I've thought about migrating from debian to arch linux for a while now.
All memes aside, the reason why I want to do this is because arch seems a tad bit more resourceful with a larger repos and the arch wiki is much better than the debian docs.
Only thing is I've used nothing but APT / dpkg for years now and on rare occasions rpm / yum stuff. I'm a bit hesitant to switch to pacman, old habits are hard to break ...
inb4 install gentoo
Other urls found in this thread:
github.com
wiki.archlinux.org
twitter.com
Pacman is a fucking joke. It's literally the thing that is slowly driving me away from Arch. The only thing keeping me attached is the rolling release model.
Yaourt sucks ass. I've had more success compiling packages myself than using that trash
But it just works.
All it does is do what the PKGBUILD tells it to do.
Bump. Is it even worth moving to Arch or should I just stick to debian
It is.
how so?
If you intend to use your computer for more than dicking around no. If you want to use arch so badly just get manjaro
It's Linux dude, it doesn't matter what your distro is. If something isn't in the repos then just compile it yourself, no reason to switch to an entirely new OS, especially one that requires you to subscribe to a mailing list for when their bleeding edge software breaks something.
That's the mentality I've been leaning towards. I was just wondering if there is actually any real benefit to running Arch.
This. Distro is a social construct.
Arch repos, counting the AUR, are less than half the size of Debian's you idiot.
I doubt there's anything important in the Arch repos that aren't in Debian's and if you like the Arch wiki then use it for Debian. Other than the fact that the pacman stuff is useless, it's perfectly valid for use in another systemd distro.
Except it doesn't just work. Works for installing packages, uninstalling is a completely different story.
Portage is and always will be king.
How much of that is old unused bloat due to debians age?
Anyways I prefer fedora since many things for developers seem caterered to the RHEL world.
What's your experience using fedora as a daily driver? I'm thinking about switching to fedora kde specifically. Does selinux cause issues? I've also noticed that the docs are not very good.
Pacaur faggot
Manjaro sucks use Antegros
Sounds like you just don’t know how to use it. I’ve never had a problem uninstalling packages with pacman.
Pacaur is dead user :(
pacaur is dead, faggot.
>
pamac does everything those did but better and it runs in a gui
What's so hard about it? Just pacman -R or -Rs and call it a day. If you want to remove the configuration files, then go ahead and do it manually.
Pacaur is dead, trizen is a voice of new generation
What's wrong with -Rns?
Debian offers multiple versions of libraries for compatibility reason i.e. libass1 libass2. It's retarded to compare package counts when Arch doesn't do anything like this.
AUR is better than gang banging your system with PPAs and manually cloning a git yourself
If you've never had to deal with this then no there are no benefits. My reasoning is also I have better stability with rolling release but just my two cents
Just switch to Debian Unstable you fucking moron. That way you still have access to the Debian repos, which are the largest of any distribution.
Furthermore, the ArchWiki isn't exclusively for Arch-based distros, all of the shit unrelated to pacman applies to all linux distros.
It's retarded to think that a few multiple library versions accounts for like 30,000 packages you fucking idiot.
Quantity is not quality.
Arch also doesn't split packages.
Oh shit you got me there. Definitely, the packages made for one of the most widely used distributions, on top of which many others were built, and which is still the golden standard for reliability cannot HOPE to even come close to an AUR package patched together from a debian/ubuntu repo by pajeet273.
for one you need to ignore all the trash who don't know how to use arch
throw on trizen for all user level OS fuckery and use UEFI for booting. life couldn't be simpler
These are very aesthetic reaction images user, you have good taste
>If something isn't in the repos then just compile it yourself
How do you keep track of software you compiled manually with your package manager so you can uninstall it or not cause any future dependency conflicts?
You may gain autism
Compile it, package it, then install the package using the package manager.
t. retard who has never used arch
Debian package manager sucks. Just because you have more users doesn't mean you get more support. Especially for niche applications. Good work, you have 60 versions of Gimp and GNUmeric. Try something useful, instead.
Nice try you rotting cretin, I'm actually using Antegros as we speak, but that doesn't make it perfect. The simple fact of the matter is that for most people, Arch is timesink, me included. Just because there are people who enjoy using it doesn't mean it's good in every situation. Especially considering OP's post, who would be much better off switching to unstable instead of Arch.
For niche applications Debian and Ubuntu both blow Arch out of the fucking water, especially scientific packages. It's precisely for this reason that I have one machine running Arch and one running Debian. Since very few people using Arch would even be aware of the existence of such packages there is no AUR equivalent ever in sight.
What I'm trying to say is use the distribution which best fulfills your needs.
Lastly, if you're so stupid that you can't configure your repositories or even use apt and check what software you have installed on your machine you should seriously consider suicide.
OP here. I generally agree and I would not think arch is very different from featureless debian netinstall. With that said arch appears to be be a little better . With debian I always get issues with dependency problems from old and missing packages confusingly renamed, or ambiguously removed over versions 9, 8, 7 or even earlier.
>scientific
How is academia niche?
Antegros sucks use Anarchy
What a stupid argument. Arch is a DIY distro, if you can't find a package for something write a PKGBUILD yourself.
How isn't it? An incredibly small number of people actually require certain pieces of software when compared to the general demographic of linux users. And that's normal, because few people actually have a use for them in most cases - why would you download a 2 gigabyte package that exists only to simulate particles rubbing against one another?
I have around 50 packages I use for my field, and most of them are only available on debian/ubuntu repos. It saves a huge chunk of time to just change the distribution in such situations.
Most of the programs I need have terrible documentation, simply switching would save me weeks of working on getting them to work. In other words, there are many cases when on debian or ubuntu it just werks (tm)
>needs a gui for pacage managment
are you fucking retarded
why the fuck would use the shittiest version of arch available
have a fucking script that isn't bloated and disgusting you brainlet
github.com
What's wrong with pacman? I've had no troubles with it.
>what can i expect tranfering to arch
A bad time.
>I'm a bit hesitant to switch to pacman, old habits are hard to break ...
Just bookmark this page and you'll "pacman -Syu" with the best of them in no time:
wiki.archlinux.org
...
>packagemanager
>light weight
Just install everything via tars.
>gang banging your system with PPAs
This, the past has shown that Plebian maintainers can't be trusted to package working software.
>Debian
>golden standard for reliability
>Debian
>golden standard for reliability
Not that guy, but Debian stable is roughly on par with Windows IMO. I'm running Cinnamon and the desktop environment is a bit quirkier than Wangblows, but the core system is more reliable. For instance, while I've experienced a few BSODs on Windows and no kernel panics on Debian stable, double clicking works strangely in Nautilus on Debian 9.3 which is the kind of thing I'd expect to be more polished in Windows.
apt and apt-get makes me feel sick, pacman is comfy by comparison, what package manager do you recommend?
Not him, but packages are staggeringly up to date. I tried it in virtualbox, I'm actually surprised how easy it is to install. I prefer it this way. I can't believe I listened to all these faggots on this board. I'm backing up everything now. Making the switch soon.
>roughly on par with Windows IMO
That can mean a lot of things desu, depending on your hardware and Windows version.
checkinstall
It turns any "make install" into a .deb package
Alternatively ./configure --prefix=/opt/$program/
Then you can just delete /opt/program/
>Since very few people using Arch would even be aware of the existence of such packages
It's time to give verifiable examples.
prepare for spend time fixing shit.
Arch, aside of gentoo, is, unironically, propense to break
>which is still the golden standard for reliability
Nope.That meme went out the window ages ago.Debian is irrelevant these days. Ubuntu LTS just does everything better.
Not him, but I like to browse the repos from a GUI. Sometimes I update too, really just depends on what I'm doing at the time. I wouldn't say it's a crime, but I do get where you are coming from to an extent, especially when dealing with AUR packages. AUR is the last place you should be pushing buttons blindly.
KISS
zypper is unironically the best binary package manger in all of linux land, and it's horribly underrated. dnf also isn't bad, since it uses similar internals to zypper.
then again, both of those are only available on systemd distros, so meh. I've heard good things about xbps though.
systemD/dbus