[jgillich]

I read this so often, but I have no idea why people think that.

* dnf's basic commands are all obvious: install, search, update and info - unlike the seperation between apt-get and apt-cache

* dnf automatically fetches and updates the repo cache

* dnf can rollback entire transactins

* dnf supports delta-upgrades, which speed up things a lot on slower connections

* dnf makes unattended upgrades easy (just add -y), apt may still ask questions even with DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive

The new apt tool improves on some of these issues, but dnf is still a much better tool in my opinion.

[toyg]

Dnf? Oh, so they replaced yum? Which in turn replaced whatever it was RH used before...

In the meantime, apt-get has been there (and "good enough") from before yum even existed. I really don't like re-learning for the sake of it; the less I need to know to run a box, the better.

[Watabou]

It's really not about which package manager is better. The fact of the matter is apt is "good enough" (as toyg mentions below) and more importantly, it's the ubiquity of the package manager that matters. Even Windows has Ubuntu now as the "bash subsystem".

People are used to apt. Switching to Fedora means learning an entire set of commands. While dnf's feature set is better in a lot of ways, that's just too much to ask when apt is there and it works for the majority of users, newcomers to Linux or otherwise.