I consider rpm/dnf/yum in the same suite of packaging.
Just in my experience using it and noticing how the packaging is done and applied to the system, I have more trust in rpm/dnf to do things properly compared to deb/apt.
Many times I've had apt repos stop working or deb installs doing weird things and leaving the system in some weird state. I've had none of these issues with rpm/dnf.
>Just in my experience using it and noticing how the packaging is done and applied to the system, I have more trust in rpm/dnf to do things properly compared to deb/apt.
Like I've kind of looked into packaging an app into a .deb before and it's rather convoluted. I never did understand why nobody has worked toward fixing these.
>Many times I've had apt repos stop working or deb installs doing weird things and leaving the system in some weird state. I've had none of these issues with rpm/dnf.
I have on both sides. Apt repos often break in annoying ways.
I still to this day don't know the difference between Centos baseos, universe, extra, elrepo, and epel. Now there's streams and next. I just don't seem to care to learn.
Anyway, I thought maybe you meant dnf had some sort of new advantage and why it's better than yum for example.
dnf seems to be the default in Fedora nowadays, so that's what I used since I selected Fedora for my laptop OS (whereas I previously used kubuntu). I recall using yum some years ago on centos systems, but I'm not really up to speed on what the differences are.
Agreed, apt has been aging to be sure.
Manjaro's pacman not that much different.
>In recent years I've been preferring Fedora's dnf over Ubuntu's apt.
On my rpm boxes I still use yum. I do realize dnf is there but honestly haven't see any reason to change.
What do you think makes dnf better?