I was wondering the same thing myself.

After hours of scouring the web I'm hearing favorable things about Libranet.

I also use apt for SuSE, it works great most of the time.

If I "Run Command..." but the package isn't there YaST will install it (on FTP installed linux it will download the package and sometime the required dependencies).

If above fails I run apt-get update then apt-get install packagename. It will download the package and the required dependencies as well. Sometime I have to run SuSEconfig after that.

Why not Debian? I don't have a good reason but maybe because SuSE is easier to install or looks prettier ;-)

Once you get your window manager running, they all look the same.

It would partly be due to the installation, I installed Debian once then decided to try once more, I just could never get comfortable with Debian and both times I tryed to upgrade the kernel and ran into problems. I guess I just missed the Comfort of Red Hat since I have been using it since 7.2 and the one thing that RH had been missing was a RPM manager such as apt/synaptic where the dependencies don't become overwhelming. This port from Debian has been a god send, it just works better then the RH default package manager and bundle that with the RH up2date utility you now have a system that automatically looks after upgrading plus the ease of installing/removing packages having not to worry about dependencies.

The obvious reason on why to use a redhat apt get is redhat's a breeze to install, has nice GUI tools that let you tweek your machine, and is a well supported distro. As for knoppix and morphix, I've tried knoppix and I don't like it, I had too many problems after doing a harddrive install. I prefer Xandros, it's not free but, it has crossover products installed, good hardware detection, and is based on woody.

Wait a minute! Isn't woody copylefted? That means that everything derived from it has to be free!

Debian's a breeze to install these days. You just don't go for too much during the automated install. Just install the base system (no window managers or anything) and use apt-get to install everything else. If you configure your internet connection and tell apt where to get updates from you can even install stuff straight off the net (it's helpful to have broadband) otherwise it'll direct you to your CD's. That way you have total control with no dependency problems.

I must admit that the debian installation, once you've done it once, is far from difficult. As a linux newbie, I installed it, and after a few false starts, found it wonderful [i was daring enough to try apt on other distros]. The social contract of debian is also a nice idea.......

I have to disagree that Debian's easy to install, if you want to get a reasonably recent desktop, anyway. You've got to know (probably from lost weekends of fscked-up installs) that upgrading X and KDE (especially) from Woody to Sid is usually a disaster (after you discover you need to). Then, it's another re-install, usually from the bare metal, of barebones Woody, careful reading of the Apt Howto, fiddling with the bizarre and poorly-documented sources.list, apt-getting for hours on end, blah blah blah, until you realize you need to build a custom kernel. By then, or course, you've forgotten why you were doing this in the first place .

But, it'll get better. I'm pretty sure...

Anyway, to answer the original poster's question - How good is apt-get, really? - I can't imagine (actually, I get nightmares and flashbacks from having tried) trying to keep a consistent, reliable Linux installation without it. Like Churchill said about English parlimentary democracy: "It's the worst damn system in the world, except for all the rest."

Ab.

True.
Maybe people do not have the patience or the time for installs that ask too many questions.
They also want things to work once it is installed. I installed Debian woody on a computer and then later found that X did not work - I think the non-standard graphics card was not recognised.

Whatever anyone says - Debain HAS to improve maybe more than its install, its ability to recognise hardware properly..

But many people keep to Debian anyway, including me. See?

Some who like it this way are concerned that a full GUI automated install will be a disaster. Maybe.

So let it be a text based but easy one for those who do NOT want to tweak things too much, leave room for those who DO!

"Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Albert Einstein.

Actually I think Debian is fine right where it is. Debian relies on the user to be able to detect the hardware of the computer properly. This distribution just doesn't have the newbie in mind. While apt-get is a powerful and straight forward (well, sometimes) package manager, Debian is not.

This is the only distribution I've ever run (yeah, I know that's kind of lame), but I chose it because I wanted to learn more about my computer and Linux.

I've never had problems upgrading X (mind you, I don't use KDE) under Debian. I'll admit that sources.list is poorly (and in some cases, downright wrongly) documented. But once you've got it working it's a breeze to do again. One rule I've discovered is that before adding any new source to sources.list, actually going there manually and having a look around is immensely helpful.