3 ms·
The problem with most apt-based distributions is I've found that a lot of packages are out of date. Try out a pacman-based distribution some time. The idea of
by gravypod 10y ago
The problem with most apt-based distributions is I've found that a lot of packages are out of date.
Try out a pacman-based distribution some time. The idea of a rolling distro is great in my mind and most of the packages in the repo are up to date. If something is missing there is usually an AUR.
If you use zsh with oh-my-zsh then you're going to have a much easier time finding whatever you need to install. Pacman has an autocomplete written up for it.
Also, everything is near-perfectly documented in the arch wiki.
- liuw 10y ago> The problem with most apt-based distributions is I've found that a lot of packages are out of date. If you want APT based distro + rolling update, Debian testing is what you need. (Obviously if you're satisfied with Arch, there is no need to change.)
- gravypod 10y agoThere is still an issue of youtube-dl being out of date. Even in testing from what I've heard. You also don't have an AUR for Debian and there are many things that just aren't in the repos. Teamspeak 3, for example, is completely absent.
- Latty 10y agoThere are upsides and downsides. I love Arch and run it myself, but I'd never recommend an 'easy Arch' variant, because I imagine it'd suck. Arch with it's rolling release setup works, in my experience, because I know my system - all except the most core of the core components I'm never going to touch were installed by me and I know they are there and how I configured them, because I did it manually. No magic. When something goes wrong, I know why, and where to look to fix it. Rolling release adds a small amount of instability (although far less than you'd think), and I imagine that combined with the 'magic' in a more pre-built distro would be really annoying.