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. 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.
For example, one of my friends wanted to download an audio tool called Reaper. On Windows this is just looking up the application and clicking on the .exe. It really depends on the dev if they include a .deb, sometimes you might need to download the .sh file or they may tell you to compile it yourself. Perhaps, you have to add a ppa. On Arch, all I have to do is Paru -S Reaper, if there are multiple Reapers I can look for that by typing Paru Reaper.
Now that Arch is so easy to install with the Archscript, and the software repo so vast and easy to use, is Debian really user friendly if you have to jump through several hoops to download programs?
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.
You took one narrow use case whose significant downsides you’re unaware of and made an OS ease of use judgement based on that. Therefore while you’re entitled to it, it’s not a useful judgement. ☺️
My narrow use case is just installing packages. There are lots of packages not in the apt repository. All I’m saying is that aur has more stuff. Now, if apt repository has around the same amount as the aur then I could see how debian based distros are functionally as easy to use.
Do you look at the stuff in the aur? Because any of that stuff you install from there could be messed with because it’s a user repository. I specifically left arch because I had to look into all the packages I installed from the aur, and the stuff from the official repos was pretty limited compared to something like Debian. That took a lot of time. Or, you could always just install whatever you find with zero concern about security.
I’ve been running Debian for decades with maybe 2 problems I had to manually resolve with apt. I ran arch and manjaro for maybe a year, and had a handful. I’m certainly not going to say not to run arch, but it’s in no way easier to keep running than Debian. That’s literally Debian’s whole gig.
In all the years I’ve used the AUR I only heard of one pkg violating security, it was recognized pretty fast and was removed within hours from going up. AUR pkgs have history/track/votes on them, with thousands using them it is just as likely an official pkg having rogue code as an aur pkg.
Also, aur pkg are not really software written for the aur, it is software packaged for the arch ecosystem, and several other distros are using them.
Right, and that’s a good reason why you should feel reasonably comfortable installing very popular software from the aur, once it’s been there for a while. That’s not why people like the aur.
People like that you can get even unpopular stuff in the aur, and that’s the stuff you need to be suspicious of. If you’re getting some niche y2k era packet radio software from the aur, you should be checking how it’s packaged and what is actually being packaged. And if you have the knowledge to do that you might as well get the source and install it yourself. I’ll admit that i’m getting old, and I don’t know if that’s something people aren’t willing or able to do these days.
Maybe i’m just cranky about arch, but it just seems really stupid to me to go through manually installing and setting up your system just to either install some random crap from the aur, or have to manually review it all because the official repos are pretty bare.
1 If you take an average AUR pkg and read its content (PKGBUILD) the procedure of building an arch like pkg is not very much unlike the practice of building and installing from source as in the old days. The difference is that when a new revision or need for patch, or rebuild due to fresh libraries/dependencies is necessary through your AUR helper you will be notified.
Yes. It is possible to verify what’s going on. That’s what I did when I used the aur. Do you think most people do that, or even look at see how many users are using the software? Or do you imagine they just install it blindly?
If you ever see a help video or article that suggests installing something from source, or run some script people generally tell the reader that they shouldn’t just run random code without looking at it. I’ve never once seen anything that suggested people should check the pkgbuild. I don’t have a problem with the aur. I just think it’s not nearly as trustworthy as it’s generally made out to be, and I don’t think people generally understand that it might even be a concern, or that you can check the validity of the package yourself.
When you download new programs how do you do so? You just install flatpak or what?
Ordinarily I use apt. Sometimes a flatpak if I trust the source. Otherwise it’s from source or usually something i’m running in docker, where I’ll check what it’s actually doing if i’m at all suspicious.
I don’t want to make too big a deal of the aur. When I was using arch and I needed something from the aur it was easy enough to see that it was a legitimately packaged piece of software. The only big deal is that it’s a real pain in the ass, and I know most people aren’t doing that, and I never see anyone mention it so I doubt people even consider that it could be an issue.
It comes down to what you trust. I trust the stuff I can get from Debian’s repos. I trust some other sources, and everything else I look at. I don’t trust the aur, and I sincerely doubt most people look at the software they’re installing from it to make sure it’s legit.
It’s really none of my business what others are comfortable with. The trustworthiness of where you get your software is a decision you have to make for yourself, and with the way people go on about the aur I get the feeling they don’t bother to decide. I don’t ever hear anyone acknowledge that there’s any sort of difference between the aur and Debian’s repos, but that’s just frankly an utterly absurd idea.
You should check out Nix (the package manager). NixOS’s Nix package manager can be used outside its own system. It supports the vast majority of Linux operating systems as well as MacOS.
Nix’s package repository is gigantic like you wouldn’t believe, and Reaper is in it.
deleted by creator
What do you mean by contamination? (I’ve never used Nix)
deleted by creator
Is mint slower than Ubuntu? A bit surprised to hear an Ubuntu derivative called slow
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
These are download instructions from Librewolf’s official website:
Ubuntu: https://librewolf.net/installation/debian/
Arch: https://librewolf.net/installation/debian/
Ubuntu is noticeably longer as you need to wget a specific link and adding the keys.
Arch is just one command from the aur whether you want to use pacman, yay, or paru
Removed by mod
I have installed manually before. I’m not saying that it’s hard, I’m saying that arch is faster to do so since it’s one command. You’re not going to memorize the wget link and process to install keys for every program. Why is this so controversial?
Removed by mod
yeah yeah there’s flathub and stuff but that’s more of a last resort, optimally, you want to get it the correct way.
Dude, there is no correct or wrong way. Many prefer Flatpaks, because they ship with all they need and work on every distro.
Also, you can just use Distrobox on any distro and use anything you want.
But calling Arch easier than Zorin or similar is just wrong.
You gotta add the fact, that ArchLinux sometimes requires you to fiddle a lot when a update failed and broke a lot of stuff, there’s also the installation process, Debian is much more stable (and while archlinux is too), debian is generally a better option for beginners to its approach, And also Reaper is practically Avaliable on a crapton of distros, the fact that it provides binaries officially, and also that its avaliable on FlatHub.
The installation process has been pretty simple since archinstall and endeavourOS. The “sometimes” happens rarely, and the forums and mailing lists are pretty helpful.
The only times when an update broke a lot of stuff for me is 1. The infamous grub update which never happened again 2. Thunderbird dropped GTK support, not an Arch problem 3. I didn’t update for quite a while and had to do package replacements, which were automated by the package manager but was scary 4. Budgie and GNOME conflicted with each other. Weren’t very significant
Well yeah, but see the issue here ? Have you ever heard such issues with Debian. No. Arch had a fuckton of issues, especially with updates, exemple: when Arch was shipped with kernel 5.19.12, it was very unstable, most of the time these issues can not even appear, and its just depends of user experience, but issues do sure happens :/
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.
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 :)
Everyone is downvoting OP, but OP is literally the common case of what users actually want…
Honestly didn’t think I would get this much hate. People talking about how the correct way to install is flatpak most of the time, a comment right after says you shouldn’t use flatpak for low level, and other comments saying to install it the long manual way (which, admittedly, is the most secure way), nobody has admitted that it’s easier to install from aur rather than on debian.
If it’s a popular and maintained package on aur then most of the time it should be fine. Very rarely do I have to go to the official documentation to make the packages manually unless it’s a smaller project.
Because there’s still unfortunately a heap of Arch FUD and myths floating around.
FWIW, I agree with you. I ended up using Arch for the past almost decade now in part because of the repos and pacman.
I distro hopped a lot when I first moved to Linux (from Windows) before settling on Mint. Faffing about with adding repos didn’t feel like an improvement over the Windows experience of having to go to various websites to download files.
I was still pretty much a Linux noob when I moved to Arch. I’m glad I didn’t listen to all the FUD then about it being hard and terrible. It’s been so much easier to use and maintain than other distros I’ve used (or installed for other folks).
Arch requires significantly more tinkering to keep it working, compared to Debian. That’s not because of FUD. Arch has a more hands-on philosophy. It even says so on their wiki.
I have seen savvy users jump directly from Windows to Arch without trying easier distros like Mint. But if given a choice, I wouldn’t introduce anyone to Arch as their first distro. Most people are simply not that patient and are likely to give it up as being too hard. They are likely to give in to the actual FUD that Linux is not user-friendly.
It’s not unusual for people who have tasted the freedom that Arch gives you, to think that it’s the easiest distro around. But the Arch way of doing things is alien to most people around. It’s very important to set the expectations straight and not get carried away.
I’ve been using Arch as my daily driver for almost a decade. I think I might know how much tinkering it requires lol. You can look at Arch News and you’ll see there’s bugger all interventions required. I don’t bother to tinker with anything and haven’t in about three years because I’m happy with what I have. I don’t need to tinker if I don’t want to. 🤷🏻♀️
In that almost decade, I could count on one hand the number of times my system has broken and most of those was basic user error.
And I never said it was the easiest distro. You gotta stop making strawman arguments.
If you want to flex your experience, I have twice as much as you do, just with Arch. You are just speaking your perspective and extrapolating it to others. Neither the official Arch sources, nor the regular users’ experience match what you say. The argument you made is in complete disregard of the ability, patience or intent of the vast majority of users.
It’s a common trope that I see that newbie Linux users complaining about how Arch users talk down to them. I can see where that comes from.
EDIT: I am tired, in pain and was feeling grumpy when I wrote this this morning. I’m being a hypocrite and not coming to your level with compassion, kindness and patience like I should. So I’m going to bow out of this conversation and say agree to disagree. I’ll keep helping folks move to Linux like I have been for years and put my energy where I want it to go.
Original reply
You think I’m flexing? Interesting. And you want to tell me I’m extrapolating (projecting)?
Guessed I should have ‘flexed’ more and also explained that my experience is not just with my own PC but multiple PC’s, laptops and… not all mine. Yep, I’m ‘flexing’ about all the people I’ve helped install Linux (all Arch based oh no) with my years of flexing volunteer experience.
With all my years of years of volunteer work and helping countless people (including in a very vulnerable area of society) I only ever talk down to people yep. I totally don’t encourage everyone to come to people at their level with compassion, kindness and patience.
I’m just all bout the flex. 😂🤦🏻♀️
Maybe don’t make assumptions about someone’s motivations, experience and qualifications when you don’t actually know them?
I am tired, in pain and was feeling grumpy when I wrote this this morning.
Disagreement over a distro is nothing worth suffering for. Wish you a speedy recovery and better times ahead.
