[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.