package manager aka 'pacman'

dazemc · 2013-12-14 03:56:53

So, I am new to Linux operating systems. I did at one point mess around with Linux Mint && Peppermint (which probably explains why I love LXDE). I quickly grew bored...So, it was short lived and I reverted back to Windows. About 6 months ago I decided I wanted to further my knowledge in Linux...mostly because I had been rooting and messing around with ROM's on Android phones. I did my research around the internet and decided that I'd go Arch because I read somewhere that there's two approaches to learning Linux...'Slow and steady' or 'Here you go'...I think you learn quicker in a more volatile environment because you always second guess and of course read read read read read read (It's a good thing I like reading...thank you for the support in the forums as well as the wiki)....What I'm getting at is what makes Arch different to other distros? I know that pacman is a wonderful package manager but, I don't know how. What makes it different? Can you explain this to someone that has basically only ever used Arch?

WonderWoofy · 2013-12-14 05:01:35

One of the biggest differences is how much community documentation we have.

KlipperKyle · 2013-12-27 05:20:40

dazemc wrote:

I know that pacman is a wonderful package manager but, I don't know how. What makes it different? Can you explain this to someone that has basically only ever used Arch?

Seeing that I use several different package managers on a regular basis (apt, rpm, and pacman), I feel inclined to explain what makes Pacman unique.

Lightweight - Pacman is small and fast, but it has all the features I need for package management (dependency checking, package groups, etc.). In comparision, other heavyweight package managers (such as apt-get) run rather slowly, and are far more complicated.
Only one executable to call - The only command you need is "pacman". Pacman can install local packages *and* get packages from repositories. Compare this to rpm, where rpm is limited to local files (at least to the scope of my knowledge) and requires a completely different program to retrieve packages (e.g. yum). (This is not to say that "pacman" is the only command you will use for package management, but for a standalone command, Pacman does a lot.)

/dev/zero · 2013-12-27 05:57:57

dazemc wrote:

What I'm getting at is what makes Arch different to other distros?

I came to Arch for several reasons:

I noticed that every time I googled a Linux problem, the Arch Wiki came up as the top answer;
As a bleeding edge distro with lots of packages in the AUR, Arch has the best support for new hardware - I could not get my laptops to work properly with other distros, but with Arch it was always a piece of cake;
When I needed support, I found the forums friendly, useful and timely;
I liked the hacker-friendly KISS philosophy.

You mention the package manager, but that was never really high in my considerations. Overall, the deciding factor was necessity (to make hardware work and to have better access to newer software that I need); the active community and hacker-friendly philosophy were nice bonuses that convinced me to stick with Arch even when it's not really necessary to have such a bleeding edge distro.

dazemc · 2013-12-29 02:40:07

/dev/zero wrote:

dazemc wrote:
What I'm getting at is what makes Arch different to other distros?
I came to Arch for several reasons:
I noticed that every time I googled a Linux problem, the Arch Wiki came up as the top answer;
As a bleeding edge distro with lots of packages in the AUR, Arch has the best support for new hardware - I could not get my laptops to work properly with other distros, but with Arch it was always a piece of cake;
When I needed support, I found the forums friendly, useful and timely;
I liked the hacker-friendly KISS philosophy.
You mention the package manager, but that was never really high in my considerations. Overall, the deciding factor was necessity (to make hardware work and to have better access to newer software that I need); the active community and hacker-friendly philosophy were nice bonuses that convinced me to stick with Arch even when it's not really necessary to have such a bleeding edge distro.

I have to agree in one way, "...the package manager, but that was never really high in my considerations..."
I don't care about the package manger to be honest...The comunity behind Arch is the most complete and comperhensive I have seen yet...Coming from a 'newb' start...I find the wiki along with the AUR more helpful than any other distro I have found...I thank you all for that and I'm doing my best to return the favour...I.E. helping out in the forums

jakobcreutzfeldt · 2013-12-29 12:03:57

When I switched to Arch, it was initially for the bleeding-edge, rolling-release nature. That very quickly took a back-seat to the amount of control it gave me over my system and the rapid rate at which I was learning about the system as I used it.

Just to point out in a bit of pedantry that I don't think that Arch is particularly difficult to use however it does certainly challenge you from time to time, and that's a very good thing if you're willing to roll up your sleeves and face challenges head-on. You know how in games like Chess and Go, the only way to improve is to play against people who are better than you? It's sort of like that here too. The only way to really learn and improve your GNU/Linux skills is by using a distro that can actually challenge you.

thiagowfx · 2014-01-04 18:15:21

dazemc wrote:

What I'm getting at is what makes Arch different to other distros? I know that pacman is a wonderful package manager but, I don't know how. What makes it different? Can you explain this to someone that has basically only ever used Arch?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIkHpjhpSyA

Arch Linux

#1 2013-12-14 03:56:53

package manager aka 'pacman'

#2 2013-12-14 05:01:35

Re: package manager aka 'pacman'

#3 2013-12-27 05:20:40

Re: package manager aka 'pacman'

#4 2013-12-27 05:57:57

Re: package manager aka 'pacman'

#5 2013-12-29 02:40:07

Re: package manager aka 'pacman'

#6 2013-12-29 12:03:57

Re: package manager aka 'pacman'

#7 2014-01-04 18:15:21

Re: package manager aka 'pacman'

Board footer