs that Mark Shuttleworth experiments around with in his search for the next big mone maker but that doesn't make it valid does it?

Are you a redhat salesperson or something?

 

[M00T]

Originally posted by: DarkThinker

Originally posted by: M00T
Bleeding edge? That's gentoo, hands down.

Stability, ease of use and moderately new packages... ubuntu.

What do I hear, you don't agree?
Let the flame wars begin!!!!


j/k

I don't disagree that fedora has newer packages, but if that's your only selling point... why not go all the way with Gentoo?

"Newer is better" is a Microsoft mentality. "What works, works" is the *nix mentality, and the reason I stick with an apt based distro.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: drag
Fedora has more things like better SELinux support, stateless Linux, Fedora LDAP server, and other things like that.

It depends on the sort of stuff your looking for.

Plus I think that from Reviews I've heard Fedora has done a lot to make their system fast, but I don't know that for a fact.

Is Fedora Directory Server really any better, or any functionally different, than OpenLDAP?

 

[Nothinman]

That is such a biased point of view Nothinman, I expected a more open minded approach from a person like you.

I tried really hard to like Fedora back when they started but they blew it in virtually every aspect IMO. Lots of little things that create frustration and add up like choosing YUM over APT even though APT was working fine with RPMs back then, the Xen management tools pretty much require kickstart for deployment and only supporting like 1/100th of the packages that Debian does forcing users to resort to 3rd party repos of varying quality.

And I just booted up a FC6 VM I haven't used in a few months and after ~5 minutes it tool me there was around 500 updates available so I told it to install them only to be presented with a python backtrace because it couldn't find the package it wanted to download on any of the mirrors. Just to be sure it wasn't a problem with pup I tried yum from the cli and got the same crap, not exactly encouraging if you ask me.

Although I do like the fact that FC pushes things like SELinux and Xen out there onto their users because it does help iron out the big issues before the rest of us dive in. =)

And I can say that Ubuntu users are guinea pigs that Mark Shuttleworth experiments around with in his search for the next big mone maker but that doesn't make it valid does it?

In that respect everyone using software with some sort of commercial backing is a guinea pig.

Actually I don't think that python has anything to do with it. At least much. If it was written in C++ it would still be slow.

It definitely affects startup time and memory usage and not in a good way.

The slowness of Yum as to do with how its's designed and how it spends all its time shuffling around big files stored on the harddrive. It's spending 85% of it's time waiting on I/O...

Actually unless they changed the layout of the metadata it's spending a lot of time shuffling around thousands of little files.

Is Fedora Directory Server really any better, or any functionally different, than OpenLDAP?

It's the old Netscape Directory Server that RH bought and GPL'd IIRC. So the server software itself is probably about the same but the management tools should be a lot better.

 

[Leros]

My phone shows up as a USB dial up modem when I plug it in via USB.

 

[gizbug]

Will ubuntu run games like Command and Conquer 3 or World of Warcraft? Or do we have to stick with Microsoft for that?

 

[ObscureCaucasian]

You might be able to get WoW to work, theres an OSX version.

 

[Nothinman]

Will ubuntu run games like Command and Conquer 3 or World of Warcraft? Or do we have to stick with Microsoft for that?

I know people who play WoW via WINE but I don't know about C&C3.

You might be able to get WoW to work, theres an OSX version.

Actually the Windows version would likely work better since OS X doesn't use X and AFAIK there's no compatibility or translation layers for Apples proprietary windowing crap.

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: gizbug
Will ubuntu run games like Command and Conquer 3 or World of Warcraft? Or do we have to stick with Microsoft for that?

I've run WoW under Ubuntu, and back when I used to play WoW hardcore, several people at my guild also ran it on different distros with WINE and it ran great, almost indistinguishably from Windows.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: DarkThinker
Right.... and last time I tried to install a stable Ubuntu it failed to install on 7 different systems which is one of the main reasons I went with Fedora back then and now I still like it more, but that doesn't make my argument worth much does it?
And how is Fedora bloated I don't get it?

Ubuntu has yet to fail me on any box I've tried it, but I hate laptops, and those tend to be the most problematic computers, so I haven't really had any troubles with any distro in terms of installation
As for bloat, they have(or used to have, like I said, been a while) too much of a everything-but-the-kitchen-sink attitude.
Basically, to me FC has been to Ubuntu what Redhat was to Debian before Ubuntu/FC existed, and I stuck with Debian back then as well

Originally posted by: DarkThinker
YUM was much slower than APT and now is only a bit slower than APT, yet that doesn't mean YUM doesn't have it's own advantages over APT too.
And if someone likes APT so much they can have that on Fedora right next to YUM and in addiiton to Synaptics package manager if they like.

It wouldn't hurt you to give Fedora 7's live cd / install cd a shot and update that info of your's a bit

Well, the application itself was slow, I guess I could live with that, but(and yes, I know this isn't directly YUM's fault, but it affects me nevertheless) the repos are horribly slow as well.
With APT I get stable downloads in the 5-8 MB/Sec range, pulling an entire dist-upgrade of a well packed system takes me a matter of minutes with Debian or Ubuntu.
With FC I was generally happy to break a couple of hundred KB/Sec.

Anyways, I'm a happy camper with Debian/Ubuntu, might give FC a shot in the future if I decide to install some new box though

 

[Hyperblaze]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze
Just to change the tune a bit, I'd recommend Fedora Core.

Why FC over Ubuntu? I tried both when I started using Linux and IMO Ubuntu is better simply because apt is better (faster) than yum.

As you mentioned, that's your opinion.

I don't like the debian/ubuntu/kubuntu package manager. I've used it in the past, just don't like it.

I prefer FC. Has more packages available. I also like the "service" service in FC.

It's all Linux. We all just have various different preferences. Does that make it wrong to have different opinions? No.

However, with a bunch of folks recommending ubuntu/kubuntu up above me, I felt the need to mention another one. Just so that the OP doesn't think ubuntu/kubuntu is the end all, be all of linux distros. You might think it is, but I don't

 

[Nothinman]

I prefer FC. Has more packages available.

Since when does FC have more than 18,000 packages in their main repo?

I also like the "service" service in FC.

I take it you mean the service command to restart services? If so that's in the sysvconfig package in Debian.