Slashdot Mirror
New Community-Run RPM-based Distribution
KainX writes "As an alternative to the Red Hat-controlled Fedora project, the community-led cAos Foundation decided to create a fully community-built, community-controlled, RPM-based distribution whose foundation would be a self-hosting, self-sufficient core with a 3-5 year support lifetime. The first stable, production-worthy core has now been officially released! Download an ISO from a mirror and try it out."
No problem if they're trying to scratch their itch, but seriously, why is this needed? There are plenty of alternatives to redhat and more than enough community-based distributions - debian and most of its derivatives for starters. Why would they choose to go with rpm?
I am trolling
Its stupid. I'm all for diversity, but all we hear about is "XYZ Linux has been released. It is based on ABC, which is in turn based on foobarfish." Its absolute crap. I'm sorry, but It's got to the point where the diversity is leading to a smattering of good developers being on each distribution, rather than have 5 or 6 *really good* distributions, with a load of awesome developers helping it get better.
Sort it out!
Yeah, it's neat and Hacker-cool, but don't make me write a proposal recommending the installation of a distro pronounced "Chaos". Even if I really wanted to use it, I just couldn't.
Does it suck that middle managers make decisions around these things without strong rationale? Yes.
Is that the way things work? Yes.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Why do you think there are so many DEB based distros out there today? Because Debian is free? So is Fedora, isn't it? Maybe it's the packaging is better than RPM.
Why do you think there are so many RPM based distros out there today? Because Fedora is free? So is Debian, isn't it? Maybe it's(sic) the packaging is better than DEB.
Why are all the RPM based distros shipping with their own cobbled version of apt-get?
How is RPM based apt-get cobbled? Please explain.
Why didn't Gentoo use RPM?
Gentoo didn't use DEB, either. Your point?
Slackware still isn't RPM based and they are doing well enough thank you.
Slackware was around long before RPM. Again, your point?
As a general rule the strength or weakness of the distributions packages has less to do with the package file format, and more to do with the tender loving care devoted to each package in terms of specifing all of it'd dependencies, what it obsoletes, what functionality it provides.
There are some packages that are a pain in the ass in RPM format (RedHat's BIND/named packages jump to mind). Not having used a .deb based distro I long term, I don't know of any historically badly packaged applications from Debian.
As a general rule, I haven't had any serious problems with RPM's in years. They work just as well as any others. I use almost exclusively from RedHat (I do use a handful from freshrpms and Dag). They work just fine. Especially since I started using yum, it's generally a command line to update my system. So stop using the "Chewbakka Offense", and actually be specific. I've seen you make several posts that just assume that it's mathematically proven that RPM's are incapable of caputing the esscense of package management. I'm unaware of it's deficiencies.
Kirby
but I think that developers have decided that RPM is better... at least easier to distribute their apps in.
I don't think it has a damn thing to do with developers deciding "RPM is better". It has a lot more to do with how popular RPM is. More people run Redhat than Debian, or DEB-based distros, and the people who run Debian (mostly) are more likely to figure out how to add an RPM than Redhat users are to add a DEB.
Millions of Win32 developers around the world aren't developing for Windows because it's better (some are, but most have better perception than that).