Thread: yum vs. apt-get

I was using yum on FC8, but lately it started to fail.
It will just search and try connecting to repositories recursively and then error out saying it did not find the package
Some times it fails to resolve dependencies, and with a lot of troubleshooting done

Has anyone experienced issues with apt-get on Ubuntu ?

Hi,

I've been using Ubuntu for nearly 15 months. Never faced this kind of problem.

However I've faced different issues with apt-get.

• One in downloading speed. It (apt-get) used to download at 2KBytes/sec. Otherwise, it gives me full downloading speed, ie 2Mbps/8=256KBps, most of the time.
• The other is when I download and install conflicting packages. For example, I couldn't keep Tomboy and WikiPad together. I had to remove one.

At the same time, let me recall that these issues are only occasional, not regular problems.

- Pothi.

From your experience (and others) i think apt-get has far less issues than yum.
I mean to say functional issues (properly resolving dependencies and be able to download packages right)
I've totally given up on yum (FC 8)... with a lot of troubleshooting done, it is totally messed up.
Only option i havent tried is to remove yum and install it again using the FC8 dvd...

Has anybody faced similar issues with yum ?

I never faced any such issue may be coz i never try to install 2 packs at same time, today morning i installed many applications, but one by one

I have not experienced ubuntu

Currently apt-get is no1, yum is no2 (by just a hairline fraction from No 3, 4 and 5), then smart (pm), then rpmdrake, then zypper, then entropy, then portage, then pacman, then slapt-get, then others.
Just like apt-get is in both ubuntu and pclinuxos, there is yum for ubuntu too -- for which one can download the yumex gui as source code, compile and use in ubuntu too.
However, my personal view is: yum should not be used in deb os unless and until its mode be changed from an rpm file to a deb file via an alien wrapper bridge.
The apt-get, (unlike the yum) is superior in being able to adapt to both a deb os (ubuntu, debian) as well as an rpm os (pclinuxos) -- because the apt-get connects with the intermediate installer -- dpkg and rpm, whereas the yum directly uses the installer file -- rpm (and hopefully deb too via an alien-wrapper-bridge in future) -- plus at the same time yum also requires the rpm (/dpkg) installer's instructions too.

That also makes the apt-get (and hence also synaptic) adaptable to adjust to not only the dpkg-installer and rpm-installer, but other too such as may even as a higher-control-layer on the msiexec/installshield+regedit for windows too -- but so far no one has tried.
So it is more preferable if the yum be made interactive with the installer (rpm/dpkg) rather than the file itself (rpm/deb) so that it can compete with apt-get in a more equal-footing way.

However for ubuntu, one should preferrably use the one-by-one-step-installer in ubuntu-software-installer instead of the bulk-installer in synaptic+apt-get especially if powercuts are more.

The best examples of yum and smart are caosnsa, centos and yellowdog.
The reason of a huge gap between No1 and No2 is due to something known as the rpm-dependency-hell, which is slowly and slowly resolved in the form of different types of solutions such as yum/smart (centos/redhat/nsa), zypper (novelle) and rpmdrake (mandriva).
As much as the apt-get has expanded utility from deb to rpm (pclinuxos), there is also effort of these other four from rpm to deb (ubuntu), out of which the yum and smart appears to be the first ones to lead, followed by rpmdrake.
compatibility options: yum and smart are compatible in caosnsa-linux, whereas the other pair type combinations, etc are all least compatible as on now.
I've also used yum to try installing some applications in ubuntu after alien-conversion of deb into rpm, but it prefers direct downloading and installing of rpms from rpm repository instead of utilizing the available deb2rpm converted ones existing under its /var/cache/yum. They do not crash the apt-get, but it is better to remove these softwares with the same yum and reinstall with apt-get.
Regarding yum's front-ends, yumex should be first copied under /usr/bin or /usr/share/bin before source code compilation and installation. Yumex was found to run in ubuntu without much problems if python2.5 or 3.0 are properly configured (but python2.6 has got some buggy issues, whereas python2.4 is a border case between ok and deprecated).
However the second front-end of yum known as Pirut directly crashes the login manager's user-loggability which I observed in LinuxMint Xfce.
Whatever it is, yumex+yum is soon growing into the shoes of synaptic+apt-get and maybe in future, become equally good.

If you are looking for yum's power, then: the best performing yumex+yum based rpm os are currently caosnsa and centos (x86/amd64)/yellowdog (ppc).

rhel uses autonomous package manager upon which the yum replaced to bring fedora.
fedora's inclusion of both pirut+yum and synaptic+apt-get suggests a superset of both centos and pclinuxos, but its performance is slower -- but maybe things might change later.

if both pirut (yum) and synaptic (apt-get) are alternatively used for software installations, then it can lead to different problems depending on the software-pairs which mismatch the checksums.

overall:
ubuntu>pclinuxos>caosnsa==centos==yellowdog==opens use==mandriva>sabayon==gentoo>others