Re: Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternitives"...
- From: Andrew Gideon <c172driver1@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:16:59 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:09:37 +0100, Niels Dettenbach wrote:
Try to update you OS X or Windows with 45 installed third party software
products - i assume that could be a longer story...
I don't know about MSFT products. But I've a few OSX machines mixed in
around the Linux machines. Updates are very different, but still
reasonably straightforward and flexible.
I do miss the CLI tools when using OSX (and the ability to run "yum
list ..."), but it may be that they're there and I just don't know them.
And I've enough complaints about OSX's differences from other Unixen
(little but big things, like automounters and such) that I tend to keep
my OSX time mostly to a minimum.
But i know that especially the commercial Linux distris are mostly less
flexible then the free ones, because the companies runs update or
release plans more directed by commercial targets then users interests -
like Microsoft or even Apple with OS X.
Redhat's RHN is not quite as flexible as yum, but it's not bad in terms
of flexibility or functionality. It's still based on up2date, which is
backward from yum but not *that* far back. My big complaint against it
is that, unless I go for a higher end service I believe, I cannot simply
rsync RPMs to a local archive from which a bunch of machines can be
It's been a while, but my recollection of Solaris' pkg support mechanism
- just to add another example - is that it was pretty feeble. It would
check dependencies, but not act on them. That is, an install/update
might fail for missing dependencies, but it wouldn't pull the
But that was quite a while ago; things have probably changed since then.
- Prev by Date: SOLUTION: Problems with X rotation
- Next by Date: Re: KMail Addressbook: Group names for mutiple addresses?
- Previous by thread: Re: Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternitives"...
- Next by thread: 請問