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.
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.
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...)
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.
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.
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:
to live is to die
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.