[Symbiote]

> Why doesn't my OS run "apt-get update" in the background every so often so I don't have to do it manually

Probably because you disabled it at install time. There's a box to check in the software update settings on Ubuntu; I see a similar cronjob on Debian.

In any case, you don't have to do it. You'll simply get the version of the package that was current at the time you last did the update.

> Why is it "yum install httpd" but "apt-get install apache2"

Because these are different tools.

[freehunter]

>Because these are different tools.

In my opinion, that's not a valid answer. httpd and apache2 are exactly the same software package, running on the same OS at the same version, performing the same function. The only reason yum, apt, pacman, etc exist independently of each other is because the maintainers of each package manager are too stubborn and prideful to see the value in combining their efforts. It's obvious that apt is no better than yum. If it was, Red Hat would switch to it, and vice versa.

To reiterate something I said in another reply, these are things that seem perfectly natural to a Linux admin but are unacceptable to anyone else. I've seen 10+ year experienced Linux admins log into a new box and run apt-get install and see the response "command not found". Whoops, forgot it was a CentOS box.

I love bash and the Unix core utilities, but I dislike the way Linux is developed. I know Linux because I use it every day for my job, but that doesn't mean I have to like it and all of its idiosyncrasies.

[enoch_r]

Linux has its headaches, but

> The only reason yum, apt, pacman, etc exist independently of each other is because the maintainers of each package manager are too stubborn and prideful to see the value in combining their efforts.

To me this seems a bit like complaining that Chrome, Safari, IE, and Firefox have different keyboard shortcuts, and saying it'd be better if everyone just joined forces and worked on one browser. There is a huge amount of value in diversity and competition. If that means I occasionally have to google "pacman apache package," so be it.

[freehunter]

I do complain about the different browsers... not picking on Linux again, but the way Chrome behaves in Linux is completely unreasonable. I prefer when I click on a URL bar, it highlights the whole thing by default. Firefox on Linux lets me change the default behavior, Chrome does not. When I filed a feature request, they closed it saying this is the native behavior of Linux and everyone expects it. But it's completely different from the behavior on Windows using the same software, so it breaks my workflow. End result is, I stopped using Chrome. Not to mention I can install Chrome, Safari, and Firefox on my Mac and pick between them at will. It's a lot harder to do that with a package manager.

There's value in diversity and competition, but does yum's new features make apt better? Does yum have any new features? Or is it literally just duplicating the exact same thing just for the sake of NIH? Browsers get updated constantly, it's a quickly changing market. Package managers are pretty much done. If apt or yum have implemented a new feature in the last 5 years that made the other maintainer say "oh my god we need that, how did we not think of that?" I will eat my hat (I don't actually own a hat).

You know what's really nice? Interoperability. Predictable behavior. It's the same damn OS. EXEs that run on Windows 10 Pro run on Windows 10 Home Premium, too, you don't have to switch to MSI just because you changed the distribution.