It is probably a matter of what you are more used to, but I find the inconsistency of dpkg's options quite annoying and hard to remember, especially when compared to rpm. The main reason is that dpkg uses different options for package files and already installed packages.
With rpm, you only have to remember that "q" is for query and that "p" is used for querying package files. So if you want to list the contents of an installed package, it is "rpm -ql ", and "rpm -qpl " for the contents of a package file. "rpm -qi " shows info for an installed package, "rpm -qpi " shows the info for a package file.
With dpkg the options are "-L" and "-c" for contents of installed packages and package files, "-I" for info for a package file. The option for showing info for an installed package does not show up at the online help at all.
For me, the way rpm options are constructed is far easier to remember than dpkg's inconsistent options. Dpkg is imho a good example how to screw up a user interface. But as I said, it is probably a matter of what one is more used to.
The second disadvantage of the Debian package format against RPM is the way packages are built from source. Building your own RPM package is a breeze compared to doing the same thing in Debian.
Regarding apt and yum: I think the reason for your coworker's complaints is rather yum than rpm itself. While I totally agree that apt performs far better than yum, these are just the frontends to work with package repositories. The package formats and their basic tools dpkg and rpm are a different matter.
Rpm may need an overhaul, but certainly not in the direction of dpkg.
When was the last time you have used a Linux distribution? The ones I am currently using, including Debian, are capable of properly detecting the installed hardware and loading the appropriate modules. On Debian the service is called "discover", on Fedora it is "kudzu". No shotgun to be seen.
As root, the user can change to any other uid with "su" on the client. This way, he has access to all other user's files. "root_squash" is only relevant if the files in the exported directory belong to the root user. As the question was about home directories, "root_squash" does not help here.
Slashdot Mirror
It is probably a matter of what you are more used to, but I find the inconsistency of dpkg's options quite annoying and hard to remember, especially when compared to rpm. The main reason is that dpkg uses different options for package files and already installed packages. With rpm, you only have to remember that "q" is for query and that "p" is used for querying package files. So if you want to list the contents of an installed package, it is "rpm -ql ", and "rpm -qpl " for the contents of a package file. "rpm -qi " shows info for an installed package, "rpm -qpi " shows the info for a package file. With dpkg the options are "-L" and "-c" for contents of installed packages and package files, "-I" for info for a package file. The option for showing info for an installed package does not show up at the online help at all. For me, the way rpm options are constructed is far easier to remember than dpkg's inconsistent options. Dpkg is imho a good example how to screw up a user interface. But as I said, it is probably a matter of what one is more used to. The second disadvantage of the Debian package format against RPM is the way packages are built from source. Building your own RPM package is a breeze compared to doing the same thing in Debian. Regarding apt and yum: I think the reason for your coworker's complaints is rather yum than rpm itself. While I totally agree that apt performs far better than yum, these are just the frontends to work with package repositories. The package formats and their basic tools dpkg and rpm are a different matter. Rpm may need an overhaul, but certainly not in the direction of dpkg.
Maybe you should ask the people of New Orleans how happy they are about theirs.
Wasn't there a discussion about a draft to military service not too long ago?
Maybe if the US were more democratic and rational, then the world would not have so much of a problem leaving control of the net in their hands.
When was the last time you have used a Linux distribution? The ones I am currently using, including Debian, are capable of properly detecting the installed hardware and loading the appropriate modules. On Debian the service is called "discover", on Fedora it is "kudzu". No shotgun to be seen.
As root, the user can change to any other uid with "su" on the client. This way, he has access to all other user's files. "root_squash" is only relevant if the files in the exported directory belong to the root user. As the question was about home directories, "root_squash" does not help here.