On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 09:17 -0400, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 09/01/2015 05:59 PM, Xen wrote:
I will say again that the update process in Kubuntu is easier and faster,
How is it easier and faster than "zypper up". It is one command. This reminds me of the old package manager wars; when, honestly, almost all package managers work pretty much the same way with different dressing. Don't missing dressing for fundamentals.
I talked about fundamentals in the other mail. It is hard to compare GUIs without going into details. Apt has three operations that are completely disjunct: update, upgrade and install. And dist-upgrade, which does something else entirely. They also run blazing fast because "install" won't run "update" it will assume you have already done that. As it stands the initialisation of zypper takes a long time. Same of Yast I guess. I find myself constantly waiting. What I haven't seen in Apt is the ability to easily make choices based on repos. I can do zypper dist-upgrade --from M17N and it will only do that. I have never encountered anything like that in Apt. I must say I don't like the Apt way of defining sources either. Finding other repos is easier with Yast.
I am getting used to rpm and zypper but it seems archaic and more difficult to use than apt and dpkg. Even the name "zypper" is not really pleasant.
I don't understand. They are almost 99.44% identical to using either of those tools. One could almost write a search-n-replace command translator.
Not really. You can't do (apparently) an "install" without fetching new internet data?. There is no command apparently for fetching the new repo data. Apart from that you're probably right. It just takes me longer to find the right commands. It is less intuitive. It's about the verbs and whether they are intutive. That is not dressing, that is core. Also, if the verbs of any wrapper you would write don't match the verbs of the underlying core, or vice versa, you cannot always perform the same (atomic) actions. That is probably not a big deal, it is just that zypper seems much slower than any apt thing I have ever used. I am astounded by its slowness. Seriously. You talk about getting coffee. But I'd like to get the thing done. Whenever I need to use Zypper, I take care to aggregate multiple packages, whereas with Apt there would not be any pain in executing single package commands. That probably results from its design as well, but I don't know. Heh. Trying to find a certain list of package without using grep. First attempt: zypper list Unknown command 'list' zypper packages "mysql*" Repository 'mysql*' not found by its alias, number, or URI. hmm. Oh. zypper search "mysql" .. required output. I don't think I would ever have a reason to display the full packages list like that, so "zypper packages" is useless without a repo behind it. It's like that blog post on Git: Useless command: git rebase What does it do? destroy history blindfolded Useful command: git rebase -i What does it do? Lets you rewrite the upstream history of a branch, choosing which commits to keep, squash, or ditch. ;-). But more to the point: To reset one file in your working directory to its committed state: git checkout file.txt To reset every file in your working directory to its committed state: git reset --hard Command inconsistencies ;-). ---- The problem with "zypper packages" is that it is not useful for listing (and it is not called "list") even though it says that that is its purpose. And you can't use it to easily filter. packages, pa List all available packages. Okay. So I need to use packages to list packages. Then I go and find the parameters to that. Oops, it can't. There is no filter that that command. So what lists a selection of packages? See, if the verbs were the same, then "zypper packages | grep mysql" would be the same or similar to "zypper packages "mysql*". In Linux we use filters to primary verbs. So to go on with the git example inconsistency: To list all packages: zypper packages To list a selection of packages: zypper search. That makes no sense. Now you have two different verbs for the same action. Further, the packages command is just a special kind of "zypper search -s -t package". It's like, to boot your computer: "boot" To boot your computer into linux "find kernel" Doesn't make sense. Further, "install" is a verb but "packages" is a noun. Actions should always be verbs. "install" designates clearly what it is going to /do/, but "packages" has no such indication whatsoever. a simple "list -r reponame" would do the same and be more understandable. So you see it is not about dressing but about the choice of actions and commands you support. In any case, there is no difference between "how it looks" and "what it does". In natural language more often used words become shorter, there is a reason for that. It is more effective. It is language design.
What does "apt" have to do with its function? If I heard the term "apt" I would think "appropriate", which doesn't help. Commands are just strings of characters.
Archive Package Tool. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org