I know I said in my last post I'm a noob, and, i still am, I'm just a noob who can follow a YouTube tutorial. I installed Arch, not only for its minimalistic install, but also because I love the AUR. Everything I could ever want to install is there, and anyone who wants to upload their files can. This gives a windows-like install experience, which, pardon my... spanish, is actually pretty good. Any program is free to be uploaded and installed by anyone.
My question to you is: If you do not use an arch-based distro, how do you go about installing software? I've heard people say that "the default package manager is enough" but I can't be the only person who installs niche software. I wouldn't want to only be able to install packages hopefully approved by my distro. Flatpaks are kind of annoying, in my opinion? It's not a native install of a package, it's sandboxed (which can be good in some cases, but in general just an inconvenience.) Compiling from source is too hardcore for me, so props if that is you, however, non-FOSS software has to be moved by hand to its specific folders and .desktop files have to be made by text. If you don't use the AUR, how do you go about your Linux experience?
P.S. Hope you like the new sux/teal logo!
Apt is quite good for the debian based systems. I've never had a problem in the last decade installing anything on debian or Ubuntu
I've considered switching to debian (especially recently with the new release), its size really helps in terms of package management. Usually when high-level software companies want to do the bare minimum release to linux they just package it in a .deb and save it on their website.
I'm at an age where I really don't want to deal with configuring Linux. My requirements are that it needs to work, it needs to be quick and easy to configure, and I need to be able to develop on it without any hassle.
Ubuntu is great for this. I can spend my days programming, instead of fighting my system
I used to use Ubuntu for this reason, but the installs eventually go bad.. and it's a huge pain to keep them going. I think they just expect you to keep reinstalling? Updating seems to not work out the best.
Eventually, I just went to debian because it works for at least 5 years. With Ubuntu, I found it was good for a year or two then I wasted more time trying to update or fix something than I ever did with configuration.
I agree. I have been using an old Debian stable (Buster) for about 7 years. It doesn't require much configuration, not at all if using the packages from the default package manager. There are also backports packages for the popular ones.