[CentOS] Re: Why is yum not liked by some?

[Johnny Hughes]

On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 17:31 -0400, Edward Diener wrote:
> Todd Cary wrote:
> > I have seen messages posted on the Fedora oriented forums that imply 
> > that "yum" is  antiquated.  Not being a Linux guru, I do not have the 
> > experience to make a thorough evaluation, but so far it has been just 
> > great.
> 
> Unlike Linux gurus, for whom the rest of the user world is like themselves, 
> there are a great many users who like ease of use and graphical applications and 
> yum is strictly command line. I know yumex exists but it does not come 
> automatically installed when one installs CentOS ( nor does Synaptic for that 
> matter ). So perhaps yum would be more popular if yumex, or whatever is the 
> popular GUI front end for yum now, were also installed, and added to the menu 
> system, when CentOS is installed.
> 
> I have used both yumex and synaptic, and both have strengths and weaknesses. But 
> quite frankly I find Synaptic easier and clearer to use. I realize that for 
> experienced Linux users that argument holds no weight but for the casual Linux 
> desktop user it is very important.
> 

The reason apt and synaptic are not included in CentOS is that they do
not work with Multiple Library arches (that is basically all arches
except i386).

The reason yumex isn't included is that it sucks.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050910/fe7ea215/attachment.sig>