You are not logged in.

#1 2006-05-12 14:56:58

Komodo
Member
From: Oxford, UK
Registered: 2005-11-03
Posts: 674

Klik vs Pacman

A simple question, but one I'm keen to have peoples' opinions on.

I take it most of you Arch KDE users never use Klik, and instead use Pacman?  I wondered if there were any advantages to using Klik... clearly whichever you use you should stick to pretty religiously, since it's a pain to not recall whether a program is installed with Klik or with Pacman.


.oO Komodo Dave Oo.

Offline

#2 2006-05-12 15:19:02

arooaroo
Member
From: London, UK
Registered: 2005-01-13
Posts: 1,268
Website

Re: Klik vs Pacman

Probably because many people have never heard of it before - i certainly hadn't. People use pacman because it's WM neutral, as well as being simple and quick.

If people want pacman GUIs, they tend to go from pacman front-ends, because it means it's using the package manager properly, and thus easier to keep your entire system upto date.

pacman management was my main reason for trying out arch.

Offline

#3 2006-05-12 16:06:59

jaboua
Member
Registered: 2005-11-05
Posts: 634

Re: Klik vs Pacman

I've heard of it, but never tried it. IMO pacman seems superior - for example I like installing dependencies once, instead of including them in all packages. I like to be able to run more than - was it 16 programs or something at the same  time because it uses the loop filesystem or something. I like how pacman easily can update everything with one command - I don't think klik can as you might put the klik files wherever you want (on a CD, usb stick etc). And as mentioned, pacman is wm neutral (I switch very often...)

Offline

#4 2006-05-12 18:15:59

tomk
Forum Fellow
From: Ireland
Registered: 2004-07-21
Posts: 9,837

Re: Klik vs Pacman

I've heard of it, never tried it either, and probably never will, but I've just had a look at the website, and in the interests of accuracy, it doesn't seem to be KDE-specific - there's a fairly extensive GNOME section there, and various GTK stalwarts e.g. the GIMP.

Offline

#5 2006-05-12 20:24:46

nightfrost
Member
From: Sweden
Registered: 2005-04-16
Posts: 647

Re: Klik vs Pacman

I've used klik a couple of times. But I wouldn't even compare pacman and klik; they're two different thing doing what seems to be the same. Pacman installs applications packaged for Arch. Klik runs a statically built application from a cmg file. Literally speaking, Klik doesn't install software to your system. The cmg files are saved on your desktop, and are used by a specific user.

That said, I've never had much use for Klik. The odd times i've used it have been when I've wanted to try some application really fast, knowing that I probably won't keep it. If I wanted to keep it, however, I'd remove the cmg, and make a proper PKGBUILD for it.

Offline

#6 2006-05-13 15:54:49

Romashka
Forum Fellow
Registered: 2005-12-07
Posts: 1,054

Re: Klik vs Pacman

Klik may be good for some software or for Linux games, or for users that have little knowledge of their distro's package management system.
A complete packaga management system (read - Pacman :-) ) is much better choice. Especially when upgrading many packages.
BTW, here are the links:
http://klik.atekon.de/
http://klik.atekon.de/wiki/index.php/What_is_klik


to live is to die

Offline

#7 2006-05-13 16:25:53

Snarkout
Member
Registered: 2005-11-13
Posts: 542

Re: Klik vs Pacman

IMO, klik is best used as a sandbox to test new apps.  It's also a good way for people who are afraid of dealing with package managers to install packages w/o having to worry about libs, etc.  I like the idea of klik, and have fooled around with it some in the past, but have to admit that I personally prefer having a good package manager.


Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
-Albert Einstein

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB