Re: [Hampshire] Xorg is hungry today...

> Just to be clear, it *was* the case many years ago. At the time when
> the then current documentation and accepted recommended method of
> installing software in a RedHat based system was to use rpm directly,
> Debian was using apt.

It doesn't matter whether it was or was not. It is no longer the case.
Perpetuating the myth is every bit as bad as claiming that Linux is
command-line only (which used to be true), that it has abysmal driver
support (which also used to be true), that you have to recompile
everything from source yourself (also once true), that the number of users
is in single digits, ...

What was true in the past is the past, even if we accept your version of
it (I still don't, having been doing something similar at a similar time).
Attempting to pretend that it is still true in the present is an example
of ignorance, malice, or both.

> Therefore it does make sense to compare the two in that historical
> context.

We're not doing historical contexts. We're talking about the state of
package management. If you want to do a history class, this sort of
discussion would be an irrelevant place to try it.

> I would say that it is ignorant to not accept that rpm based distroes
> have had to catch up with Debian based ones with regards to package
> management.

Who has said anything of the sort?

This isn't about what happened in the past. This is about the current
state of play. Pretending that we're still in 1995 doesn't help anyone.

> If they did not have to catch up, why did they introduce
> yum?

apt was introduced before yum. Why was yum introduced? Because someone
didn't like apt.

> Maybe now they have caught up, and for some, maybe they have
> surpassed. It is good to learn from history, but to be fair to you, we
> also need to learn from the present, and that is why I suggested a
> compare and contrast session. Not as a, 'mine is better than yours'
> but as a method of knocking down old walls and removing some bias
> where it is not warranted.

And I haven't disagreed with that point. What I've argued with is that
certain people have presented their opinion of past history as present
fact. And that's not right.

Vic.