Yoper Linux

Mardukas · 2007-10-04 12:07:32

Anyone tried this distro?
They claim to be fastest out-of-box distro with i686 optimized packages, kernel is patched by performance patches, etc etc. Is Yoper faster than Arch with default packages (no patching by hands)?

dolby · 2007-10-04 13:33:47

c'mon its an RPM distro...
haveent tried it (nor intend to) but i dont believe it
even if so, speed is not the first thing i want from the os i use.

kensai · 2007-10-04 13:52:57

When the original developer Andreas Girardet who is now with with SUPERSuSE project I was in the Yoper Team and used it as my main distro and contributed with everything improving it. But then Andreas started whining about how he didn't make any money from his work and left the project, it is now in charge of someone else, who I haven't dealt with. But, in the time I used it, it wasn't that great of a performance gain, in fact it took 1+ minute to boot while others performed better, but I was there just to help.

Long story short, it never were so great, it was abandoned by the creator, it is rpm based which is a big disappointment, it is now rarely released/updated. I mean man please do not waste time/bandwidth there are better performing distros, they have always claimed to be the fasted but never were.

Mardukas · 2007-10-04 14:30:55

And why RPM is so bad?

kensai · 2007-10-04 14:34:40

Mardukas wrote:

And why RPM is so bad?

Well, it is now not so bad since it is in development again, it was stalled, but I don't like rpm's that much is like I feel they install slowly and I haven't seen an rpm distro which is as good performer as a deb distro or tgz distro like Arch Linux or Slackware (which is i486 optimized and still so good performer). Well, the point is Yper never offered good performance since I used it in early 1.x and 2.x if 3.x is good I don't know I just doubt it.

vacant · 2007-10-04 15:18:19

I tried Yoper before Arch. I found Yoper, Arch and Gentoo equally quick, and noticeably faster than i386 distros, on my Athlon. A subjective conclusion but then I just want to detect the difference in use.

Acid7711 · 2007-10-04 19:35:06

Mardukas wrote:

And why RPM is so bad?

Simply put = Been there. Done that. Hello dependency-hell.....Never again.

Last edited by Acid7711 (2007-10-04 19:35:40)

audaly · 2007-10-04 21:51:24

I used Yoper just before Arch, years ago and it was my favourite distro.
The yoper was very very fast and impressive, had always cutting edge package, optimized for i686 but also unstable...
I didn't like the way Andreas Girardet leaded the project. He was to "dictatorial" and he almost kill the Yoper : no update during 6 months! That's why I tried Archlinux... It was 3 years ago.
I don't know if the 3.X version is good or not...

kensai · 2007-10-05 02:41:38

Yeah, Andreas treated us (Yoper Team) at the time like if he were a dictator, and he needed to make money out of Yoper. Well that is long gone, but what I find amusing is how you guys really felt yoper was faster??? It was nothing new it was just preload and ck patches and everything compiled for i686, you can get this and much more from Arch and Gentoo.

audaly · 2007-10-05 08:43:15

kensai wrote:

I find amusing is how you guys really felt yoper was faster??? It was nothing new it was just preload and ck patches and everything compiled for i686, you can get this and much more from Arch and Gentoo.

Yes I agree, but the Yoper was fast "out of the box". No need to customize the distro, it was fast from the install.

Last edited by audaly (2007-10-05 08:44:02)

Misfit138 · 2007-10-08 17:13:43

Acid7711 wrote:

Mardukas wrote:
And why RPM is so bad?
Simply put = Been there. Done that. Hello dependency-hell.....Never again.

I hear this time after time..I am no guru, so please someone correct me if my conclusions are wrong.
1. I use Arch as my main OS.
2. Before and after Arch, I have tried many other distros, many of which were RPM-based. I never had any dependency 'hell' nor any other issues with RPM's.
3. Dependency hell seems to be a thing of the past...like 4 years past (?)
4. My conclusion is simply this: Many people who refer to RPM dependency hell were first getting into Linux when Red Hat was king, and experienced dependency hell. RPM development hit a wall around this time, and they subsequently found another distro with automatic dependency resolution (Debian, Gentoo, etc.) ADR was such a blessing, that this newfound package manager solidified their distaste for "RPM".
and
5. RPM has a bad reputation because of word-of-mouth which has spread like wildfire since then.

Also, "RPM" can refer to package management as well as package format, but seems to be used exclusively to refer to package format nowadays, since APT, URPMI, SMART. YAST. and others have taken hold of the actual "management".

Discuss?

buttons · 2007-10-08 17:21:01

4. My conclusion is simply this: Many people who refer to RPM dependency hell were first getting into Linux when Red Hat was king, and experienced dependency hell. RPM development hit a wall around this time, and they subsequently found another distro with automatic dependency resolution (Debian, Gentoo, etc.) ADR was such a blessing, that this newfound package manager solidified their distaste for "RPM".

I wasn't going to jump into this discussion, but you nailed it right there. In fact, you nailed the distros I tried afterwards in the correct order, as well.

To this day I still won't use RPM distros at home. RH scalded me for life.

Nowadays, though, we have pacman. And the beautiful hybrid binary/source based nature of pacman (as well as the ease of creating PKGBUILDs) will keep me from using any other large binary-based distro for some time, be it deb, rpm, or what have you.

Flying Saxman · 2007-10-08 18:10:52

Misfit138 wrote:

3. Dependency hell seems to be a thing of the past...like 4 years past (?)

nope, SuSE 9.3 is NOT four years in the past...

kumico · 2007-10-08 18:15:27

what's all this dependency hell i keep hearign about? somehow it seems i;ve been lucky cos i've experienced none of the sort ... besides what does RPM have to do with answer the original question ...

the answer to the question is, no it is not .. i've given yoper many chances before switching to arch, it is plain and simply not as snappy and lightweight as arch, frugal also claims to be faster than arch, i find this also to not be the case ... the best thing to do is just try them out and see how they feel to you ...

Flying Saxman · 2007-10-08 18:31:47

I remember that if I wanted some packages in SuSE 9.3 I had to resolve it's dependencies by myself. Means: I want to install package A, I search for it on rpmsearch.com. Package A needs Package B in version Y. So I search on rpmsearch for Package B and hope that I'll find it in version Y. I recognize that it only exists in the older version X. Or I recognize I have the wrong distribution (searching for SuSE and not for Redhat) or the wrong version of the distribution (version 9.3 instead of 10.0 or 10.1). And so on. It was a hell to install a package. Ok, I installed a special version of apt-get for SuSE 9.3-rpms. Then the repository-hell began because some packages from repository A needed other packages from repository B that needed packages from C but C had conflicting packages with D what was needed by B. Then some packages were needed and couldn't be found in any repository. Ok, the last case could also appear in arch. But in this case you find it in the AUR and get it build very fast and you have only three repositories in the most cases because it's almost everything you need in these repositories.
Understanding what I mean?
And yes, that are real experiences I made. Probably the package management with RPM improved in SUSE or in general but I don't want to try out, because this pacman-thing is more comfortable anyway!

Misfit138 · 2007-10-08 18:50:31

buttons wrote:

4. My conclusion is simply this: Many people who refer to RPM dependency hell were first getting into Linux when Red Hat was king, and experienced dependency hell. RPM development hit a wall around this time, and they subsequently found another distro with automatic dependency resolution (Debian, Gentoo, etc.) ADR was such a blessing, that this newfound package manager solidified their distaste for "RPM".
I wasn't going to jump into this discussion, but you nailed it right there. In fact, you nailed the distros I tried afterwards in the correct order, as well.
To this day I still won't use RPM distros at home. RH scalded me for life.
Nowadays, though, we have pacman. And the beautiful hybrid binary/source based nature of pacman (as well as the ease of creating PKGBUILDs) will keep me from using any other large binary-based distro for some time, be it deb, rpm, or what have you.

Ah, agreed. Arch and pacman are the perfect match for me; just manual enough and yet just automatic enough, while allowing for full customization.
Saxman, how old is SUSE 9.3?
As for Yoper, i tried it once for a very brief period, but didn't stick with it long enough to notice much of anything. I got unexpected behavior and moved on quickly.

Flying Saxman · 2007-10-08 18:54:43

Misfit138 wrote:

Saxman, how old is SUSE 9.3?

2 1/2 years

Misfit138 · 2007-10-08 22:21:44

Flying Saxman wrote:

Misfit138 wrote:
Saxman, how old is SUSE 9.3?
2 1/2 years

I see. I tried SuSE a while back and just recently burned a 10.3 cd. It seems like it has a lot of very good, user-friendly ideas, (YaST, graphical installer) but it was buggy and slow for me. I haven't tried 10.3 yet, but I read the release notes which seem to indicate hundreds of bugfixes, which is very easy to believe .

tlaloc · 2007-10-09 02:03:25

Working with SUSE 9.3 back then, I didn't have any of the problems which Saxman describes. There was YaST, and apt4rpm, and smart might even work better nowadays. Perhaps I'll have a look at 10.3, too ...

Arch Linux

#1 2007-10-04 12:07:32

Yoper Linux

#2 2007-10-04 13:33:47

Re: Yoper Linux

#3 2007-10-04 13:52:57

Re: Yoper Linux

#4 2007-10-04 14:30:55

Re: Yoper Linux

#5 2007-10-04 14:34:40

Re: Yoper Linux

#6 2007-10-04 15:18:19

Re: Yoper Linux

#7 2007-10-04 19:35:06

Re: Yoper Linux

#8 2007-10-04 21:51:24

Re: Yoper Linux

#9 2007-10-05 02:41:38

Re: Yoper Linux

#10 2007-10-05 08:43:15

Re: Yoper Linux

#11 2007-10-08 17:13:43

Re: Yoper Linux

#12 2007-10-08 17:21:01

Re: Yoper Linux

#13 2007-10-08 18:10:52

Re: Yoper Linux

#14 2007-10-08 18:15:27

Re: Yoper Linux

#15 2007-10-08 18:31:47

Re: Yoper Linux

#16 2007-10-08 18:50:31

Re: Yoper Linux

#17 2007-10-08 18:54:43

Re: Yoper Linux

#18 2007-10-08 22:21:44

Re: Yoper Linux

#19 2007-10-09 02:03:25

Re: Yoper Linux

Board footer