PDA

View Full Version : Yum Is really slow



Rezwan Mahbub
8th March 2007, 10:35 PM
Can some body provide me with help using Add and Remove Programs in Fedora 6 or yum installer makin it faster. Its so slow that I have to go to sleep giving downloads. In Windows I find my download speed in flashget upto 30 kbps but here its dam slow.

jbannon
8th March 2007, 10:41 PM
I wasn't able to speed it up despite trying. In the end I gave up and started using smart because I discovered it's a lot faster. It seems that yum connects serially whereas smart tries to open parallel connections making better use of the available bandwidth.

Rezwan Mahbub
8th March 2007, 10:45 PM
I wasn't able to speed it up despite trying. In the end I gave up and started using smart because I discovered it's a lot faster. It seems that yum connects serially whereas smart tries to open parallel connections making better use of the available bandwidth.


If you have made that possible why not me. Give me some knowledge how to use it smart and make it faster. else provide me with some other technique or software.

jbannon
8th March 2007, 11:00 PM
If you have made that possible why not me. Give me some knowledge how to use it smart and make it faster. else provide me with some other technique or software.

There is a note somehwere on how to set-up smart for i386 & i686 systems. I modified the shell script for my x86_64 box. Here it is:



#!/bin/bash
echo "Installing Smart Package Manager"
yum install -y --exclude=*\debug\* install smart smart-gui smart-update fedora-package-config-smart;
echo "Smart Package Manager Installed"

echo "Answer Y to the default channels"
smart channel -y --show ;

echo "Adding 3rd Party Repository's"
smart channel -y --add livna-stable type=rpm-md name="Livna Stable" baseurl=http://rpm.livna.org/fedora/6/x86_64/ ;
smart channel -y --add livna-testing type=rpm-md name="Livna Testing" baseurl=http://rpm.livna.org/fedora/testing/6/x86_64/
smart channel -y --add freshrpms type=rpm-md name="Freshrpms" baseurl=http://ayo.freshrpms.net/fedora/linux/6/x86_64/freshrpms/ ;
smart channel -y --add dries type=rpm-md name="Dries" baseurl=http://apt.sw.be/dries/fedora/fc6/x86_64/dries/RPMS ;
smart channel -y --add rpmforge type=rpm-md name="RpmForge" baseurl=http://apt.sw.be/dries/fedora/fc6/x86_64/dries/RPMS ;
echo "Done adding 3rd Party Repository's"

echo "Adding Pritority's to the channels"
smart channel --set extras priority=100 ;
smart channel --set updates priority=100 ;
smart channel --set core priority=100 ;
smart channel --set dries priority=50 ;
smart channel --set rpmforge priority=50 ;
smart channel --set freshrpms priority=50 ;
smart channel --set rpm-db priority=50 ;
smart channel --set livna-stable priority=10 ;
smart channel --set livna-testing priority=10;
echo "Priority's set"

echo "Disabling test repositorys"
smart channel --disable livna-testing;
echo "Done disabling test repos"

echo "Updating Cache"
smart update ;
echo "Done with Cache"

echo "Running upgrade to look for new packages"
smart upgrade ;
echo "Done with Upgrade"


I also altered the priorities to give higher priority to the standard fedora repositories to avoid potential conflicts between them and Dries, Freshrpms and RPMforge. The priorities I have set in the script seem to work well and I have no problems so far. When you set it up it will detect all the fedora stuff in /etc/yum.repos.d. Just answer 'y' to all the repositories since the script picks up what the settings are from the .repo files. Then it's just a case of starting the software up and refreshing the defined repositories. I have not tried it with yum-updatesd but I would presume it wouldn't work.

One thing about kernel modules and such. To prevent upgrades from potentially breaking configured modules (kmod-nvidia for instance) you have to right-click on the current kernel version and select "lock all versions". You will need to do this with the kernel headers, kernel-devel and kernel-doc as well if you're using these.

kaconst
8th March 2007, 11:47 PM
There are tons of mirrors for the most common repo's. Just do some research and replace the standard url's with fast ones.

Rezwan Mahbub
9th March 2007, 06:43 AM
It does speed up my add and remove much better. But yum is the same till now.

marcrblevins
9th March 2007, 09:07 AM
Did you just installed Fedora recently? It runs slow the first time around. Future yum would run faster.

John Markh
9th March 2007, 09:30 AM
Find a mirror close to you (http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors.html) and use it.
It will speed up your YUM... :)

Rezwan Mahbub
9th March 2007, 09:36 AM
Find a mirror close to you (http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors.html) and use it.
It will speed up your YUM... :)


How shall I use it

John Markh
9th March 2007, 10:14 AM
How shall I use it
Well, it is actually pretty easy. I will show you example of how to change fedora core repository to UK mirror.

As root, open /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-core.repo
Uncomment baseurl and change it to mirror URL (for example, for [core] I changed the aseurl to http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/6/i386/os/)
Comment out mirrorlist

If you want to, you can change the baseurl for [core-debuginfo] and [core-source] as well.
That's it...
You should do the same for fedora extra, updates, etc.

John Markh
9th March 2007, 10:16 AM
And I agree... Smart is still faster that YUM!
:D

jbannon
9th March 2007, 10:29 AM
It does speed up my add and remove much better. But yum is the same till now.
Yum will be the same because you haven't modified the mirror lists. You can do this as advised by others but why waste effort when smart does the job better anyway? In addition to being faster, it's also much easier to see dependencies, conflicts and the like and you get fair warning that a move might cause a downgrade or break software. Of course you still have to be careful because it's still possible to cause a major breakage but at least you get a chance to review the update before committing.

On the other hand, you could be 'hard' and eschew the use of both yum or smart and manage the process by hand using rpm. Good luck with that because rpm is one of the most complicated pieces of software on the system: a cornered rat is probably more friendly than rpm. :)

Rezwan Mahbub
9th March 2007, 12:39 PM
And I agree... Smart is still faster that YUM!
:D

Yes Smart is really faster but it does not support all the yum installs. Morever My yum is still slow after the download site is fixed closer to my country. cant it skip dependency process or store its lists in hard drive so that it can be opened fast even without internet.

jbannon
9th March 2007, 02:02 PM
Yes Smart is really faster but it does not support all the yum installs. Morever My yum is still slow after the download site is fixed closer to my country. cant it skip dependency process or store its lists in hard drive so that it can be opened fast even without internet.
What do you mean "doesn't support all the yum installs"? Both yum and smart are front-ends to rpm so there should be no difference ultimately in what they support.

Rezwan Mahbub
9th March 2007, 05:36 PM
What do you mean "doesn't support all the yum installs"? Both yum and smart are front-ends to rpm so there should be no difference ultimately in what they support.

If I give yum install gcc it works


But If i give smart install gcc It doesnt

marko
9th March 2007, 05:47 PM
Why do so many people care about how "slow" yum is? Linux
is a multitasking system, just start your update via yumex or yum
and minimize it and go do whatever else you want. You don't have to
baby sit it. Probably a bigger complaint against yum is
it seems to use a LOT of memory when it runs a big
set of updates. That may just be an unavoidable thing related to
the algorithms that rpm needs (ie smart, apt,.. anything else using
rpm might need lots of ram too).

I've also noticed that the fancy sliding progress bar on yumex is a
huge cpu hog. Try minimizing yumex so the bar isn't exposed
and see the cpu % go way back down. Yumex should go to
a functional but less hoggy percentage number or
have the bar step discretely instead of smoothly move.

Mark

jbannon
9th March 2007, 06:09 PM
If I give yum install gcc it works


But If i give smart install gcc It doesnt

Weird! Works perfectly well for me except that I already have gcc installed and it tells me that and doesn't do the install.



Why do so many people care about how "slow" yum is?
Because it is a pain in the ass that's why. BTW I have not noticed that smart has the same kind of memory problems as say yumex. On my older system before I switched yumex often caused the processor load to increase to 100% and memory utilisation to shoot up to near swapping but this has not happened with smart either on my old system or the one I currently use. Mind you the maximum amount of swap I've ever recorded is 8KB so it's not really a huge problem for me.

Rezwan Mahbub
9th March 2007, 09:30 PM
yum -y install gcc
Loading "installonlyn" plugin
Setting up Install Process
Setting up repositories
core 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
updates 100% |=========================| 1.2 kB 00:00
extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
Reading repository metadata in from local files
primary.xml.gz 6% |= | 88 kB 14:12 ETA



cant i get rid of this primary.xml.gz loading

or any other skipping method so that my computer stores and use inside what it need

jbannon
9th March 2007, 10:25 PM
yum -y install gcc
Loading "installonlyn" plugin
Setting up Install Process
Setting up repositories
core 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
updates 100% |=========================| 1.2 kB 00:00
extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
Reading repository metadata in from local files
primary.xml.gz 6% |= | 88 kB 14:12 ETA



cant i get rid of this primary.xml.gz loading

or any other skipping method so that my computer stores and use inside what it need

I don't think so. It needs that to determine which packages are actually installed.

marcrblevins
9th March 2007, 11:03 PM
Stick with yum. It starts in the midnight hours while you sleep, if you leave Fedora running 24/7. Its called yum-updatesd.

[root@kiriyamablevins ~]# chkconfig --list | grep yum
yum-updatesd 0:off 1:off 2:off 3:on 4:on 5:on 6:off
[root@kiriyamablevins ~]#

If you like to manually run yum from time to time for fun.
su -
yum update

While you are reading it and it appears to be slow, you can press Control C and it would abort from that slow server and go to the next server. Keep doing it til it finds a faster server.

Finalzone
9th March 2007, 11:21 PM
yum -y install gcc
Loading "installonlyn" plugin
Setting up Install Process
Setting up repositories
core 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
updates 100% |=========================| 1.2 kB 00:00
extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
Reading repository metadata in from local files
primary.xml.gz 6% |= | 88 kB 14:12 ETA



cant i get rid of this primary.xml.gz loading

or any other skipping method so that my computer stores and use inside what it need

Have you tried to use local cache with this command

yum -y -C install gcc

lmo
15th March 2007, 09:34 PM
I made yum fly!

Mostly, I just wanted to install stuff from the DVD and CD I have got without 10 minues downloading headers and then ++minutes downloading software.

Somehow, I made a local repository From "Fedora 6 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 'Bible'" DVD and extras CD
(note: /data2 is a mounted partition because DVD is big)
(note: I have a DVD drive and put in the DVD which got mounted as /media/FC_6 i386 DVD )
(note: I have a CD drive also, and put in the extras CD which got mounted as /media/FC6)


/etc/yum.conf

[main]
cachedir=/var/cache/yum
keepcache=0
debuglevel=2
logfile=/var/log/yum.log
pkgpolicy=newest
distroverpkg=redhat-release
tolerant=1
exactarch=1
obsoletes=1
gpgcheck=1
plugins=1
metadata_expire=1800
#throttle=4.0k

# PUT YOUR REPOS HERE OR IN separate files named file.repo
# in /etc/yum.repos.d
# The next line prevents using yum.repos.d -- comment to enable on-line
reposdir=/etc/yum.repos.phony

[fc6-dvd]
name=FC6 i386 DVD
baseurl=file:/FC6DVD/Fedora/RPMS/
enabled=1
gpgcheck=0

[fc6-cd]
name=FC6 CD
baseurl=file:/FC6/extras/6/i386/
enabled=1
gpgcheck=0


comment out with #, the line in /etc/yum.conf
/reposdir=/etc/yum.repos.phony

yum install createrepo

... wait long time ...

un-comment (take out #) from the line in /etc/yum.conf
/reposdir=/etc/yum.repos.phony


mount /data2
cd /
ln -s /data2/FC6DVD FC6DVD
ln -s /data2/FC6 FC6
mkdir -p /data2/FC6DVD
mkdir -p /data2/FC6

cd /media/FC_6\ i386\ DVD
cp -pdr * /data2/FC6DVD/
cd /media/FC6
cp -pdr * /data2/FC6/

cd /FC6DVD/repodata
cp comps.xml ../Fedora/RPMS/
createrepo -g comps.xml /FC6DVD/Fedora/RPMS/

yum clean all
yum update
Now install stuff zoom, zoom, zoom!
Your DVD,s CD's, pathnames and mileage may vary.

lazlow
15th March 2007, 11:14 PM
IMO

Almost everthing you just installed (from the DVD) is out of date.

Lazlow

lmo
16th March 2007, 04:08 AM
But it works. And if I want a more recent version of something for a specific reason, I let it go on-line and get it. Most things work from the CD good enough for me. Might I add that I still have an FC4 system that is out of date, but still works good.

jon3k
26th March 2007, 08:17 PM
Why do so many people care about how "slow" yum is? Linux
is a multitasking system, just start your update via yumex or yum
and minimize it and go do whatever else you want.

That's absolutely absurd. So when something is slow, instead of fixing it, we just make excuses like "well who cares if it's slow" ? Ridiculous.

Maybe because sometimes we're installing packages, not updating. I don't feel like waiting 5 minutes to install some trivial package (like libraries, or a -dev package).

Why can't yum just be fast, like apt, which can find, resolve dependencies, and install a package before yum can even refresh the headers.

yum is bordering on useless to use interactively these days.

lmo
26th March 2007, 08:42 PM
Not useless for me. Lately, yum has been working great for me. Once I got things configured. I make keepcache=1 in the yum.conf so that if I reinstall something, it won't have to download again. And I disable any repos in the yum.repos.d that I don't specifically want to use in the run. That cuts down on header downloads that aren't necessary.

jbannon
26th March 2007, 09:34 PM
That's absolutely absurd. So when something is slow, instead of fixing it, we just make excuses like "well who cares if it's slow" ? Ridiculous.

Maybe because sometimes we're installing packages, not updating. I don't feel like waiting 5 minutes to install some trivial package (like libraries, or a -dev package).

Why can't yum just be fast, like apt, which can find, resolve dependencies, and install a package before yum can even refresh the headers.

yum is bordering on useless to use interactively these days.
Have to agree and it's not as if the developers don't know how to make it use parallel connections or to stop it from closing connections after every download during a run. I've noticed the same thing with the updater for Eclipse - it uses serial update and is mind-meltingly slow. I have a 10Mb/s line and it behaves like a 56K MODEM at times when using either package.

kaconst
26th March 2007, 10:43 PM
That's absolutely absurd. So when something is slow, instead of fixing it, we just make excuses like "well who cares if it's slow" ? Ridiculous.

Maybe because sometimes we're installing packages, not updating. I don't feel like waiting 5 minutes to install some trivial package (like libraries, or a -dev package).

Why can't yum just be fast, like apt, which can find, resolve dependencies, and install a package before yum can even refresh the headers.

yum is bordering on useless to use interactively these days.

Its not because of yum, its because of the servers, just replace the default url's with mirrors.(I use http://ftp.belnet.be/packages/ because its very close to me) I did that and now its lightning fast.

jon3k
26th March 2007, 11:05 PM
Not useless for me.

I didn't say it was useless, read again:


yum is bordering on useless to use interactively these days.


Its not because of yum, its because of the servers

Does it really matter what the cause is? yum-fastestmirror should sort this all out. In fact, yum, by default should sort this all out.

Another example of vast canyon between the developers and the end users. These things need to work, easily and quickly, right out of the box. When will we get over this mindset of endless tweaking? I love linux, I use it on the desktop, on quite a few servers, it's my OS of choice. With that said, an OS is a means to an end, I don't have time to tinker, I have things to do.

lazlow
26th March 2007, 11:13 PM
Jon

Why are you running a bleeding edge destro like Fedora? By definition Fedora will ALWAYS require some tinkering. If you want everything pre "dialed-in" run Centos, White Box, or Redhat. It MAY not solve the yum problem but it should drop most of the tweaking issues.

Lazlow

jon3k
26th March 2007, 11:42 PM
Fedora? Bleeding edge? Is that why I've been running a vulnerable version of clamav for the last MONTH? Bleeding edge?

Who *exactly* do you think you're kidding?

You're excuse for it being slow for the last 2 or 3 years is because it's on the bleeding edge? That doesn't make any sense.

Another absurd argument, trying to rationalize away a problem. I've got a better idea, quit wasting your time trying to convince people it's not a problem, download the source, and fix it, how about that?

lmo
27th March 2007, 12:00 AM
yum -y install gcc
Loading "installonlyn" plugin
Setting up Install Process
Setting up repositories
core 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
updates 100% |=========================| 1.2 kB 00:00
extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
Reading repository metadata in from local files
primary.xml.gz 6% |= | 88 kB 14:12 ETA



cant i get rid of this primary.xml.gz loading

or any other skipping method so that my computer stores and use inside what it need
I just found out you can delay expiration of cache metadata for 24hrs with this in /etc/yum.conf
metadata_expire=86400and delay expiration longer with bigger number.

lazlow
27th March 2007, 12:15 AM
Jon

If you reread my post, it was a reply to your comments about constantly tweaking and not about yum. As I stated in that post it MAY not effect yum.

I am sure that if you want to rewrite yum to make it better/faster, no one will stop you. Most of us find it "ok" (far from perfect) enough to use. I personally do not find it problematic enough to warrent the effort it will take to "fix it". There are other choices for those who cannot stand yum.

Lazlow

jbannon
27th March 2007, 07:42 AM
Jon

Why are you running a bleeding edge destro like Fedora? By definition Fedora will ALWAYS require some tinkering. If you want everything pre "dialed-in" run Centos, White Box, or Redhat. It MAY not solve the yum problem but it should drop most of the tweaking issues.

Lazlow
It's got damn all to do with being "bleeding edge" - yum is just slow because of the way it is designed. If this weren't the case then there would be no difference between the different installers & updaters. "Bleeding edge" is a developer's euphamism for saying "I can't be bothered to fix it". In any case the standard FC6 install isn't bleeding edge at all - raw hide is.

lmo
27th March 2007, 01:46 PM
One can configure yum to be fast If One so desire.

jon3k
27th March 2007, 07:23 PM
personally do not find it problematic enough to warrent the effort it will take to "fix it". There are other choices for those who cannot stand yum.


Use apt for one week and then try and go back to yum. I dare you. yum is, compared to apt and even smart, an absolute joke in regards to performance.

You can give me excuses until your blue in the face, but that won't make it any faster, and not even half as fast as it's competition.

whatever, who cares, fedora and even rpm, are a sinking ship. mostly because of simple issues like this, but also to do with the decay and mismanagement of rpm as a package management system and the poor upstream relationships.

ps - still waiting for an updated clamav, I have three mail exchangers still vulnerable to a DoS. Update released by clamav on feb 23rd, still not an updated rpm in the yum repos.

good thing fedora is so bleeding edge :rolleyes:

And why in the world is everyone so afraid to call a horse a horse? I don't get it. Quit making excuses for yum! Good lord.

jbannon
27th March 2007, 07:36 PM
I agree. We're just telling it as it is. Surely that is what a community is for. What is more the developers know how to make its performance acceptable, they're just unwilling to change it. As for me, I have no experience of developing with Python so how am I supposed to fix the problem?

jon3k
28th March 2007, 11:22 PM
One can configure yum to be fast If One so desire.

Oh look, another excuse!

Great answer. Maybe developers shouldn't ever increase the performance of any application? Let's just tell everyone "you know, it may be slow, but if you want it to go any faster, that's your problem."

Great philosophy.

jon3k
28th March 2007, 11:24 PM
As for me, I have no experience of developing with Python so how am I supposed to fix the problem?

And I don't have the time or inclination, although I do know a little bit of python.

The only other thing either of us can really do is go complain on the fedora-dev mailing lists. But, if it isn't painfully obvious to them how poorly yum performs out of the box, I don't think me telling them will do any good. I think I'd make more progress beating my head against a wall.

No, I'll do what everyone else is doing. Quietly edging over to ubuntu.com.

scotta3234
29th March 2007, 12:13 AM
Can somebody please tell me why people have issues with yum??? Everybody is saying it's slow. How fast do you want to be able to get a package?? Compiling would take much longer. I've just never understood this notion that yum is painfully slow, especially with the fixes they made from core 5 to core 6. If you can't wait one minute to install an application then you have no business being on a computer in the first place.

jbannon
29th March 2007, 12:26 AM
And I don't have the time or inclination, although I do know a little bit of python.

The only other thing either of us can really do is go complain on the fedora-dev mailing lists. But, if it isn't painfully obvious to them how poorly yum performs out of the box, I don't think me telling them will do any good. I think I'd make more progress beating my head against a wall.

No, I'll do what everyone else is doing. Quietly edging over to ubuntu.com.
I find smart quite acceptable in terms of performance though it can be a bit "brittle" if there are traffic problems. This is my fault though as I haven't really bothered to define alternate mirrors for the services I use (Fedora, Livna, Dries and Freshrpms). Of these I mostly use Fedora with Dries & Freshrpms for the likes of Mplayer and Livna for the kmod-nvidia drivers. I have had no problems with the repositories interfering with each other since I altered the priorities in the installation script.

lmo
29th March 2007, 04:11 AM
Oh look, another excuse!

Great answer. Maybe developers shouldn't ever increase the performance of any application? Let's just tell everyone "you know, it may be slow, but if you want it to go any faster, that's your problem."

Great philosophy.That wasn't an excuse! Yum works great for me! I got it configured so that it is not slow for me (see metadata_expire=2592000). I installed the downloadonly-plugin, set keepcache=1, and I don't understand everybody must have a problem. I do the keepcache=1 because sometimes you need to redo something -- then don't download it again. And the metadata_expire, keeps it from reading all the headers all the time -- this only needed occasionally -- that's 5-10 minutes at 56K.

Firewing1
29th March 2007, 04:50 AM
I agree. We're just telling it as it is. Surely that is what a community is for. What is more the developers know how to make its performance acceptable, they're just unwilling to change it. As for me, I have no experience of developing with Python so how am I supposed to fix the problem?
That's the whole point... They have to learn it, code it and do their regular life stuff too. They aren't lazy or putting it off; The way I see it they want to get all the new features in, get them stable, then work on speed. Besides, it's not that slow if you break the updates down into 20 package bits.

Can somebody please tell me why people have issues with yum??? Everybody is saying it's slow. How fast do you want to be able to get a package?? Compiling would take much longer. I've just never understood this notion that yum is painfully slow, especially with the fixes they made from core 5 to core 6. If you can't wait one minute to install an application then you have no business being on a computer in the first place.
Couldn't say it better... I have to say, on a 800MHz machine I installed it was very slow. But the getting-oldish P4 1.8GHz I have downstairs (no HT) can handle yum jobs in a normal amount of time.
Firewing1

Finalzone
29th March 2007, 06:32 AM
Use apt for one week and then try and go back to yum. I dare you. yum is, compared to apt and even smart, an absolute joke in regards to performance.

You can give me excuses until your blue in the face, but that won't make it any faster, and not even half as fast as it's competition.
I think you need to learn how packages manager works. apt-get database is static meaning you will have to manually update if you intend to update a package while yum database is dynamic. For example:


apt-get update && apt-get upgrade is equivalent to yum update.
I strongly suggest to read Apt-get guide (http://wiki.linuxhelp.net/index.php/Apt-get_Guide) and Yum main page (http://wiki.linux.duke.edu/Yum). Be in mind apt-get went to similar step before being fast. In other world, stability is important than speed.



whatever, who cares, fedora and even rpm, are a sinking ship. mostly because of simple issues like this, but also to do with the decay and mismanagement of rpm as a package management system and the poor upstream relationships.
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.



ps - still waiting for an updated clamav, I have three mail exchangers still vulnerable to a DoS. Update released by clamav on feb 23rd, still not an updated rpm in the yum repos.

Then address the problem on fedora-list (http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list) so the clamav maintainer will be aware of the problem.

Neek
29th March 2007, 08:20 AM
[edit: ahem, cough, just noticed I posted this after reading only the first few posts on this thread,, scuse me. might still be relevant..]

I've never used smart, but there is a 'fastestmirror' plugin to yum that is supposed to choose the fastest mirror available to you... when I run yum, it reports:
Loading "changelog" plugin
Loading "kernel-module" plugin
Loading "fastestmirror" plugin
Loading "skip-broken" plugin
Loading "kmdl" plugin
Loading "installonlyn" plugin

There's a debate over why these plugins aren't installed as part of the standard yum distro, but until that settles down, consider:

yum install yum-fastestmirror

and you can probably figure the rest out yourself :P I hope that helps your yum download speed. I can't help with the way yum decides to repeatedly download relatively large amount each time you start it, seems like they would benefit from a feature addition or two, but no-one seems to have had the time yet.

jbannon
30th March 2007, 12:23 AM
That's the whole point... They have to learn it, code it and do their regular life stuff too. They aren't lazy or putting it off; The way I see it they want to get all the new features in, get them stable, then work on speed. Besides, it's not that slow if you break the updates down into 20 package bits.

Couldn't say it better... I have to say, on a 800MHz machine I installed it was very slow. But the getting-oldish P4 1.8GHz I have downstairs (no HT) can handle yum jobs in a normal amount of time.
Firewing1
It may interest you to know that, as an experiment, I have rebuilt my machine and am currently trying a yum upgrade with exactly the same set of mirrors I use for smart. No changes to the configuration of either package. 287 packages are needed for the upgrade (which is fairly typical) and the process has been running for 30 minutes and it is currently at package 194. Smart would have finished the downloads and been three-quarters of the way through the upgrade process itself by now.

What yum seems to be doing is:
a) Re-establishing the connection after each download.
b) Downloading serially.
This I think is at the heart of the problem. The packages may of course be using different protocols but I would have to look at the code to see if that is the case.

lmo
30th March 2007, 02:12 AM
Man yum.conf says
keepalive
Either 0 or 1. Set whether HTTP keepalive should be used for
HTTP/1.1 servers that support it. This can improve transfer
speeds by using one connection when downloading multiple files
from a repository. Default is 1.

jon3k
30th March 2007, 04:05 PM
That's the whole point... They have to learn it, code it and do their regular life stuff too. They aren't lazy or putting it off; The way I see it they want to get all the new features in, get them stable, then work on speed. Besides, it's not that slow if you break the updates down into 20 package bits.

Couldn't say it better... I have to say, on a 800MHz machine I installed it was very slow. But the getting-oldish P4 1.8GHz I have downstairs (no HT) can handle yum jobs in a normal amount of time.
Firewing1

Obviously neither of you have ever used apt. Try it sometime, then get back to me.

jon3k
30th March 2007, 04:08 PM
I think you need to learn how packages manager works. apt-get database is static meaning you will have to manually update if you intend to update a package while yum database is dynamic. For example:


apt-get update && apt-get upgrade is equivalent to yum update.
I strongly suggest to read Apt-get guide (http://wiki.linuxhelp.net/index.php/Apt-get_Guide) and Yum main page (http://wiki.linux.duke.edu/Yum). Be in mind apt-get went to similar step before being fast. In other world, stability is important than speed.


So now apt has given up stability for speed? Wow, you're really clueless, aren't you?




Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.

Really? Is that why they've launched a whole new team to address the horrible state of disrepair that RPM is in? Go do a quick search through the fedora-announce mailing list then come back and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.


Then address the problem on fedora-list (http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list) so the clamav maintainer will be aware of the problem.

I have better things to do than manage RPM for them.

jon3k
30th March 2007, 04:09 PM
yum install yum-fastestmirror


I assume once you finished the thread you'd realized I already have this package installed.

Neek
30th March 2007, 05:18 PM
I assume once you finished the thread you'd realized I already have this package installed.

Sorry jon3k, I was replying to Rezwan Mahbub's original post and the spirit of the thread, not regarding your situation. I should quote more, these blind replies are hard to follow. Hopefully his overall transfer rate when using yum would be faster if he had the fastestmirror package installed.

I used to get absolutely appalling transfer rates when I moved out to Thailand for a few months last year (similar to Rezwan's report, I'd get 20 or 30k/s top speed but only 1 or 2 k/s via yum), and the situation did seem to improve once I started using the fastestmirror plugin, but I didn't analyse the situation well enough to really see why, or if it could get even faster, I just figure the advice is worthwhile.

JN4OldSchool
30th March 2007, 05:21 PM
51 posts, has yum gotten any faster?

jbannon
30th March 2007, 05:28 PM
This thread is becoming slightly silly! All we are doing is pointing out that the performance of yum is not what it should be. Anything wrong with that?

Firewing1
30th March 2007, 09:50 PM
287 packages are needed for the upgrade (which is fairly typical) and the process has been running for 30 minutes and it is currently at package 194. Smart would have finished the downloads and been three-quarters of the way through the upgrade process itself by now.
Obviously neither of you have ever used apt. Try it sometime, then get back to me.
I've tried apt before and it was very speedy - I'm not saying Yum better than apt or vice versa - That's a personal choice I can't make for you... What I am trying to point out though is that the people who program (yum included) are usually preoccupied with other things too, unless programming is their job so it's slow for now but I know I can count on them to speed it up :)
Firewing1

Finalzone
30th March 2007, 10:41 PM
So now apt has given up stability for speed? Wow, you're really clueless, aren't you?
You completely missed the point. The development of apt used to get similar step before getting the speed.



I have better things to do than manage RPM for them.
I simply suggest to address the problem to the maintainer. Complaining here instead to the posted mail list won't do good.

jon3k
31st March 2007, 12:26 AM
You completely missed the point. The development of apt used to get similar step before getting the speed.

Reword that from engrish and I'll try and respond.


I simply suggest to address the problem to the maintainer. Complaining here instead to the posted mail list won't do good.

If they don't know that yum is slow, then the entire project is beyond help. You might as well tell me the developers don't know the sky is blue.

JN4OldSchool
31st March 2007, 12:49 AM
Reword that from engrish and I'll try and respond.



If they don't know that yum is slow, then the entire project is beyond help. You might as well tell me the developers don't know the sky is blue.

Why dont YOU try it in French, which is what I would assume Finalzone's native language is?

There is a difference between defending your point and just being rude. I happen to agree with you that yum sucks compared to apt-get. But that doesnt keep me from using yum in Fedora and it isnt THAT slow. If you dont like it then use apt with fedora or just take a hike and go use ubuntu. It isnt like you are tied to fedora or yum.

jbannon
31st March 2007, 01:07 AM
I've tried apt before and it was very speedy - I'm not saying Yum better than apt or vice versa - That's a personal choice I can't make for you... What I am trying to point out though is that the people who program (yum included) are usually preoccupied with other things too, unless programming is their job so it's slow for now but I know I can count on them to speed it up :)
Firewing1
High Firewing. I did a couple more experiments with the fastestmirror plugin. Last time I used this was quite a while ago but I stopped because it was rather unreliable and I kept getting failures because of bad connections. This time it performed a lot better with no dropped connections and a significant improvement in performance (about 15 - 20% I reckon though I didn't do accurate timing figures). This made the download speed acceptable at least for command-line use. I still think it has a way to go to improve on smart though simply because it does not appear to do parallel connections so it doesn't utilise the available bandwidth as well. Whatever, we have the choice of yum, smart or apt and that's good enough.

Despite my criticisms, if I was programming downloads in a shell script I would use yum because that is the standard Fedora front-end to rpm, just as I would use bash for shell-scripting because that is standard on all Fedora systems.

Finalzone
31st March 2007, 03:38 AM
Reword that from engrish and I'll try and respond.
As pointed out, English is my second language. At least people understood my statement. Trying to argue about language only shows your rude nature that will not lead you anywhere. It only reflect on what non-english speaking posters will negatively perceive you. Then we reached the off-topic here.


If they don't know that yum is slow, then the entire project is beyond help. You might as well tell me the developers don't know the sky is blue.
The initial reply targets your complain about the lack of update for Clamav package. I simply suggested to contact the maintainer about the issue yet your refusal to do so by stating:


I have better things to do than manage RPM for them.

Nowhere did I state to maintain your own RPM package.

Now for yum, is it slow? No. Compared to apt? Yes. The reason is due to the design as I posted the link to you so you can understand how these package managers work. By first stabilising the code, the speed will indirectly improve.

Coolerthanyou
31st March 2007, 03:50 AM
On fedora, I gave up a while ago on anything but yum for packages. Apt just causes strange issues the way I update and install stuff. Yum is slow but tough luck. I just don't use it as often so it's no big deal.

lmo
31st March 2007, 04:48 AM
[edit: ahem, cough, just noticed I posted this after reading only the first few posts on this thread,, scuse me. might still be relevant..]

I've never used smart, but there is a 'fastestmirror' plugin to yum that is supposed to choose the fastest mirror available to you... when I run yum, it reports:
Loading "changelog" plugin
Loading "kernel-module" plugin
Loading "fastestmirror" plugin
Loading "skip-broken" plugin
Loading "kmdl" plugin
Loading "installonlyn" plugin

There's a debate over why these plugins aren't installed as part of the standard yum distro, but until that settles down, consider:

yum install yum-fastestmirror

and you can probably figure the rest out yourself :P I hope that helps your yum download speed. I can't help with the way yum decides to repeatedly download relatively large amount each time you start it, seems like they would benefit from a feature addition or two, but no-one seems to have had the time yet.Thanks for that. It tool me all of 30 seconds to install that one. How fast will the next one be ... uh ... slow?

Rezwan Mahbub
1st April 2007, 02:39 PM
Hey guys why r u getting too much emotional!!! I just subscribed the thread for some guidelines how to make it efficiently fast with what it is, I mean just to tune it to its best.Nothing else guys. Relax!!!

bob
1st April 2007, 04:35 PM
Rezwan, I'll agree 100% on your last comment and some people are way out of line with their comments. I hope that I won't have to become a bit heavy-handed here. So, I'm not about to poke through 5 screens of comments to see if these have been linked before and will apologize if someone else has:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Tools/yum
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Drafts/SoftwareManagementGuide/CustomizingYum
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/yum/en/ (check Section 10, Yum Caching)

It's been my experience that Yum FastestMirror has exactly the opposite effect and really slows things down. Also, the Skip-Broken Plugin hasn't worked for me and I continue to use the older 'yum.sh' method to skip dependency errors. http://www.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?t=149328&page=4 (Post 57).

Rezwan Mahbub
1st April 2007, 04:43 PM
Thanks for Understanding me BOB...
And sorry to all you guys who have answered to my thread as all u guys somehow tried to help or suggest and my comment may have hurt u. so just chill u guys ok

lmo
5th April 2007, 01:08 PM
I just noticed recently, that yum is different speeds at different random times. Sometimes the mirrors tell it "checksum does not match" and so it downloads the headers again and again until it finds a mirror that doesn't say that. If you use yum at one of the random times that that is happening, then yum will be very slow. If you use yum when that is not happening, it may be fast.

lazlow
16th April 2007, 06:46 AM
jon3k

I tried apt for a while, like you suggested. It is fast, I agree with an eailier poster in that it does not behave well. I think I will stick with smart(just my preference).

Lazlow

pescobar
16th April 2007, 11:10 AM
Yeah, last time there was a fight about yum on here, bob made sure to ban the anti-yum guy and allow the ignore-the-problems fanboys to go on without a reprimand.

I agree, yum is slow. And I also agree that people need to quit making excuses for it. I've had no problems at all with apt, and it's incredibly fast. Doesn't matter what forum you visit, though--there's always going to be someone telling you you shouldn't want yum to be any faster and people who criticize yum just don't understand it.

jbannon
16th April 2007, 11:41 AM
I'm experimenting with yum and yumex at the moment and have all the plugins etc installed. So far it's OK though it still takes an age to regenerate the cache at times and it is definitely slower than smart (I haven't tried apt). I thought I'd give it a go again since yum is "standard" for Fedora.

JN4OldSchool
16th April 2007, 12:49 PM
<Thunk> <Thunk> <Thunk>

Huh? Whats that?

<Thunk> <Thunk> <Thunk> <Thunk>

<at full attention, looking around>


<Thunk> <Thunk> <Thunk> <Thunk>


<realization dawns!>

Oh, they are just beating that dead horse some more

<puts head down to resume nap>

jbannon
19th April 2007, 02:41 PM
Quick update. Well I tried apt with synaptic and on the first big upgrade after a system rebuild it totaled the system. Guess I won't be using that again :p It's also slower than smart, but faster than yum.

JonC
19th April 2007, 02:52 PM
I couldn't care less how slow yum is, so long as it WORKS. Any other refugees from SuSE 10.1 will agree with me.

JN4OldSchool
19th April 2007, 02:55 PM
<thunk> <thunk> <thunk>

the beat goes on...

jbannon
19th April 2007, 03:05 PM
I couldn't care less how slow yum is, so long as it WORKS. Any other refugees from SuSE 10.1 will agree with me.
Ordinarily I would agree with you, but that doesn't prevent me from suggesting that it could be improved in some areas. :)

JN4OldSchool
19th April 2007, 03:11 PM
Ordinarily I would agree with you, but that doesn't prevent me from suggesting that it could be improved in some areas. :)

seriously though, it is improving with each release! Look how much faster it is getting. And Finalzone and others are right in that it is an unfair comparison to apt-get because apt does not renew the sources.list every time you run it. When you do renew it taks forever too. In fact, I believe Yum is faster in that case. Horses for courses. Fedora uses Yum so that is what I will use in fedora. Besides, I really dig Yumex. I think that is a great front end.

JonC
19th April 2007, 03:20 PM
I am sure any other SuSE 10.1 refugees will agree with me when I say I couldn't care less how slow it is, it WORKS.

jbannon
19th April 2007, 03:31 PM
Maybe when FC7 is officially released and given a little while to stabilise I'll upgrade and use yum since that is standard for Fedora. There are a couple of downsides to smart as well: it doesn't deal with the yum macros (which is a pain); and it doesn't so far as I know write to the system logs. It would be more convenient to use if it did both of these.

On a positive note, I have done a few experiments with freeBSD and Debian Etch. While I managed to get both working after a fashion, it seemed to me that FC6 was a bit easier to set up with less post-install configuration to get the best performance from my system, or maybe it's because I'm just used to Fedora by now.

JN4OldSchool
19th April 2007, 03:37 PM
yeah Jbannon, I have found the same with etch but like you I attribute it to the fact I am just used to Fedora. I love etch, once I learned a few basics and got things like Beryl, my nVidia driver, Thunar and XFCE set up to my liking I almost prefer to use that install over my Fedora one. I have them dual booted on my main computer. I actually have some problems getting XFCE running right on Fedora along with Beryl. I have some conflicts somewhere and without ripping everything down I am kinda stuck. So I am waiting for F7 to really run XFCE with Fedora. In the meantime though, I really love etch. Now that everything is set up I really dont ever do a thing to it, it is just there, it just works. I guess that is what debian is about...

jbannon
19th April 2007, 03:59 PM
Can't really see the point in dual booting with different distributions to be honest and I can't really be bothered with the hassle of setting up grub for a dual boot.

P.S. I've joined folding. Hopefully I've done it correctly.

sentry
19th April 2007, 05:06 PM
I have Etch on my home system alongside FC and XP and it was actually very easy to get up and running. I don't recall actually ever having to do anything special with my grub file, it just worked.

JN4OldSchool
19th April 2007, 05:14 PM
Can't really see the point in dual booting with different distributions to be honest and I can't really be bothered with the hassle of setting up grub for a dual boot.

P.S. I've joined folding. Hopefully I've done it correctly.

Yeah, the main reason I do it is for sort of a "backdoor." If anything goes wrong with my Fedora install or, if say I upgrade to F7 but it doesnt work right or I cant get it running I simply boot into etch to continue working and school. I am not pressured to fix Fedora. I do have other computers also, but all my work is on this big one. A live distro would work the same but I really prefer to work in etch and p[lay in Fedora. They both share the same partitions (actually 2 400GB drives, one for work only the other for school, media and personal stuff) so it really works well. As far as setting up Grub, just put the second distro's grub in it's / partition and boot off the first grub. The first grub finds the second grub so kernel updates are always recognized. Really, it is easy and works fine.

edit: BTW, each distro is also on it's own separate 80GB drive. I thought about mirroring but think this is a better bet. If I lose one drive I still have the other distro. And it really isnt a big deal to just reinstall a distro.

Ambiguous-69
29th May 2007, 06:06 PM
I used Yum, Yumex, and Smart. Out of all the front ends I thought smart was the best, why because it had detailed information, things were categorised nicely, dependencies and what packages the rpm provided where there and it was fast.

I'm sick of hearign excuses e.g. fedora is bleeding edge you need to tinker, the future versiosn will get better, it doesn't use this method that is why its faster.

If there is a bette rfrotn end and does teh job better then fedora should just stop waiting on improvements from the current developer of a front end package manager that doesn't seem to be developign as quickly and as good then an existing one and drop it and adopt the new better front end manager.

If the military can choose what their future fighter is, then they would choose the better model, they wouldn't choose a worse model and wait for it to improve or get better. The same should apply for applicatiosn that make a system function, you go fro the one that will make it function better not stick with the one that isn't being improved or is at a very slow speed. Fedora is bleedign edge and is meant to be using the latest apps, and being improved a lot faster then other distros so it should drop applications that are not being imrpoved as quick as their meant to along with the other applications newly implemented into fedora.

Iv'e always wondered why fedora doesn't use the best of the best applications for example package managers or front end package manager. If teh current ones that they are usign arn't the best of the best then drop them, stop trying to improve them slowly or stop waiting for them to improve as they would only hold the distro back if there is better software out there to do the job. Rpm's I've heard are nto that good, I've heard there are better package formats like the one some other distros use so the linux community should drop the crappy package manager and all use the good ones, drop the crappy front ends for package managers and all use the good ones. At least porting applications would be a hell of a lot easier then, and it would be more unified rather than having all this choice amongst crappy software and good software, just eliminate the crappy software and use the good software that are made for the same purpose, it will bring better unification between distro's at least then and porting for developers wouldnt be such a pain in the ass and then you might see linux actually have a future as a desktop machine and not just a server machine.

I can tell you every bad decision linux has made and how they can increase desktop share, I can tell you Macs biggest mistakes and how they could bury MS under the ground, and i can telll you how that horrible windows system will always have major desktop share and how they did it and how they used smart techniques even though their OS isn't as smart as their business techniques.

The problem I see with Linux is it's meant to be this big community where everyone shares information and improves by helping each other btu the truth is it's far from that, there is no communication and rather than sharign and helping each other, everyoen is just going on doign there own thing in their own way rather than just admitting to themeselves that there apps or distro suck in some areas but are good in other areas and deciding to join efforts wioth teh other distros and developers to get rid of the bad stuff in soem areas and make all areas good.

I mean fedora can stand alone from the crowd because it is cutting edge (though it still has to get rid of some of the software it uses to function that isn't cutting edge like its package manager and front end from what I have been told), but its just messed up how there are so many other distros that use the same methods same apps packaged together same package managers and front ends and the only thing seperating them is a boot screen and a different file system (which again is a stupid idea if the current one works well and does its job like its meant too).

scotta3234
29th May 2007, 06:22 PM
"Iv'e always wondered why fedora doesn't use the best of the best applications..."

Because "best" is a matter of opinion. Yum may be slower, but for me it is the "best" for my particular situation. If we really wanted the "best" we'd all be using Gentoo portage.

JN4OldSchool
29th May 2007, 06:29 PM
I used Yum, Yumex, and Smart. Out of all the front ends I thought smart was the best, why because it had detailed information, things were categorised nicely, dependencies and what packages the rpm provided where there and it was fast.

I'm sick of hearign excuses e.g. fedora is bleeding edge you need to tinker, the future versiosn will get better, it doesn't use this method that is why its faster.

If there is a bette rfrotn end and does teh job better then fedora should just stop waiting on improvements from the current developer of a front end package manager that doesn't seem to be developign as quickly and as good then an existing one and drop it and adopt the new better front end manager.

If the military can choose what their future fighter is, then they would choose the better model, they wouldn't choose a worse model and wait for it to improve or get better. The same should apply for applicatiosn that make a system function, you go fro the one that will make it function better not stick with the one that isn't being improved or is at a very slow speed. Fedora is bleedign edge and is meant to be using the latest apps, and being improved a lot faster then other distros so it should drop applications that are not being imrpoved as quick as their meant to along with the other applications newly implemented into fedora.

Iv'e always wondered why fedora doesn't use the best of the best applications for example package managers or front end package manager. If teh current ones that they are usign arn't the best of the best then drop them, stop trying to improve them slowly or stop waiting for them to improve as they would only hold the distro back if there is better software out there to do the job. Rpm's I've heard are nto that good, I've heard there are better package formats like the one some other distros use so the linux community should drop the crappy package manager and all use the good ones, drop the crappy front ends for package managers and all use the good ones. At least porting applications would be a hell of a lot easier then, and it would be more unified rather than having all this choice amongst crappy software and good software, just eliminate the crappy software and use the good software that are made for the same purpose, it will bring better unification between distro's at least then and porting for developers wouldnt be such a pain in the ass and then you might see linux actually have a future as a desktop machine and not just a server machine.

I can tell you every bad decision linux has made and how they can increase desktop share, I can tell you Macs biggest mistakes and how they could bury MS under the ground, and i can telll you how that horrible windows system will always have major desktop share and how they did it and how they used smart techniques even though their OS isn't as smart as their business techniques.

The problem I see with Linux is it's meant to be this big community where everyone shares information and improves by helping each other btu the truth is it's far from that, there is no communication and rather than sharign and helping each other, everyoen is just going on doign there own thing in their own way rather than just admitting to themeselves that there apps or distro suck in some areas but are good in other areas and deciding to join efforts wioth teh other distros and developers to get rid of the bad stuff in soem areas and make all areas good.

I mean fedora can stand alone from the crowd because it is cutting edge (though it still has to get rid of some of the software it uses to function that isn't cutting edge like its package manager and front end from what I have been told), but its just messed up how there are so many other distros that use the same methods same apps packaged together same package managers and front ends and the only thing seperating them is a boot screen and a different file system (which again is a stupid idea if the current one works well and does its job like its meant too).

Wow! That certainly was an earfull :) I get the sense there are things about Fedora you dislike? I dont think anyone is making any excuses, Fedora is what it is and a lot of us are happy with it. If you arent then you can most certainly use another Linux distribution. I actually think apt-get and synaptic is the best package manager but honestly, I wouldnt want Fedora to use it. Yum works fine for most of us. We are only talking marginally slower and if you reload synaptic it takes forever too. Especially in Ubuntu. At the end of the day though you are making some strong statements that you can tell every single OS and distro EXACTLY what their problem is! Well, I can too...according to MY perception. I have just matured enough to realize that my perception is probably very different than yours. I hope you keep this in mind as you continue your Linux journey. Why be unhappy? Life is too short and I bet there is a distro that fits you perfectly! Good luck! :)

Ambiguous-69
29th May 2007, 06:39 PM
Don't get me wrong I like fedora, but if their are facts and a bases to show that there is software that are an integral part of teh system that to a faster better job then why not use it, opinions don't mean anythign when there are facts behien the truth.

Example. Does god exist, some people believe that he does other do not believe that he does, they are opinions. But if facts prove that only on of those are true then why not drop one of those beliefs when the 2 beliefs existing are what stop progress. You eliminate 1 belief and opinion because the facts show that opinion and belief is usless and does nto contribute to the future hence allow more focus on teh correct opinion that has fact behind it and is more worthwhile focusing on. By going on opinion rather than fact you have segragation which ultimately leads to the downfall and destruction of both opinions trying to struggle for their own belief that their opinion is better and theirs should be the way to follow and do things by. Thsi metephore can be seen in Linux, 20 different dostros 20 different peopel believign their way and their opinions are better and right and hence causign segragation rather than unification for the common goal of makign somethign better in every way possible

Ambiguous-69
29th May 2007, 06:43 PM
No distro will fit me or make me happy, Some distro's treat the users like windows does as totally idiots and strip the ability for any control or power over your system. Other distros make everything difficult by giving the power and making users having to be geniuses to operate or run the thing. None of them say hey lets give the user the option, we will make tasks easy and effortless and when they really need power user features they can just switch to it.

JN4OldSchool
29th May 2007, 07:01 PM
Wow! Let me preface this by saying I dont want to make you mad. That isnt my point. But there are flaws in what you are saying. 1. What you THINK is best might not be best for someone else. What gives YOU the right to choose which package manager I have to use? All you are doing is pointing to an extreme, I can as easily point to the opposite extreme and say that in your world you have no choice, you are told what you will use and how to use it because we know what is best for you. It is funny that I was thinking that Windows is indeed the OS for you. They think they know what is best for everyone but the reality is just a very bad compromise. Then I go down to your next post and read where Windows treats users like idiots. Well, I have to agree with that! :) 2. But did you know that Linux is Linux? Just because a distro behaves a certain way out of the box doesnt mean you cant tailor it to your needs. But you just plainly state that no distro will fit you or make you happy. Well sheesh, what do you want me to do? I say you should probably dump your computer and buy a hot rod. Or maybe take up fishing.

Remember, what is truth? God exists, there is no doubt in my mind, none at all. It is as obvious as the sunrise or my daughters smile. This is truth for me. Is it for you? I wont make that presumption for you. The only thing that everyone can count on is that one plus one equals two.

lazlow
29th May 2007, 07:31 PM
Ambiguous-69

I have tried synaptic on Fedora (yes it is in the repos) and did not care for it. Smart is the package manager that I use the most. If I want to find out what package supplies a certain lib, smart cannot do this (as far as I know), with yum I just "yum provides X". The right tool for the right job is one of many things linux is about. Choice and keep it simple(for individual apps) are others.

Linux does require the root user to be able to think and learn. Most people of reasonble intellegence can get Fedora to do what they want on most machines. I have a 70 year old widow neighbor lady who I set up with FC4 shortly after it came out. I had to do stuff for her for a while. I had to double check her stuff for a while. But when FC6 was released she had it installed before I did (without any help). This is a woman who had never ran a computer before in her life.

I would strongly disagree with you that it is a bad thing that linux is so diverse. It gives us choice. It also lives by the strong shall survive. Just like in the rest of the world, no one trait will allow an entitiy to survive better than any other. It is the best mix of traits that survives. There are destros that die every year and there are new ones born to replace them. If in that lifetime the distro has contributed then it was a worthwhile venture. Even if it just proved that it was a bad way to do things.

Ambiguous-69
30th May 2007, 01:01 PM
I have no time now, but i will explain my decisions and opinions and flaws of both arguments. I will try show you why certain things wont happen due to diversity and think odf australias wildlife as beign divers, due to that it is not resilient to changes that happen within in it and lead to the destruction of tis species due to the diversification.

When you look at any subject or anythign in life you need to look at it from a broader perspective not seperating it as being different from any other thing that functiuons in a certain way in in life but rather looking and seeing the link that they share. As I have used the metaphor above to show that to much diversification in live makes thing fragile and very easily destroyed.

Ambiguous-69
31st May 2007, 12:13 AM
I apologise, I was harsh by saying eminate the programs and applications that aren't good or the best, but they should at least not use them as default when there are better ones to use as default.

I may sound liek someone who dislieks linux or sound liek a person who prefers windows which is far from the truth.

Teh only reason I am thsi critcal of linux is because I am passionate about it, I see its potential and I want to see it actually succeed and be as widely known and used as a commerical system, the difference i sthat I think in realistic terms and do not hope or dream that the world will change for linux and provide fo rall teh diverse package managers out there, binaries will always be put out by hardware adn software developers so by having 20 differen package managers is not goign to help linux its going to make it less likely to get support because realitcially no company will give distros the source, that is only a dreamers dream and a hope that is not likely to coem true..

P.S Forget petitions, they are a nice polite way of begginign to companies that don't giev a rats ass, if you want them to release driver source to linux distro's you have to do it in a more demanding way liek ringing them up every day and demanding as a customer that they provide qaulity drivers for your package manager and your OS as it is yoru right as a customer. If every linux user did this for every hardware they have then you will see an immediate change ion their thinkign as there phoen lines and customer service is gongested from all teh calls. Asking a person do give you them their money politely wont get you their money, putting a gun to their head and threatinign to kill them if they don''t will. In life you cannot ask copanies politely you have o demand it as a customer and be forceful and threatining.

JN4OldSchool
31st May 2007, 12:32 AM
You know what? I totally agree with that entire post! The only difference between your view and mine is I just accept Linux for what it is and dont really want it to change. I prefer the choice, the loose structure, the freedom. I dont much care how many people use it. In fact it is growing way too fast for my taste right now. But...then again, I enthusiastically invite people to try myself. I am excited about where Linux is going. I guess I have just reached that age where I have figured out I'm just not going to change the world and I just accept things for how they are. Linux wont last forever. neither will Windows. It is hard for the young set to imagine this, but it wasnt that long ago when a window was just something to look out. I change what bad I can and just accept the rest. Package managers can be changed, other distros can be used. It is what it is. Just be glad we have it!