Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 72

Thread: Will The Catalyst Driver Work On Ubuntu 11.04 At Launch?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    122

    Default

    fedora has some disadvantages, crappy default themes (not that big deal) and also crappy package management tool (big deal ;=) )
    that causes much problems. You maybe get somewhere a rpm, install it it says all dependecies are there, then it does not work anyway and you have no clew why. In debian/derevats, you have from your distribution very good quality debs with hard accurate dependencies, and they have the goal to give their users all whats out there at least the importent stuff. And that makes sence because the same people who updates the depencies can also recompile and give you the stuff that depends on it. That seems to produce higher quality packages.

    So the package dependency system is better because you can not mix incompatible packages that depend on each other.
    Warning - Debian troll detected!

    Let me disagree with you...!

    1) RPM and DEB are just package format / archive. Both provides same dependencies with one exception - RPM allows file dependencies, where it is profitable.


    2) What really differs are basic package management tools RPM and DPKG.

    Nowadays RPM have features DPKG never had - for example integrity checksums of each packages (must-have for security).

    In addition RPM has better syntax. Look at those dpkg-query commands! They are really ugly! In addition some of the queries present in RPM are non existent in DPKG world - for example "rpm -qa --last"


    3) High level packaging tools also differs a lot in DPKG and RPM worlds:

    If dpkg syntax is just ugly, APT syntax is completely idiotic. Lets have a look at it... There is no tool APT in fact. APT means a set of tools like apt-get, apt-cache, ...etc. You install package using APT-GET install command. You refresh package lists (package cache) using APT-GET update, but if you seach package you use APT-CACHE search! Why it is not APT-GET seach? Where is some logic? I see only chaos here!

    And that is not all! Why the APT use command UPDATE, when it just REFRESH the cache? Why the APT use command UPGRADE, when it simply UPDATE the packages? After all, APT mix package updates and upgrades into one mess called UPGRADE.

    When it comes to dependency resolvers, APT is the worst possible tool. Using heuristic analysis with treating upgrades as the only solution, you can not find worse dependency resolver in the linux world. It may work in the Debian world, where only one huge (and really well prepared) repository exists, and there is no need for real dependency resolution! In the worst scenarios, average Debian user mix stable,testing and unstable repos, where all the packages are in all repositories. So it is quite simple even for such useless tool like APT to manage them. The fact it works great is not proof of qualities and performance of Debian package management system, but proof of a great job done by hundred of Debian package maintainers. It would work same way If Debian used RPM and YUM. It has nothing to do with package format, package tool or dependency resolver.

    Just switch to Ubuntu, and everything of Debian package management system grows wrong. Ubuntu still mirrors Debian repositories, but it use many PPAs too. Thus user usually mix many (sometimes incompatible) repositories and thus it faces same problems you described as RPM specific. Unlike in Opensuse of Fedora, Debian package management system lacks really powerful dependency resolver (except universal SMART package manager), and Ubuntu is the easiest distro to mess dependendies so much, that dependency resolver can not find solution even if it exists and is simple. Why? Because Debian package management system is not designed for solving complicated problems! That is really wrong for user, because solving dependencies manually is not an easy job. Trust me, I broke Ubuntu installation easily many times and APT or Aptitude were useless even when manual solution was easy and obvious!

    What else we have here? Look at RPM-MD repository description and compare it to APTs sources.list. RPM-MD repository format allows you wide range of configuration for each repository, when APT sources.list contain only single line with address and any repository settings are put somewhere else or sometimes worked around defining rules for all packages in target repository. Just like my previous point, again you can see Debian is designed for single repository solution.

    In this post I only criticized the DPKG/DEB just to create the opposite view to yours and to show DPKG/DEB has many problems and weaknesses too. I do not say, Debian package management is so bad. But it is obvious it is not the best and it is definitely not better than RPM! At least it is different and designed for different needs. RPM and DPKG both have some strengths and weaknesses.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by next9 View Post
    Warning - Debian troll detected!
    They are coming! Take cover!!

    Quote Originally Posted by next9 View Post
    If dpkg syntax is just ugly, APT syntax is completely idiotic. Lets have a look at it... There is no tool APT in fact. APT means a set of tools like apt-get, apt-cache, ...etc. You install package using APT-GET install command. You refresh package lists (package cache) using APT-GET update, but if you seach package you use APT-CACHE search! Why it is not APT-GET seach? Where is some logic? I see only chaos here!
    Like everybody else who got into the linux bandwagon in the last 5 years, I started with Ubuntu, and for me apt-get was the greatest thing I had seen till then. However, even then, that whole apt-cache, apt-get, apt-wtf? business didn't seem logical. After using both yum and zypper for a few years I come to apreciate the simple pleasures of live brought by using just one CLI tool to do all the package management, with commands that actually make sense: zypper install stuff, zypper search extraterrestrial-inteligence... you can replace zypper with yum and it all works the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by next9 View Post
    Because Debian package management system is not designed for solving complicated problems! That is really wrong for user, because solving dependencies manually is not an easy job. Trust me, I broke Ubuntu installation easily many times and APT or Aptitude were useless even when manual solution was easy and obvious!
    Interesting! That explains why I had so many problems with ubuntu. Believe it or not, I never understood why so many people praise ubuntu when all I got was problems, breakage, etc...
    There is at least one positive aspect of apt-stuff, and that's the speed at which it installs packages. I now realize that this speed comes at the cost of the problem you mentioned.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Oh, and BTW, I highly doubt that AMD will drop support for Ubuntu. It doesn't make sense.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devius View Post
    There is at least one positive aspect of apt-stuff, and that's the speed at which it installs packages. I now realize that this speed comes at the cost of the problem you mentioned.
    I do not think, there is difference in package installation speed. If we do not mention interactive (DEB) vs. non-interactive (RPM) behavior, both have to resolve dependencies, download packages and install them. RPM dependencies are more complicated a little bit (dependency on files) but typical resolvers used in RPM world are really fast. In fact Zypper (RPM) resolves dependencies faster than APT or Aptitude (DPKG).

    What makes a difference is amount of metadata, when you refresh the package cache. RPM usually use much more metadata, thus "zypper refresh" or "Yum check-updates" takes longer and more data are donwloaded compared to "apt-get update".

    Zypper and Yum default behavior is to refresh cache each time you install the package (or first time each day or something like that. Do not know because I disable that.). On the other hand apt does not refresh cache each time installing package by default. That is why it seems longer on RPM. Of course you can disable Zypper/Yum auto-refresh (many users does that), or force apt to use auto-refresh (users call apt-get update && apt-get upgrade), but if you compare them, it is good to compare apples to apples.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    20

    Default

    What an ill-timed and poorly worded headline.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    187

    Default

    This whole rpm vs deb argument seems based purly on the fact that people have learn't linux on ubuntu and they've learn't how to apt-get stuff but for some crazy reason they can't bring themselves to learn how to zypper install or yum install things.
    This is dispite the fact that they're pritty much exatly the same. Yum is 3 letters. dead easy to remember. zypper is 6 letters so may confuse some (although my 4 year old neice can type longer words). There seems to be people who actually refuse to try alternative distros because of this reason. Thats crazy!

    Ubuntu is okish I suppose (unless like me you want to use kde in which case its less okish) but there are plenty of great distros out there. The rpm vs deb issue really shouldn't be a factor in deciding what to try out out.
    Sticking to deb means your linux expiriance will only ever come in the debian based flavour and theres so much more out there.

    I would love ATI to support more up to date distros such as fedora. Although I don't tyicaly use fedora I do tend to distro hop, freqenty using the lattest and greatest.
    Catalyst drivers greatly limit the choice I have. They oftern become the only stubling block I face switching distros, freqently its not installable or reqires a number of patches to get running.
    I use to have a nvidia card and I barly ever had these kinds of problems/limitaions.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    891

    Default

    Come one, I used fedora and suse, some times, and they did suck, maybe you are right maybe rpm is better then deb but the problem is that there are way to less packages in the main repos of this amature distros. Quality of suse as example sucks, but yes thats my opinion you will maybe have enother.

    Alse I did not no you zypper or what it was, but you did not know like it seams there is also aptitude, but I did not compare the tools to the formats I directly compared the formats, I as example used long time gentoo (still it began to stink), and the tools that do the same there are better no question. But again lets say even the format rpm is better (in real world it will not be that much difference) the distros who use is sucks. really crappy default themes the directory structure of it sucks. You have to get 1000 3rd party repositorys and you always get less package choices.

    But again It was mostly a joke. The point was that why you want to use a distro where all concentrates to make open stuff better and work together plymoth... and mix it with binary driver blobs.

    And that you have dependency isues, thats then maybe with debian/unstable but not with ubuntu or debian stable, and if that happens it can be fixed if there is a solution (the librarys who a package depends on exists). lets say it that way I donīt will argue if rpm or deb format is better thats opinion question, but the package quality of debian is supperp against all rpm-distros.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    ...
    I'm using Fedora and I cannot confirm that this distro sucks. The only 3d party repositorys I use are RPMFusion repos and for the mayority of Linux users this repo together with the main Fedora repos would be enough.
    I never had any serious dependency issues when using yum. I had some sometimes, but it was not complicated to solve it. If any programm e.g. Google Earth or fotoxx is not working because of missing files 'yum whatprovides <library or filename>' can be used. Not hard.

    Fedora 14 works with catalyst since end of November last year. If the driver from ati.amd.com is used only kernel-devel, kernel-headers have to be additionally installed and gcc if it's not installed by default. If Catalyst support of a new Fedora release is belayed, the old Fedora release can be used. Fedora releases are supported one year usually.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    891

    Default

    Again I did not want to start the talk about which distro is better or which package management tool, it was a side note. And thats my opinion, I wanted to use fedora because I like this guys because they do much good stuff for free desktop (3d-desktop stuff plymoth...) I lastly tryed a fedora where I wanted to try kde4.0 but that did suck (so ok thats not fedoras fault ^^) are the install-cds live cds? I think I tried that.

    But lets say fedora is good, the default gnome-desktop sucks. you have to modify it hard to get a usable desktop here is ubuntu better. Ok that maybe only matters me but I dont have a big reason to change to it. I would rather change to debian because I like this uncompromisingly free software viewpoint (GNU/Debian).

    But again lets get other with it, I have also installed some older arch linux and I think I would change to it if I have time and desire to move away from ubuntu.

    But ubuntu is very round they cut much edges debian gives you. But the policy to integrate much bad stuff like firefox over the debian-thing (other artwork) and such stuff. And now they dont want to go gnome3.0 by default that sucks, too.

    But I want not have one or some flamewars here thats only my opinions and if you want to enlighten me in some missinformation go ahead but not flamewar me please

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    Come one, I used fedora and suse, some times, and they did suck, maybe you are right maybe rpm is better then deb but the problem is that there are way to less packages in the main repos of this amature distros. Quality of suse as example sucks, but yes thats my opinion you will maybe have enother.

    Alse I did not no you zypper or what it was, but you did not know like it seams there is also aptitude, but I did not compare the tools to the formats I directly compared the formats, I as example used long time gentoo (still it began to stink), and the tools that do the same there are better no question. But again lets say even the format rpm is better (in real world it will not be that much difference) the distros who use is sucks. really crappy default themes the directory structure of it sucks. You have to get 1000 3rd party repositorys and you always get less package choices.

    But again It was mostly a joke. The point was that why you want to use a distro where all concentrates to make open stuff better and work together plymoth... and mix it with binary driver blobs.

    And that you have dependency isues, thats then maybe with debian/unstable but not with ubuntu or debian stable, and if that happens it can be fixed if there is a solution (the librarys who a package depends on exists). lets say it that way I donīt will argue if rpm or deb format is better thats opinion question, but the package quality of debian is supperp against all rpm-distros.
    I'm not a fedora user or fan but I love opensuse. Suses build service makes it easy to install a vast amount of software making it in the main as easy to install what ever you want as ubuntu. The yast software manager gives you control of what version of software you wish to have installed making it easy to upgrade and downgrade individual programs. Your also given plenty of control sorting out dependency conflicts that would be a comparative pain with ubuntu. Configuring what’s installed on your system is very easy.

    It may not be the distro for you, like Ubuntu definitely isnt the distro for me however dismissing it as crap is just tribalistic bull. its one of the best distros out there.

    As for crappy default themes its amazing that after the years of embarrassment in which Ubuntu has attempted to make Linux look ugly to the world, now that after many many years, that Ubuntu has finally got itself a half decent theme that suddenly Ubuntu fanboys start slaging off other distros default themes. I like what Ubuntu's doing theme wise however no gnome based distro is the best looking distro out there. KDE even with boring unimaginative themes as it currently stands simply looks better.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •