PDA

View Full Version : Yoper vs. Ubuntu



BWF89
January 31st, 2005, 11:19 PM
Could I get the pros and cons of each? Like which has the better apt-get, is faster, is more stable, which is easier to setup on a partition so I could duel-boot with Windows, which requires the use of terminal the least etc.?

I allready know Yoper has both KDE and Gnome so that's a big plus for Yoper.

oddabe19
January 31st, 2005, 11:25 PM
iirc, yoper is rpm

yep, rpm http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=yoper

rpm is known as 'dependency hell' and they pay more attention to KDE then gnome anyway.

stick to ubuntu/debian/knoppix/anyother debian distro. or gentoo, less painful

JoWilly
January 31st, 2005, 11:56 PM
Yes, stay far away from rpm if you think you might need anything else than what is installed with the default desktop.

flyfishin
February 1st, 2005, 12:13 AM
On my Fedora Core 3 setup yum did a great job of handling package updates for me. I never had any issues setting up my repositories and doing a yum update to keep my system up to date. I used the base repositories and the dag repository. As long as you setup repositories that work together you are fine. You could have the same dependency hell with an apt system if you start throwing in a variety of repositories that depend on repositories you don't already have setup.
Ubuntu has been easier since the respositories are already setup in sources.list and all I had to do was uncomment them. I haven't found anything I need that isn't in a repository in sources.list.

zenwhen
February 1st, 2005, 01:10 AM
With the introduction of YUM and APT-RPM, any statements about "dependency hell" with RPM based distros is pure, absolute, and total F U D.

There is no difference between installing software with Synaptic or apt using RPM's and Debs.

However, the fact that their devs focus on KDE shies me instantly away from the distro. The less time a dev team spends on KDE, the more time they have for Gnome and other things that I don't hate. :)

poofyhairguy
February 1st, 2005, 03:28 AM
There is no difference between installing software with Synaptic or apt using RPM's and Debs.


Except when it comes to how many packages you have avalible to install. Then the debian way wins.

JoWilly
February 1st, 2005, 03:40 AM
With the introduction of YUM and APT-RPM, any statements about "dependency hell" with RPM based distros is pure, absolute, and total F U D.

There is no difference between installing software with Synaptic or apt using RPM's and Debs.

Please don't tell me deb is the same SH&*!£& as rpm ? I have lost soo many countless hours, I don't even want to remember this.

But its still nice to hear that RedHat/Mandrake et all have somewhat evolved from their hole.

I have come over to try ubuntu 3 days ago as I have seen everywhere that apt was much better than the rpm hell. And I have to say that I have been quite satisfied till now.

But if you tell me its the same crap, I'm going back to Gentoo.

Randabis
February 1st, 2005, 05:35 AM
Please don't tell me deb is the same SH&*!£& as rpm ? I have lost soo many countless hours, I don't even want to remember this.

But its still nice to hear that RedHat/Mandrake et all have somewhat evolved from their hole.

I have come over to try ubuntu 3 days ago as I have seen everywhere that apt was much better than the rpm hell. And I have to say that I have been quite satisfied till now.

But if you tell me its the same crap, I'm going back to Gentoo.
It's not the same crap by a longshot, especially since virtually everything you'd ever need is already in the ubuntu repositories.

Lynx
February 1st, 2005, 06:48 AM
Nobody is gonna convince me that rpm is as simple or easy or good as deb. I used SUSE and that was a crap load of crap when it came to dependencies and stuff, I was so fed up.... I don't even want to remember those days. I am with Ubuntu now, and things are beautiful. I see no reason for leaving to come any time soon.

jeremy
February 1st, 2005, 06:59 AM
I tried Yoper before ubuntu, and while it was pretty good, there were too many seemingly unresolvable problems. I have had no serious problems with ubuntu.

nocturn
February 1st, 2005, 09:12 AM
Another thing with Yoper is that they have no real stable branch. So you will always run unstable (one release even included Evolution 1.5 - BETA - software).

I was impressed with Yoper's concept, but disappointed that it was so unstable.

KiwiNZ
February 1st, 2005, 09:21 AM
I naturally tried Yoper as it is a New Zealand distro. But alas I was disappointed. True it is a very snappy performer but I found it flakey and unstable.
I will try future releases though .

adbak
February 1st, 2005, 10:45 AM
Yoper is also a 686-optimized distro whereas Ubuntu has the basic x86, 686, K6/7, and PPC supports as well.

Does Yoper release every 6 months?
Do older Yoper releases get support for 18 months after they're superceded by a new one?
Does Yoper have as great of a community as Ubuntu?

I don't know the answers to these questions either.

Tichondrius
February 1st, 2005, 11:10 AM
I tried Yoper a couple of months ago, and don't remeber exactly why I deleted it, but I think it was just the same as other kde distros I tried, so I didn't see any special reason to keep it. But if it's based solely on free software like Ubuntu, then It would be preferable to the corporate distros (e.g. mandrake).

You can install KDE on Ubuntu, but why would you want that ? I think the latest gnome releases are great - clean, simple, fast and well thought out. Most KDE based distros look very messy by default, with millions of options that you can never find what you want. Unless of course you invest time and customize/modify it, but again what for ? With gnome everything is straightforward from day one, and still very fleexible and versatile.

But the biggest difference is debian packages to rpm's. With debian you have a central certified repository, which is not controlled by a greedy corporation, and is based on free software. And synaptic is way better than any currently available rpm management gui software (although I heard that it can be modified to work with rpms). Ubuntu doesn't make you use any proprietary software, like the corporate distros, not sure if Yoper has any proprietary tools.

And yeah, I don't think whoever is behind Yoper has the same resources like the backer of Ubuntu, to maintain a timely release and update schedule, as well as provide support on the forums. And I think their website was kind of spartan, at least compared to distros like Ubuntu and Fedora, etc. This is also one of the main problems of mepis linux, which is another potentailly promising distro. But really, nothing can compare to Ubuntu, as its the friendliest debian based distro.

Also, they don't have 64-bit version yet. Nor do they have a live CD. Nor do they maintain an up-to-date testing branhc with all the latest software, like Xorg, gnome 2.9, etc. And did I mention that the FAQ section on their website has a grand total of 5 questions ?

machiner
February 1st, 2005, 02:42 PM
I think there are more differences to these distros than dep rpm.

I tried Yoper a few months ago - before Ubuntu.

Like in Libranet, Yoper has a central admin panel. It was only version 0.1x but it worked very well...and I saw it as a boon to new Linux users as well as those that might like a central place to admin their machines.

I didn't like Yoper as much as Ubuntu because of some font issues and there was something else...I can't remember ( I think it was a little skittish) but it was enough to make me nuke Yoper from my drive -- same with Mepis.

This is NOT to say that Yoper was not good.

In the past few months Yoper repos have been offline and there have been other logistic troubles with the distro - however it has rebounded and is 2 versions enhanced since my foray into the distro.

Yoper is one of those distros that I keep in the back of my head for windows converts....there are better out there (subjective)...I am waiting for Libranet 3.0 to emerge from beta.

Yoper saw all my hardware and ran very well - and FAST. It's optimized for 686 with pre-links, optimized rpm's and the whole thing...the developer has done a fine job - like Mepis, I think Yoper is done by 1 person - but (s)he is actively seeking open source developers.

Linux is about choice. Choose what you want...

BWF89
February 1st, 2005, 09:46 PM
So what exactly is the difference between RPM's and whatever package format Debian uses?

Tichondrius
February 1st, 2005, 11:01 PM
So what exactly is the difference between RPM's and whatever package format Debian uses?

If you really want KDE I think Mepis is worth a look, as it's debian based. Here's an interesting review (http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=9305). I plan to try it out too, using a VMware window running under Ubuntu, I find that this is an easy way to try out new distros, without having to reboot or burn CDs. Actually, I'm not looking to replace Ubuntu, but sometimes I need to run a 32-bit VM because some software is not yet compatible with 64-bit.

ubuntu-geek
February 2nd, 2005, 12:16 AM
Lets not forget about the Kubuntu that is being worked on for KDE users...

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/Kubuntu/view?searchterm=kbuntu

KiwiNZ
February 2nd, 2005, 12:38 AM
I have never had a problem installing KDE on a ubuntu box. Its actually quite refreshing to see a "non commercialised" version of KDE installed.

BWF89
February 2nd, 2005, 01:10 AM
I post the same thread on 2 different forums and get 2 different replies:
http://www.yoper.com/forum2/index.php?showtopic=5712&st=0

Not suprising since each community will stick up for it's distro over another.

jdong
February 2nd, 2005, 01:29 AM
So what exactly is the difference between RPM's and whatever package format Debian uses?

Debs have a few more fields, and are somewhat easier to make + maintain than RPM's.

But really, nothing -- except Debian was the first to have APT. Now, all the big-name distros (SuSE, RedHat/Fedora, Mandrake, you name it) have a APT-like tool that can fetch packages + dependencies over the internet....

Let's not blindly deride other distros -- I've been using FC3 primarily for about 3 weeks now. Installed lots of RPM's without a hitch.

BWF89
February 2nd, 2005, 02:03 AM
What other package formats are there besides RPM and Deb's?

Randabis
February 2nd, 2005, 02:47 AM
What other package formats are there besides RPM and Deb's?

There's ebuild for gentoo. I believe archlinux has a package format all its own also.

Tichondrius
February 2nd, 2005, 03:10 AM
I post the same thread on 2 different forums and get 2 different replies:
http://www.yoper.com/forum2/index.php?showtopic=5712&st=0

Not suprising since each community will stick up for it's distro over another.

I like this one from the Yoper forum:

"an important difference: ubuntu is based on i386, while yoper is for i686 machines."

I guess Yoper users are not supposed to compile the kernel, as /usr/src on Yoper does not belong to src group ! In Ubuntu, it takes less then 10 commands to download, compile and install your own kernel optimized for P4/k7/k8 or whatever.

Also like many business oriented distro, it has a lot of proprietary pre-configured drivers and utilities, but it's probably messy to try and change things.

zenwhen
February 2nd, 2005, 04:25 AM
Please don't tell me deb is the same SH&*!£& as rpm ? I have lost soo many countless hours, I don't even want to remember this.

But its still nice to hear that RedHat/Mandrake et all have somewhat evolved from their hole.

I have come over to try ubuntu 3 days ago as I have seen everywhere that apt was much better than the rpm hell. And I have to say that I have been quite satisfied till now.

But if you tell me its the same crap, I'm going back to Gentoo.

It isn't the same crap. Neither are crap when you are using an automated tool to install the packages. To the end user there is no difference. Nothing is required from the end user but passing the command to install the application. The dependencies are grabbed, the crowd goes wild, and in the end packages are packages.

Tichondrius
February 2nd, 2005, 04:41 AM
It isn't the same crap. Neither are crap when you are using an automated tool to install the packages. To the end user there is no difference. Nothing is required from the end user but passing the command to install the application. The dependencies are grabbed, the crowd goes wild, and in the end packages are packages.

This is only true while things work, but with rpm repositores, sooner or later things start to break and then you know you're in rpm hell. It's more of a repository problem, rather then a package format issue. With debian, you have a huge rcentral repository, which is tested and certified, so it's a really good starting point. But things can still break if you start using "bad" repositories. For rpms, the available repositories are not as well tested, and in general it's quite a hit and miss afair to try to patch together packages from different un-coordinated repositories.

poofyhairguy
February 2nd, 2005, 04:55 AM
This is only true while things work, but with rpm repositores, sooner or later things start to break and then you know you're in rpm hell. It's more of a repository problem, rather then a package format issue. With debian, you have a huge rcentral repository, which is tested and certified, so it's a really good starting point. But things can still break if you start using "bad" repositories. For rpms, the available repositories are not as well tested, and in general it's quite a hit and miss afair to try to patch together packages from different un-coordinated repositories.

Excellent point! Thats why Debian is so awesome (well, its the biggest reason why I'm here). When I had Fedora Core 2, the most packages I could find for it in synaptic were 6000 (right before fedora core 3 came out). Lord knows I was trying to inflate this number by adding every repo I could find- I bet many didn't work well together. So 6000 unhappy packages.

With Ubuntu (Warty) I have....let me open synaptic....14000+ packages. Last week when I had Hoary it was like 16000 packages! Thats why rpms and yum and whatever "sucks." Its not the software's problem, its the repo's problem.

Package managers are the best thing to happen to Linux. I love those binaries! I have been in Ubuntu since its release and I have everything I want without compiling anything. I haven't even learned how to compile "the old fashioned way" because I don't need to. I quit Fedora because that was the only way to get software not a part of those 6000. What good is a package manager without a package to manage?

Lynx
February 2nd, 2005, 04:57 AM
I used SuSE 9.1 and YaST was horrid when it came to resolving dependencies. Absolutely awful.

On another note.

"
Some of the issues here are due to the fact that I have been doing a majority of these things by myself.

Working in NZ has allowed me to do this now for 3 years. Thanks to this effort of mine you and many others have tried Yoper. They liked it, but saw a few things wrong. Some (mostly non technical users) see the potential of Yoper, but also see the unfulfilled potential, since I cannot do it all. Moaning is not very helpful, since you have not actually given me any help removing the issue that I am practically building the distro alone."

This is why I wouldn't use YOPER. Because a one person project can't provide any sort of reliable release or update assurances. YOPER, also, from what I have heard is rather unstable, whereas my Ubuntu has not given me a bit of trouble.

EDIT: After reading that thread I was appalled at all the people who had so much trouble with the installation and had ubuntu screwing up within a half hour of getting it running (which apparently takes years compared to YOPER). They say the installer is so hard and yada-yada-yada I had ZERO difficulty with Ubuntu at all, now, I am not a linux techi, I still consider myself a n00b. So it is difficult for me to understand how Ubuntu could be any EASIER to install, I mean I had more trouble installing SuSE.

CowPie
February 2nd, 2005, 05:41 AM
EDIT: After reading that thread I was appalled at all the people who had so much trouble with the installation and had ubuntu screwing up within a half hour of getting it running (which apparently takes years compared to YOPER). They say the installer is so hard and yada-yada-yada I had ZERO difficulty with Ubuntu at all, now, I am not a linux techi, I still consider myself a n00b. So it is difficult for me to understand how Ubuntu could be any EASIER to install, I mean I had more trouble installing SuSE.

LOL I know!!

What's with everyone saying it's gnome only? I have KDE running on hoary.. :(

HiddenWolf
February 2nd, 2005, 09:43 AM
LOL I know!!

What's with everyone saying it's gnome only? I have KDE running on hoary.. :(
The idea is that ubuntu is gnome-oriented / gnome-only
Work is underway to launch a 'sister-distro' which is basicly the same, but does the same thing for KDE, working name kubuntu, or so I believe.

If that goes ahead, the first priority is to find a better name, ;-)

Joeb
February 2nd, 2005, 05:27 PM
I like this one from the Yoper forum:

"an important difference: ubuntu is based on i386, while yoper is for i686 machines."

I guess Yoper users are not supposed to compile the kernel, as /usr/src on Yoper does not belong to src group ! In Ubuntu, it takes less then 10 commands to download, compile and install your own kernel optimized for P4/k7/k8 or whatever.

Also like many business oriented distro, it has a lot of proprietary pre-configured drivers and utilities, but it's probably messy to try and change things.

Actually, everything on Yoper is compiled for i686 machines, not just the kernel. To do the same on Ubuntu, you would need to recompile everything. I've used Yoper and I must admit, it is fast (for a KDE distribution). I don't know, though if that was because of the i686 optimizations or the pre-linking. I'd bet it is the pre-linking, though.

All that said, if I really wanted a fast distro, without the hassle of compiling everything from scratch, I'd enable pre-linking on Ubuntu and then install a light-weight window manager such as XFCE.

Tichondrius
February 3rd, 2005, 03:01 AM
I post the same thread on 2 different forums and get 2 different replies:
http://www.yoper.com/forum2/index.php?showtopic=5712&st=0

Not suprising since each community will stick up for it's distro over another.

Try to read the Yoper thread more carefully - most of it is by 3-4 Yoper core team developers talking to one another and trying to defend Yoper, including the main Yoper adminstrator (with the original user name "Yoper") giving a crap load of marketing drivel which seems like quotation from speeches he was probably giving clueless customers.

It's funny, he even admitted that he has no clue about how to produce a live CD, and suggested to try to recruit the Mepis and Knoppix people to help with that, as well as trying to ask for help from anyone that knows how to do that. So what if Yoper might have a lot of multimedia plugins working out of the box ? the reality is you always need to do some customization later, since there is no such thing as a distribution which is pre configured to have everyone's requirements. So a proprietary setup like Yoper's, is bound to cause problems once you need to extend or modify it. Ubuntu, which is produced by knowledgeable Linux gurus, is easily customizable and follows many of the best practices of open linux systems adopted from debian. And never mind, the multiple architecture support, 64 bit, up to date packages, etc. Yoper is not in the same league, but it might be easier for someone who just wants full multimedia out of the box.

regeya
February 18th, 2005, 11:15 PM
However, the fact that their devs focus on KDE shies me instantly away from the distro. The less time a dev team spends on KDE, the more time they have for Gnome and other things that I don't hate. :)

See, I agree with most of that, but when you say "The less time a dev team spends on KDE, the more time they have for Gnome and other things that I don't hate" that's where I stop agreeing. I'd like your take on why you hate KDE, and I'm hoping you can give me reasons other than what most people give, such as "the icons are ugly" or "the theme is ugly," which is like saying "I hate GNOME because Glider is ugly."

I'm not a huge KDE fanboy, but there are apps that I can't do without, and despite the horrible file manager and crappy Control Center, KDE still has GNOME beat in several areas. So many, in fact, that I keep getting tempted to go back to Gentoo (one of the only ways to get a nearly-pure, unadulterated, KDE distributions.) Most distributions either let marketing dictate how they're going to modify KDE, or they let the GNOME zealots loose on it (read: Fedora Core.) I comfort myself by reminding myself that Kubuntu will make me a very happy man. :-)

Perhaps someday GNOME will be able to match KDE feature for feature, but it's not there yet.

jdodson
February 18th, 2005, 11:43 PM
i am downloading yoper to give it a whirl. the first thing i noticed was the default kde distro. this kinda stinks as i dig gnome, but i will give it a shot. it looks like they have apt so i would imaging gnome installation is a simple matter. will let you know what i come up with. compiling for i686 is a neat feature. if they really do prelink the system as well that would make for a fast machine.

and i agree with you about the developers and core community giving props to yoper. then again, i most likely won't switch to ubuntu. most people seemed to slight ubuntus lack of multimedia features. since the developers have stated numerous times that they will not include non-free stuff in the main cd, this seems like a point i will concede. then again adding an apt line and installing via synaptic is pretty simple.

i will admit the mirror i am downloading from is lighting fast! 479K a second, way faster than any ubuntu mirror i have tried. yoper does have a few years on ubuntu as well, by all rights it should have more mirrors.

zenwhen
February 19th, 2005, 02:00 AM
Perhaps someday GNOME will be able to match KDE feature for feature, but it's not there yet.

People dont have to hate KDE for a list of reasons. I hate KDE and everything it touches because looking at it, and all of its applications including the wonderful K3B makes me want to vomit.

I dislike its menus, user interface guideines or lack there-of, and pretty much everything else about it. If something involves the use of QT or KDE, I will tell you and be very much honest when doing so, that I hate it.

I don't care about being able to theme it, or change it to look somewhat like GNOME. It is like shining a turd, in my opinion.

You failed to mention one area that KDE leads GNOME in. You just spouted the KDE talking points and ran for the hills.

jdodson
February 19th, 2005, 03:06 AM
People dont have to hate KDE for a list of reasons. I hate KDE and everything it touches because looking at it, and all of its applications including the wonderful K3B makes me want to vomit.

I dislike its menus, user interface guideines or lack there-of, and pretty much everything else about it. If something involves the use of QT or KDE, I will tell you and be very much honest when doing so, that I hate it.

I don't care about being able to theme it, or change it to look somewhat like GNOME. It is like shining a turd, in my opinion.

You failed to mention one area that KDE leads GNOME in. You just spouted the KDE talking points and ran for the hills.

hey now, kde has its place. its just not on my desktop, but that doesnt mean its a turd. there are a few kde apps i don't hate. k3b is the shining app that comes to mind. i thought i remember you said you used it. its a awesome program gnome folks have only recently begun to copy.

Dylanby
February 19th, 2005, 03:16 PM
While I don't use KDE, I appreciate all of the hard work that goes into developing it.

It's kind of a pet peeve when people publicly slag off on Gnome or KDE. But then, I respect their opinion too. :wink:

IMHO the biggest pro for KDE at the moment is C++.

Jad
February 19th, 2005, 03:57 PM
I'm not sure how you are comparing Ubuntu with Yoper.
Yoper is not a Major distribution while Ubuntu is a major distribution
and Ubuntu as a major distribution and its about 7 months old means is +++

zenwhen
February 20th, 2005, 04:58 AM
hey now, kde has its place. its just not on my desktop, but that doesnt mean its a turd. there are a few kde apps i don't hate. k3b is the shining app that comes to mind. i thought i remember you said you used it. its a awesome program gnome folks have only recently begun to copy.

Oh I do use K3B. I said it was wonderful. It can do much more than any other Linux burning app can. Hoever, using it is as much of a pain as using any other KDE app. The six level deep menus, the hoards of checkboxes, the horrible QT widgets...

I can't stand using it, but need it for it's functionality.

I respect (most) people who choose to use KDE but don't understand their choice.

jdodson
February 20th, 2005, 07:20 AM
I respect (most) people who choose to use KDE but don't understand their choice.

i understand and agree.