details on some of mageia's goals

[roti]

Hi to evenyone and congrats on the release of Mageia 1.

I am writing this post with high hopes, that mageia is, or will turn into the distro that I am looking for. I haven't tried it yet, but I will very soon. I also had no experience al all with Mandriva (I used Mandrake for half a year in 2002, or 2003, but that doesn't count), so I don't know what to expect. I'd like to ask some questions about the things that count for me. Thanks for reading and replying to this post.

1/ the package manager: How well does the package manager handle upgrades?
So far, the star in the business seems to be debian's apt-get, with some also including arch linux's pacman in this category. I tried them both and found they do what I expect. If there weren't other things that I can't accept, I would have stayed with these distros.
I want to install the system once and upgrade forever, therefore I need a strong package manager. It should to handle (pretty) well transitions to new versions of software (keep configurations, etc.). It should handle transition to new software that replaces the old software (for ex. network-manager was replaced with wicd). I should handle droped packages.
I don't expect urpmi to be "as good as apt-get". I also don't expect to do things in the same way (btw. I find apt-get a little bit overdesigned, at least from the small corner I'm looking from), but I'm looking a clear statement from the developer team that this is their goal.

2/my system is desktop/laptop. And it's a tool.
I'm a heavy desktop/laptop user. I'm technical allright, and can manage my own system pretty well, and also can build a very custom one that's 100% tailored to my needs. But I don't want to. I don't have time for this. The desktop/laptop is a tool, and should not ask for my attention. It should manage itself and ask me only for the big decisions.
So far, Arch Linux has come closest to my needs so far, but fails me in this respect. The classic metaphor used by the arch guys, is "Arch is a linux for those who like to look under the hood of their car, and not just plug the keys and turn the motor on". I'm from the latter category, currently using arch and unhappy about the fact that "looking under the hood is mandatory, not optional".

3/applications in central repository
And finally, the most important thing: applications. This is probably standard nowadays, but I want to emphasize it: they should be available in one (or many) repositories. For two reasons:
- easy installation: just open the package manager, search for your app and click install
- automatic upgrade: when Libreoffice releases a new version or patch, it gets to my system without effort from my side (well, maybe a confirmation, that I really want the new version/patch)

4/applications released independently of OS
OS should be stable, and release cycles can be long. But for apps I don't think the same policy should apply. I like to have my apps as fresh as possible, even when this means some new bugs. This is a tricky thing to achieve, I know. But it has be on my list.

Cheers,
Razvan

[roti]

( no answer from anybody?
does somebody know where I can find answers to my questions? thanks.

[wobo]

1/ the package manager: How well does the package manager handle upgrades?

Well. The principle is the same as apt, just different commands.

2/my system is desktop/laptop. And it's a tool.

Use it. The amount of "care" depends on the usage. If you stick to the standard there's next to nothing to do for you.

3/applications in central repository
And finally, the most important thing: applications. This is probably standard nowadays, but I want to emphasize it: they should be available in one (or many) repositories. For two reasons:
- easy installation: just open the package manager, search for your app and click install
- automatic upgrade: when Libreoffice releases a new version or patch, it gets to my system without effort from my side (well, maybe a confirmation, that I really want the new version/patch)

All applications are in a repository with different branches (core, non-free, tainted). Your first point is met by the system. As for Updates you want to read http://blog.mageia.org/en/2011/06/26/%e ... ore-oh-my/
In short: whether (and how fast) a new version comes to your system depends on the contribution and collaboration of the community. Don't expect large updates (like LibreOffice or Firefox or KDE) to be available the next day.

So, what have you learned from my answers? Not much. That's why replies to such questions come reluctantly.
Try and experience the system and then decide for yourself.

[roti]

What do you mean by "stick to the standard"?

[wobo]

What do you mean by "stick to the standard"?

Well, if you have standard (aka often sold) hardware and standard (aka main stream) software usage, you have next to no time consuming caretaking to do. Translate that into: if you want to run your Ferrari on the street, just hop in and pedal-to-the-metal. If you want to run it on railway tracks you have to do some customizing. I can't answer that in general, it depends ont he individual task / situation. If you have some special hardwar, list it here and people could possibly tell you if it works or not. Same for special tasks besides average usage of a home computer.

[roti]

Well, if you have standard (aka often sold) hardware and standard (aka main stream) software usage, you have next to no time consuming caretaking to do. Translate that into: if you want to run your Ferrari on the street, just hop in and pedal-to-the-metal. If you want to run it on railway tracks you have to do some customizing. I can't answer that in general, it depends ont he individual task / situation. If you have some special hardwar, list it here and people could possibly tell you if it works or not. Same for special tasks besides average usage of a home computer.

Thanks. I understand now.

Well. The principle is the same as apt, just different commands.

It is said that apt-get is "the best package manager out there". I did not understand why, but I assume it's strength is how well it handles upgrades (transition to new packages, configuration updates, etc.). Do you know anything about that?

[wobo]

Verdicts like "this is the best.... out there" are mostly based on individual taste, habits, etc. Somebody who started with Ubuntu or Debian will always regard apt-get as the best there is. Another user who started out with Mandriva will obviously rely on urpmi. Others favor portage systems, etc. I never give much on such judgements. As for urpmi and apt-get, both have their strong points, I do not see one ahead of the other.

The strength of both package managers are the multiple options for installing, removing, updating, handling dependencies, queries, etc.