Arch is Easier to Use than Debian
Arch is Easier to Use than Debian
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're viewing part of a thread.
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.
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.
2 Do you honestly think one can just make a fake account up, register, and publish an AUR pkg with rogue code that easy? There are checks for code whether it is safe or not, whether it is asking for right elevation, altering the filesystem's rights, etc.
You are making it sound like registering for X and publishing a tweet.3 The most dangerous software I see on AUR is browser bins by the BIG NAMES not the little script stuff.
People are afraid of people instead of large corps
@constantokraI think people can hide lots of things in code, especially when people don't generally look at it. And I know people don't look at it when they talk about how convenient the aur is. It's at best marginally more convenient than installing from source.
I'm not at all suggesting that people should place more trust in large companies. I'm suggesting that packages in the aur with lots and lots of users should be trusted more, specifically because some of them will be checking out the pkgbuild, and the source, and presumably some of them would notice if the software did something it wasn't supposed to do. Obviously the larger the software the harder that all is to check, and correspondingly you'd want to see many more users using it before you'd extend it any trust.
My point being, i've not seen these discussions taking place. Maybe I've just missed them. But I feel like it's appropriate to bring it up when I see people talking about just how.convenient the aur is. It's really not that convenient if you're using it in a way that i'd consider reasonable.
1 If you take an average AUR pkg and read its content (PKGBUILD) the procedure of building an arch like pkg is not very much unlike the practice of building and installing from source as in the old days. The difference is that when a new revision or need for patch, or rebuild due to fresh libraries/dependencies is necessary through your AUR helper you will be notified.
Yes. It is possible to verify what's going on. That's what I did when I used the aur. Do you think most people do that, or even look at see how many users are using the software? Or do you imagine they just install it blindly?
If you ever see a help video or article that suggests installing something from source, or run some script people generally tell the reader that they shouldn't just run random code without looking at it. I've never once seen anything that suggested people should check the pkgbuild. I don't have a problem with the aur. I just think it's not nearly as trustworthy as it's generally made out to be, and I don't think people generally understand that it might even be a concern, or that you can check the validity of the package yourself.
One out of five pkgs in AUR are so unmaintained they don't even build anymore.
Clieaning up junk is more urgent than screening what comes on.
@constantokra