Pacman, yum, and RPM are worse, and portage and BSD pkg/ports failed to catch on in the mainstream. What we're left with is the cream of the crap.

>>53705683
Because it's the best tool to use for package management.

Whats better Aptitude, apt, or Synaptic? :^)

>>53705820
aptitude and Synaptic both use apt

>>53705820
Probably aptitude, but it's all just frontend all the way down

Because it's the most "Okay" package management tool.

>>53705683
Because it usually juice werks

>>53705731
Pacman is good, though.

Portage is okay, but manually resolving conflicts is a pain.

>>53706067
> manually resolving conflicts is a pain.
> Pacman is gold
thinks resolving dependencies is hard while pacman breaks X (lel Arch lel)

RPM is best

>>53706218
>implying anything "breaks X"
Arch user for 4 years now, has not happened a single time.

Meanwhile, I need to manually handle dozens of conflicts whenever I want to update my Gentoo box.

pacman just werks

>>53706323
install OS X

>>53706365
What, and use homebrew as a package manager?

No thanks.

>>53705731
>he doesn't use zypper
laughing whores.jpeg

>>53706403
>try using zypper on work server
>it asks me to insert a cd
no thanks

>>53705731
>Pacman, yum, and RPM are worse
What? Yum is one of the many frontends to RPM and it's great, as is Zypper. Pacman is decent too. Apt is dependency hell, especially on debian.

>>–no-install-recommends

>>53705897
>>53705911
>taking the bait

>>53705731
>>Apt is dependency hell, especially on debian.

And you think anything supporting RPM isn't worse? There's a reason ALL of my personal systems are Debian based. Support RHEL for my career has shown me that "RPM Hell" is alive and well.
Want package management with dependency resolution that works? Apt. Always.