this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
-27 points (36.6% liked)

Linux

48077 readers
738 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

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.