on Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 09:05:44AM +0200, Florian Ernst (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote: > Hello J.S.! > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 11:51:19AM +0530, J.S.Sahambi wrote: > > I have been using apt and dselect for some time. Can any body tell me > > about the advantages/disadvantages of dselect and aptitude? and which is > > better? > > To dselect or aptitude, that is the question; > Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer > The slings and arrows of outragous dselect > where, alas, Sarge can barely meet Sid > Or to take arms against a sea of troubles > And by learning aptitude end them. > > > But seriously, both have their (dis)advantages, use them, feel them, > decide yourself. Better is what you can make out of them. aptitude is pretty much a replacement for both dselect (interactive) and apt-get (command line). With near but not-quite drop-in replacement of the latter. The strengths go beyond this to include logging of system updates, allegedly, though I'm still not fully clear on how/where. I found tonight that the difference between an 'apt-get dist-upgrade' and an 'aptitude dist-upgrade' for an older system which I've been attempting to pare down (former desktop, now mostly a DNS / remote access server) was about 280 MiB. The short answer, though, is that you'd want aptitude over dselect in virtually all instances. Though apt-get is still useful. Look also at synaptic and, um, the other stuff. > Cheers, > Flo - who was a dselect advocate for a long time and then switched to > aptitude because of its ability to easily handle mutliple releases. > I stayed there, and I don't regret it. > > > PS: Sorry to Mr. 'Speare and to all poets for the butchering... Oh brave new world, that has such features in't.... Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <email@example.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Enough is as good as a feast.
Description: Digital signature