[incomingpain]

>It's also about the system package manager.

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?

[wdfx]

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.

[incomingpain]

>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.

[wdfx]

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.