Now that Arch is so easy to install with the Archscript
Trash. Not true arch user.
Switch to BSD instead, it is easy to use while being better in quality.
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
-27 points (36.6% liked)
Linux
48044 readers
758 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Installed arch the manual way but have also tried to script to see if it was really as easy as people make it out to be. I would still recommend everybody giving the manual install at least once but for people who want it very easy to use, the script is there and hopefully nothing goes wrong with their system.
Write your own script, arch users :)
So the thing with Debian and any Debian based distro like Ubuntu or Linux Mint is there is no big centralized software repo like the AUR.
The platform for this would be available (https://mpr.makedeb.org).
Yes there is the apt repository but if you want something that’s not in there, get ready to read the documentation or follow random guides.
Not everything is available in the AUR either. It may therefore be necessary to create a own PKGBUILD file. And since anyone can publish something in the AUR, you should check the PKGBUILD file before installing or updating it. Both also require reading guides (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_User_Repository, https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD and so on).
On Arch, all I have to do is Paru -S Reaper,
This would give me the error message that the command was not found. Why do some people assume that everyone uses the same AUR helper as they do? I use aurutils, for example. This AUR helper offers more options but is more cumbersome to use in some cases.
Apart from that, the name of the package is reaper and not Reaper. So even if I would use paru, it would not work.
Now that Arch is so easy to install with the Archscript,
Easier? Yes. But archinstall had and still has some bugs. And archinstall, understandably, does not cover everything so that a manual installation is more flexible.
yeah yeah there’s flathub and stuff but that’s more of a last resort, optimally, you want to get it the correct way.
Appimages or flatpaks are often the correct way to go, as many projects only publish such packages.
Edit: yeah yeah there’s flathub and stuff but that’s more of a last resort, optimally, you want to get it the correct way.
There's also Homebrew, which is more like the AUR than any APT repository or other package solutions. The formulae are built from source by homebrew, so it's basically like yay or, in your case, Paru in that regards.
This doesn't necessarily negate the point of your post, but it's still a myth that I bought into for a long time, so let's nip it in the bud: there is no "correct way" to install apps/programs/packages. There may be a correct way for your use case, but everyone has different use cases, even people using the same OS on the same hardware. I prefer system installs like .deb packages because it minimizes disk space and memory usage, whereas someone might prefer sandboxed packages like flatpaks or AppImages because of the security implications; hell, some people might opt for containers like docker or k8s for the compartmentalization.
On to the point of your post: I just want a set and forget OS. I don't care if it has the most recent updates or bleeding-edge features, I don't care about squeezing every last drop of benchmark numbers out of my hardware. I just want to boot up my PC and get to doing the things I use a computer for, not maintain my OS and configure and reconfigure and rereconfigure settings.
Linux newbies regularly come on here, in this exact community, and lament about their arch install, levying the above complaint. The regulars' responses usually boil down to "shouldn't have gone with arch if you didn't want to get your hands dirty." I'm not gonna say it's the same people, but it is the same userbase who will gleefully squeal "install Arch" when someone comes in asking "hey, I've never used Linux before, what distro should I use?"
"Use our distro, but all your problems are because you refuse to tailor your computer habits and schedule around the OS' needs" is not a community I'd particularly want to be a part of either.
Also, Pacman is an absolute migraine if you go a week without updating. I have sunk hours into fixing dependency issues only to get so frustrated I just uninstalled the app because Pacman would hold up 1300 updates (not hyperbole) over a single dependency issue.
Dog. I'm an arch user. You can't just say "Arch is easier than Debian" and then in the first part of your argument say:
Yes there is the apt repository but if you want something that's not in there, get ready to read the documentation or follow random guides.
You do realize Arch just frontloads that effort right? It's not any "easier." We embrace the fucking manual. (Arch based distros aside...)
Now if you were praising the simplicity of makepkg and the PKGBUILD syntax then sure. As is, though, this is just a bad take.
I'd argue that debian based distributions also need to refer to the documentation as well. If you have a simple setup, you probably don't even need to visit the documentation on Arch.
That really isn't true. Debian packages are often heavily patched and tested to make sure it fits into the rest of the ecosystem. While Arch does it too, they prefer to keep the packages as vanilla as possible - often requiring effort of the user's side to make it work with the rest of the system. It's a different philosophy. While Debian tries to be simple by being opinionated, Arch relies heavily on the effort of the users.
While Arch does it too, they prefer to keep the packages as vanilla as possible - often requiring effort of the user’s side to make it work with the rest of the system
To be honest, I have hardly ever had this experience. In my opinion, the distribution works so well precisely because Arch releases everything vanilla wherever possible. And in cases where the vanilla version doesn't work, the Arch team patches it.
So the thing with Debian and any Debian based distro like Ubuntu or Linux Mint is there is no big centralized software repo like the AUR.
There is https://pacstall.dev/ the AUR for Ubuntu. It has a Lemmy community https://lemmy.ml/c/pacstall And there is PPA for Ubuntu. With the Arch AUR anyone can just upload something, and it is up to you to check whether it is uploaded malware or not. Sure, you can check how many others upvoted an AUR package but that is still no guarantee it is safe.
So then you're saying the debian community sees value in something like the aur. Unlike all the other comments saying you should just use flatpak
Pacstall is for Ubuntu. I am not sure it can work well for Debian. Yes, sure, it is possible that some Ubuntu users see value in having AUR alike repositories to install from. Actually PPA for Ubuntu (PPA does not work well on Debian I've read) is kind of like AUR. The Personal Package Archives are uploaded by someone and provide newer versions of software, or provides software which is not in the main Ubuntu repositories. A good example of that is the PHP packages from Sury : https://deb.sury.org/
I'm not touching flatpaks or snaps with a ten foot pole, and I have the same experience as you. Switched to EndeavourOS a few years back after having been a Debian (and Synaptic) advocate for almost 10 years.
The AUR is great, and the Arch wiki is a flipping treasure trove. I can hardly imagine going back, certainly not on my work station. Servers will probably be fine running Debian for another few years.
What is it about flatpaks that bothers you? I am curious. My experience with them is good, except that are sometimes slower to launch.
Yeah, slow app launch for one thing. Lack of DE integration for another. Flatpak apps are so completely foreign elements in the distros I've used that I have no inclination to use them.
And the few times I've had to use on, it's so bloated with redundant dependencies. I understand that flatpak apps will share dependencies within their ecosystem(?) but since they're the exception to the rule on my system it never becomes a benefit.
Besides, as is OP's point — I have the entirety of the AUR at my fingertips. Why would I bother with anything else?
For certain low level applications, flathab may not work but for most cases, flathub is fine.
The second scenario is for something not even in flathub but is available in the aur which is signal desktop beta. The other day I installed this by typing paru signal and scrolled up and found signal desktop beta right there and pressed the appropriate number to install. This is much more efficient to install. If I were on my friend's linux mint computer I would have to find the github and follow instructions to manually add the package.
I am comfortable doing both methods but my point is that users generally want the lowest resistance to new technology. Linux is supposed to be efficient and easy to use not having to look up guides when the Windows way is downloading and running a simple .exe.
view more: next ›