38
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by pineapplelover@lemm.ee to c/linux@lemmy.ml

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Guenther_Amanita@feddit.de 28 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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. ☺️

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] constantokra@lemmy.one 11 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] yianiris@kafeneio.social 2 points 1 year ago

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.

@constantokra @pineapplelover

[-] constantokra@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Penguincoder@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago

All I’m saying is that aur has more stuff.

Sure, but that does not equate to the premise you made that Arch is easier to use than Debian.

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

So it's much easier to install stuff since it has everything you need.

[-] Aatube@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

I think they want you to talk about the other aspects of use, such as compatibility with hardware an whether there can be significant productivity roadblocks. (That said, the only said roadblock I've met is not being able to project and not being able to run a specific Android app)

[-] GravitySpoiled@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Congrats. Now you know why distrobox is so good. The package manager of the host doesn't matter anymore. Nix package manager also works on any system. And finally, nowadays you use flatpak to install apps whereever possible.

You can't take the package manager as a reference to judge which OS is better.

Arch is not only about installing but keeping up to date. A normal person does not want to read about selinux. Debian doesn't use it either but uses something comparable. On arch you have to take care of it. On debian the maintainers take care of it.

[-] Thorned_Rose@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I've been using Arch almost a decade now (after distro hopping between various Debian based distros), installed it on a bunch of different devices and never once had to read about selinux.

Arch maintainers take care of stuff too. If you don't want to update much, then update every three months or however long you like 🤷🏻‍♀️

[-] GravitySpoiled@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Which Mandatory access control do you use?

Is it really preinstalled without ever assking you if you even want it?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] spacebanana@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Static_Rocket@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] BaalInvoker@lemmy.eco.br 14 points 1 year ago

At least for me, AUR is last resort. I mainly use Flatpak, then offical repos, then finally AUR

[-] Fryboyter@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

Everyone is downvoting OP, but OP is literally the common case of what users actually want...

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] glouriousgouda@lemmy.myserv.one 4 points 1 year ago

correct way to install is flatpak most of the time

It's probably SUPER intimidating how many options there are for something as simple as "package management". Who to trust. etc. People are just rough, and unkind. Stick with what works for you. What your'e comfortable with. That's honestly the ONLY important aspect of this whole Linux endeavor. Complete control of YOUR computing experience. That gets lost in opinion and subjective conjecture more often than I can stand, honestly. It really is SO much saner on Arch, though. You're absolutely correct. That's why I stick with it myself. It gets out of my way and lets me do what I want to do.

[-] Thorned_Rose@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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).

[-] intrepid@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Reaper is as easy to install on Linux (any distro) as it is on Windows or OSX. Any packaged versions of it, other than the tar file that you can download from Reaper.fm, are maintained by a third party and have nothing to do with the distribution.

PS: IMHO, you want tools like Reaper and Bitwig to install directly unto your system rather than Snap, Flatpak, etc., due to the low level audio hardware interaction.

[-] piefedderatedd@piefed.social 8 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] sudo64@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Aatube@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] sudo64@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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 :/

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian

You really should never download a Debian package or install via a script. The proper way is to use a container or flatpak.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] halm@leminal.space 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Shrexios@mastodon.social 3 points 1 year ago

@halm @pineapplelover

What is it about flatpaks that bothers you? I am curious. My experience with them is good, except that are sometimes slower to launch.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] scratchandgame@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
38 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

55982 readers
1099 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

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS