11mo ago

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.

67 comments

yeah yeah there's flathub and stuff but that's more of a last resort, optimally, you want to get it the correct way.
Dude, there is no correct or wrong way. Many prefer Flatpaks, because they ship with all they need and work on every distro.
Also, you can just use Distrobox on any distro and use anything you want.
But calling Arch easier than Zorin or similar is just wrong.

Congrats. Now you know why distrobox is so good. The package manager of the host doesn't matter anymore. Nix package manager also works on any system. And finally, nowadays you use flatpak to install apps whereever possible.
You can't take the package manager as a reference to judge which OS is better.
Arch is not only about installing but keeping up to date. A normal person does not want to read about selinux. Debian doesn't use it either but uses something comparable. On arch you have to take care of it. On debian the maintainers take care of it.
- I've been using Arch almost a decade now (after distro hopping between various Debian based distros), installed it on a bunch of different devices and never once had to read about selinux.
  Arch maintainers take care of stuff too. If you don't want to update much, then update every three months or however long you like 🤷🏻‍♀️
  
  Which Mandatory access control do you use?
  Is it really preinstalled without ever assking you if you even want it?
- Nah, I'd rather put together my own PKGBUILD on Arch, so I have an mostly repeatable build for a package that doesn't exist in repos. Bonus, I can share that if I wish and make others life easier.

You took one narrow use case whose significant downsides you're unaware of and made an OS ease of use judgement based on that. Therefore while you're entitled to it, it's not a useful judgement. ☺️
- My narrow use case is just installing packages. There are lots of packages not in the apt repository. All I'm saying is that aur has more stuff. Now, if apt repository has around the same amount as the aur then I could see how debian based distros are functionally as easy to use.
  
  Do you look at the stuff in the aur? Because any of that stuff you install from there could be messed with because it's a user repository. I specifically left arch because I had to look into all the packages I installed from the aur, and the stuff from the official repos was pretty limited compared to something like Debian. That took a lot of time. Or, you could always just install whatever you find with zero concern about security.
  I've been running Debian for decades with maybe 2 problems I had to manually resolve with apt. I ran arch and manjaro for maybe a year, and had a handful. I'm certainly not going to say not to run arch, but it's in no way easier to keep running than Debian. That's literally Debian's whole gig.
  
  All I’m saying is that aur has more stuff.
  Sure, but that does not equate to the premise you made that Arch is easier to use than Debian.

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.
- 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.
  
  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.

You should check out Nix (the package manager). NixOS's Nix package manager can be used outside its own system. It supports the vast majority of Linux operating systems as well as MacOS.
Nix's package repository is gigantic like you wouldn't believe, and Reaper is in it.

At least for me, AUR is last resort. I mainly use Flatpak, then offical repos, then finally AUR

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.
The platform for this would be available (https://mpr.makedeb.org).
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.
Not everything is available in the AUR either. It may therefore be necessary to create a own PKGBUILD file. And since anyone can publish something in the AUR, you should check the PKGBUILD file before installing or updating it. Both also require reading guides (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_User_Repository, https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD and so on).
On Arch, all I have to do is Paru -S Reaper,
This would give me the error message that the command was not found. Why do some people assume that everyone uses the same AUR helper as they do? I use aurutils, for example. This AUR helper offers more options but is more cumbersome to use in some cases.
Apart from that, the name of the package is reaper and not Reaper. So even if I would use paru, it would not work.
Now that Arch is so easy to install with the Archscript,
Easier? Yes. But archinstall had and still has some bugs. And archinstall, understandably, does not cover everything so that a manual installation is more flexible.
yeah yeah there’s flathub and stuff but that’s more of a last resort, optimally, you want to get it the correct way.
Appimages or flatpaks are often the correct way to go, as many projects only publish such packages.

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.
There's also Homebrew, which is more like the AUR than any APT repository or other package solutions. The formulae are built from source by homebrew, so it's basically like yay or, in your case, Paru in that regards.
This doesn't necessarily negate the point of your post, but it's still a myth that I bought into for a long time, so let's nip it in the bud: there is no "correct way" to install apps/programs/packages. There may be a correct way for your use case, but everyone has different use cases, even people using the same OS on the same hardware. I prefer system installs like .deb packages because it minimizes disk space and memory usage, whereas someone might prefer sandboxed packages like flatpaks or AppImages because of the security implications; hell, some people might opt for containers like docker or k8s for the compartmentalization.
On to the point of your post: I just want a set and forget OS. I don't care if it has the most recent updates or bleeding-edge features, I don't care about squeezing every last drop of benchmark numbers out of my hardware. I just want to boot up my PC and get to doing the things I use a computer for, not maintain my OS and configure and reconfigure and rereconfigure settings.
Linux newbies regularly come on here, in this exact community, and lament about their arch install, levying the above complaint. The regulars' responses usually boil down to "shouldn't have gone with arch if you didn't want to get your hands dirty." I'm not gonna say it's the same people, but it is the same userbase who will gleefully squeal "install Arch" when someone comes in asking "hey, I've never used Linux before, what distro should I use?"
"Use our distro, but all your problems are because you refuse to tailor your computer habits and schedule around the OS' needs" is not a community I'd particularly want to be a part of either.
Also, Pacman is an absolute migraine if you go a week without updating. I have sunk hours into fixing dependency issues only to get so frustrated I just uninstalled the app because Pacman would hold up 1300 updates (not hyperbole) over a single dependency issue.

Reaper is as easy to install on Linux (any distro) as it is on Windows or OSX. Any packaged versions of it, other than the tar file that you can download from Reaper.fm, are maintained by a third party and have nothing to do with the distribution.
PS: IMHO, you want tools like Reaper and Bitwig to install directly unto your system rather than Snap, Flatpak, etc., due to the low level audio hardware interaction.

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.
There is https://pacstall.dev/ the AUR for Ubuntu. It has a Lemmy community https://lemmy.ml/c/pacstall And there is PPA for Ubuntu. With the Arch AUR anyone can just upload something, and it is up to you to check whether it is uploaded malware or not. Sure, you can check how many others upvoted an AUR package but that is still no guarantee it is safe.
- So then you're saying the debian community sees value in something like the aur. Unlike all the other comments saying you should just use flatpak
  
  Pacstall is for Ubuntu. I am not sure it can work well for Debian. Yes, sure, it is possible that some Ubuntu users see value in having AUR alike repositories to install from. Actually PPA for Ubuntu (PPA does not work well on Debian I've read) is kind of like AUR. The Personal Package Archives are uploaded by someone and provide newer versions of software, or provides software which is not in the main Ubuntu repositories. A good example of that is the PHP packages from Sury : https://deb.sury.org/

Imo Flathub/Flatpak is the correct way most of the time. I see zero need to install desktop apps any other way on Arch these days. It takes a lot of headaches away from users and developers. Different story for core packages and in case you actually want to compile stuff yourself of course, but I don't see why I need an Arch-native version of LibreOffice or something. For some apps the Flatpak experience is even better than native (e.g. Lutris, Firefox).
The AUR and Arch's packaging system are still amazing tho, because of the great flexibility they offer. I agree that setting up Arch based distros (not Arch itself, sorry :D) are easier to setup than Debian based ones partly because of this. Another big reason is the info readily available in the Arch Wiki imo. But maybe I'm just used to setting up Arch.

https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian
You really should never download a Debian package or install via a script. The proper way is to use a container or flatpak.
- Flatpaks are isolated while I want to use my input method. Plus, they have larger sizes which can pile up over time
  
  What input method? Flatpaks have controllable permissions that can be changed by the user.
  As for large sizes, that hasn't been the case for a while. The stuff that takes up the most space are libraries and they installed once. Usually a program will need either the KDE framework (for qt) or the gnome framework (gtk).

You gotta add the fact, that ArchLinux sometimes requires you to fiddle a lot when a update failed and broke a lot of stuff, there's also the installation process, Debian is much more stable (and while archlinux is too), debian is generally a better option for beginners to its approach, And also Reaper is practically Avaliable on a crapton of distros, the fact that it provides binaries officially, and also that its avaliable on FlatHub.
- The installation process has been pretty simple since archinstall and endeavourOS. The "sometimes" happens rarely, and the forums and mailing lists are pretty helpful.
  The only times when an update broke a lot of stuff for me is 1. The infamous grub update which never happened again 2. Thunderbird dropped GTK support, not an Arch problem 3. I didn't update for quite a while and had to do package replacements, which were automated by the package manager but was scary 4. Budgie and GNOME conflicted with each other. Weren't very significant
  
  Well yeah, but see the issue here ? Have you ever heard such issues with Debian. No. Arch had a fuckton of issues, especially with updates, exemple: when Arch was shipped with kernel 5.19.12, it was very unstable, most of the time these issues can not even appear, and its just depends of user experience, but issues do sure happens :/

Everyone is downvoting OP, but OP is literally the common case of what users actually want...
- Honestly didn't think I would get this much hate. People talking about how the correct way to install is flatpak most of the time, a comment right after says you shouldn't use flatpak for low level, and other comments saying to install it the long manual way (which, admittedly, is the most secure way), nobody has admitted that it's easier to install from aur rather than on debian.
  If it's a popular and maintained package on aur then most of the time it should be fine. Very rarely do I have to go to the official documentation to make the packages manually unless it's a smaller project.
  
  Because there's still unfortunately a heap of Arch FUD and myths floating around.
  FWIW, I agree with you. I ended up using Arch for the past almost decade now in part because of the repos and pacman.
  I distro hopped a lot when I first moved to Linux (from Windows) before settling on Mint. Faffing about with adding repos didn't feel like an improvement over the Windows experience of having to go to various websites to download files.
  I was still pretty much a Linux noob when I moved to Arch. I'm glad I didn't listen to all the FUD then about it being hard and terrible. It's been so much easier to use and maintain than other distros I've used (or installed for other folks).
  
  correct way to install is flatpak most of the time
  It's probably SUPER intimidating how many options there are for something as simple as "package management". Who to trust. etc. People are just rough, and unkind. Stick with what works for you. What your'e comfortable with. That's honestly the ONLY important aspect of this whole Linux endeavor. Complete control of YOUR computing experience. That gets lost in opinion and subjective conjecture more often than I can stand, honestly. It really is SO much saner on Arch, though. You're absolutely correct. That's why I stick with it myself. It gets out of my way and lets me do what I want to do.

TRY ARCH
PS: Just a meme to joke, if you want to analyze, please don't point at me.
- Won't you have problems on any distro if you use Nvidia? Arch would be the best place to see if it works. Nonetheless, good meme and very relatable

Now that Arch is so easy to install with the Archscript
Trash. Not true arch user.
Switch to BSD instead, it is easy to use while being better in quality.
- Installed arch the manual way but have also tried to script to see if it was really as easy as people make it out to be. I would still recommend everybody giving the manual install at least once but for people who want it very easy to use, the script is there and hopefully nothing goes wrong with their system.
  
  Write your own script, arch users :)

I'm not touching flatpaks or snaps with a ten foot pole, and I have the same experience as you. Switched to EndeavourOS a few years back after having been a Debian (and Synaptic) advocate for almost 10 years.
The AUR is great, and the Arch wiki is a flipping treasure trove. I can hardly imagine going back, certainly not on my work station. Servers will probably be fine running Debian for another few years.
- @halm @pineapplelover
  What is it about flatpaks that bothers you? I am curious. My experience with them is good, except that are sometimes slower to launch.
  
  For certain low level applications, flathab may not work but for most cases, flathub is fine.
  The second scenario is for something not even in flathub but is available in the aur which is signal desktop beta. The other day I installed this by typing paru signal and scrolled up and found signal desktop beta right there and pressed the appropriate number to install. This is much more efficient to install. If I were on my friend's linux mint computer I would have to find the github and follow instructions to manually add the package.
  I am comfortable doing both methods but my point is that users generally want the lowest resistance to new technology. Linux is supposed to be efficient and easy to use not having to look up guides when the Windows way is downloading and running a simple .exe.
  
  Yeah, slow app launch for one thing. Lack of DE integration for another. Flatpak apps are so completely foreign elements in the distros I've used that I have no inclination to use them.
  And the few times I've had to use on, it's so bloated with redundant dependencies. I understand that flatpak apps will share dependencies within their ecosystem(?) but since they're the exception to the rule on my system it never becomes a benefit.
  Besides, as is OP's point — I have the entirety of the AUR at my fingertips. Why would I bother with anything else?

67 comments