DISCLAIMER: Arch Linux is not a beginner friendly distribution, and this is not a recommendation or good practice.
I know how to use pacman -S. I have yet to experience a Discover related issue after months of use.
IME, KDE Discover and similar app stores are so unreliable, telling beginners to use them is akin to harmful misinformation
If you need a GUI software manager, my suggestion is to not use arch
Hard agree. I always struggled when using Discover, as a Beginner. Don't know if I could make it work now as a more experienced user, Because I don't use it and don't have a need to. Learning how to use 'pacman -S $pkg_name' was super simple and is very fast. Sure I don't have a nice GUI, that lets me browse what apps are there to be installed, but I have a webbrowser for that.
Oh yeah, I added a disclaimer.
If you need a GUI software manager, my suggestion is to not use arch
Arch is actually great for beginners, way better than usual alternatives like Ubuntu for example. If you need a GUI software manager, Arch or Arch derivatives are still better than a lot of the rest.
Besides, a lot of people like fancy GUIs, nothing wrong with that. You're right that graphic app stores aren't amazing, but that's shouldn't be the norm then. I will still do everything in CLI, but I will vehemently defend our less technically advanced bretheren's right to click their mouse on the colourful buttons
To be clear I'm not against GUI software managers, just had bad experiences with KDE Discover... and I don't trust anyone who recommends Arch for beginners...
If you never want to see a terminal just use Mint or whatever
It should be “yay [wanted program]” instead of “KDE discovery” in my opinion
Does yay integrate with flatpack and snap?
Why the hell would I want snap?
Installing something on arch is easy imo. The CLI is simple and well enough documented, and the package build system is easy to use. For comparison with ubuntu: pacman -S name is not harder than apt install name. And try to install something on ubuntu if it's not in the official package repos.
ubuntu: pacman -S name is not harder than apt install name.
Eh, it's a teensy bit harder, since you have to remember what -S means, rather than the easy to remember and plain English 'install'. But, yeah, not much of a difference.
And try to install something on ubuntu if it’s not in the official package repos.
1: Go to that something's website.
2: look for their download/install instructions page, scroll to Linux instructions if necessary.
3: Install instructions for Debian/Ubuntu are usually the first one listed, and typically just consist of a few commands you can copy and paste over without modifying.
It isn't particularly difficult in most cases.
Eh, it’s a teensy bit harder, since you have to remember what -S means, rather than the easy to remember and plain English ‘install’. But, yeah, not much of a difference.
Thanks! I initially thought about writing this in my comment in parentheses, but then didn't do because it would've made the comment longer, and I'm not sure if other people want to read the pedantic truth anyways. I'm glad you filled this void.
The instructions for installing on ubuntu only work because of ubuntu's popularity. Also if you can copy-paste commands, you can also just follow build instructions. In arch, these commands are in the PKGBUILD, you don't have to copy them manually. Plus you have the knowledge that you'll have something that you can also deinstall later. Applications' websites usually don't have uninstallation instructions.
I’m not sure if other people want to read the pedantic truth anyways. I’m glad you filled this void.
Glad my pedantry could be of service, lol!
The instructions for installing on ubuntu only work because of ubuntu’s popularity.
True, but this is still a very real effect with real-world benefits.
(And I wouldn't necessarily say it's just Ubuntu's popularity. More like, due to Debian and Debian derivatives' popularity, of which Ubuntu is one. Since there are so many popular distros out there that are Debian-based where Debian-style install instructions will work (and quite a few people running Debian itself), it makes sense to give Debian-style install instructions first.)
Also if you can copy-paste commands, you can also just follow build instructions.
In my experience, not so much.
Because even if you follow the instructions exactly, you'll always run into some problem due to your build environment not being quite identical to the developer's build environment, some library being half a version number off, and then cmake fails with a cryptic error message. So then you downgrade that library to the older version and try again, and this time it fails with a different cryptic error message that you can't make any sense of at all this time, or the compiler quits because it says the code is formatted improperly on line 1437 and now you're left wondering whether it's an issue with your compiler or whether you should go in and edit the source code yourself to try and fix that supposed formatting error...
I don't know... I've tried this approach a few times -- usually as a desperate last resort -- and it never seems to actually work. In theory, it should. In practice ... good fucking luck.
why do people get intimidated by installing an arch package?
i recently wanted to play morrowind and i use the terminal like a search engine for programs. i just typed "yay openmw" and voila it was there, checked in the aur if the package is clean and installed it by clicking enter 3 times.
and i thout "yay ^_^ that was easy! :3", got off a ship in seyda neen and killed fargoth with my bare fists as soon as i locked eyes with him.
Stand up, there you go. You were dreaming. What's your name?
Did pacman get packagekit support or are we just talking about flatpaks here?
Arch Wiki has still this warning
Warning
As explained in a GitHub comment by a Package Maintainer, "Handling system packages via packagekit is just fundamentally incompatible with our high-maintenance rolling release distro, where any update might leave the system in an unbootable or otherwise unusable state if the user does not take care reading pacman's logs or merging pacnew files before rebooting."
Yay -S "Am I a joke for you?"
Im sorry for all actual arch users, who are contrary to all stereotypes, not posers. If you feel the need to use Arch, and then use kde discover, or any other gui, and flatpak based installers, why are you using it in the first place?
The CLI way, and btw the ACTUAL way the devs intended to install mainstream software for YOUR distro, is legitimately far less hard than any of you make it seem like.
So, if you plan on using your distro correctly, and plan on stability, use your lovely package manager, or switch. You can get a rolling release distro everywhere else too, you can change every system file, everywhere else, you can change your fucking fast-/neofetch output, if you need to.
Just use a distro that is for your skill level.
Btw its:
Pacman, and then -S for install, -y for your repos, and -u is for updates.
So do me a favor and dont try to suffer.
Thanks for reading my mindless babbling and weird, maybe even contradictory logic, have fun :3
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux
...is this a Stallman quote?... -_-
I think so, just a relatively famous copypasta.
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
sudo in Windows.Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't remove France.