4 ms·

AUR is part of the problem that Debian Linux seeks to solve. AUR gets you 32,000 packages with uncertain quality and provenance. It's about two steps from down

by hapless 15y ago

AUR is part of the problem that Debian Linux seeks to solve. AUR gets you 32,000 packages with uncertain quality and provenance. It's about two steps from downloading a zip file of binaries off the internet. Debian has 29,000 packages that conform to a set of policies, with careful change control and vetted, active maintainers for each one.

beej71 15y ago
The two methods are certainly not mutually exclusive, and reflect the differing needs of the user bases. We could just as easily say Debian is part of the problem that AUR seeks to solve, but "problem" is a bit of a loaded word.
hollerith 15y ago
I ran Debian for years and respect it. The reason I switched to Arch Linux is the complexity of the Debian system coupled with the assumption made by most Debian writers and maintainers that learning great gobs of stuff about Debian is a good use of my time. What would be ideal is a distro that combines Arch Linux's ethic of keeping small the amount of stuff a guy has to learn to make a change to the system with Debian's loving craftsmanship. I still have fond memories of how much saner the default configuration of Lynx was on Debian Potato and Woody than on other distros (including Arch Linux) and how well integrated Lynx was with the rest of the system.
- dfc 15y ago
  I hope you do not interpret this as a troll but what did you find too confusing about debian? I have been a debian user for 14ish years now so my viewpoint is a little biased. As far as "learning about debian" goes what distro specific stuff did you have to learn that you have not needed to bother with in Arch? Whenever I have flirted with other distros there is always a little learning curve at first; gentoo/emerge, *bsd/ports, redhat/rpm, etc.
  - hollerith 15y ago
    There might be an inaccuracy in my recollection because I have not been using Debian since 2006. The shell scripts that run when the OS boots (in /etc/init.d/ and /etc/rc* IIRC) are a lot more numerous on Debian than on Arch -- or so I seem to recall. So for example I remember that trying to increase my boot speed by identifying and disabling unneeded services was an exercise in frustration. I configured my Arch Linux to boot to the text-mode console, and if I wanted to start X and Gnome, I used startx. I probably never tried to do the same thing in Debian, but am left with the distinct impression that it would have been harder. (Why would I want to do that? As a procrastination-reduction measure: when I wanted to focus on work, I would quit Gnome and X. On my slow machine, it would take a good 30 seconds or more for Gnome to restart, and the thing about procrastination -- at least for me -- is that if I can arrange it so that the decision to procrastinate is not immediately rewarding, then the temptation to procrastinate becomes weaker. I realize most people do not need their Linux install to help them fight procrastination, but this is an example of my tailoring my install to my particular needs, so I think it is relevant to whether Debian or Arch is easier to customize.) When you build something from source on Arch, it takes very little additional effort to arrange it so that Pacman can install it and the arch build system can rebuild it from source. And if you make the effort, it becomes easy at a later date to look up what you did to get the software to compile, so the (again, mild) additional effort ends up saving you time in the long run when you need to rebuild stuff you built years ago. And since pacman installed every file in my /usr and my /bin, if I ever needed to know where a file in /usr or /bin came from, pacman was able to tell me even if I had compiled the software from source. I know that all this is doable on Debian, but doing it on Arch is very very easy. So I liked building stuff from source on Arch better.

by hapless 15y ago

beej71 15y ago

The two methods are certainly not mutually exclusive, and reflect the differing needs of the user bases. We could just as easily say Debian is part of the problem that AUR seeks to solve, but "problem" is a bit of a loaded word.

hollerith 15y ago

I ran Debian for years and respect it. The reason I switched to Arch Linux is the complexity of the Debian system coupled with the assumption made by most Debian writers and maintainers that learning great gobs of stuff about Debian is a good use of my time. What would be ideal is a distro that combines Arch Linux's ethic of keeping small the amount of stuff a guy has to learn to make a change to the system with Debian's loving craftsmanship. I still have fond memories of how much saner the default configuration of Lynx was on Debian Potato and Woody than on other distros (including Arch Linux) and how well integrated Lynx was with the rest of the system.

dfc 15y ago
I hope you do not interpret this as a troll but what did you find too confusing about debian? I have been a debian user for 14ish years now so my viewpoint is a little biased. As far as "learning about debian" goes what distro specific stuff did you have to learn that you have not needed to bother with in Arch? Whenever I have flirted with other distros there is always a little learning curve at first; gentoo/emerge, *bsd/ports, redhat/rpm, etc.
- hollerith 15y ago
  There might be an inaccuracy in my recollection because I have not been using Debian since 2006. The shell scripts that run when the OS boots (in /etc/init.d/ and /etc/rc* IIRC) are a lot more numerous on Debian than on Arch -- or so I seem to recall. So for example I remember that trying to increase my boot speed by identifying and disabling unneeded services was an exercise in frustration. I configured my Arch Linux to boot to the text-mode console, and if I wanted to start X and Gnome, I used startx. I probably never tried to do the same thing in Debian, but am left with the distinct impression that it would have been harder. (Why would I want to do that? As a procrastination-reduction measure: when I wanted to focus on work, I would quit Gnome and X. On my slow machine, it would take a good 30 seconds or more for Gnome to restart, and the thing about procrastination -- at least for me -- is that if I can arrange it so that the decision to procrastinate is not immediately rewarding, then the temptation to procrastinate becomes weaker. I realize most people do not need their Linux install to help them fight procrastination, but this is an example of my tailoring my install to my particular needs, so I think it is relevant to whether Debian or Arch is easier to customize.) When you build something from source on Arch, it takes very little additional effort to arrange it so that Pacman can install it and the arch build system can rebuild it from source. And if you make the effort, it becomes easy at a later date to look up what you did to get the software to compile, so the (again, mild) additional effort ends up saving you time in the long run when you need to rebuild stuff you built years ago. And since pacman installed every file in my /usr and my /bin, if I ever needed to know where a file in /usr or /bin came from, pacman was able to tell me even if I had compiled the software from source. I know that all this is doable on Debian, but doing it on Arch is very very easy. So I liked building stuff from source on Arch better.