Of course the secondary opt-in user repo with unvetted package maintainers is infected with malware, it’d be a miracle if it weren’t! They warn as much in the docs. Use at your own risk, or package and maintain it yourself, because you’re likely not finding it packaged more reliably elsewhere.
And I love Debian, but if you think the Debian repos with 30,000+ packages and 1000+ community maintainers aren’t also infected with malware…
What makes this a fair argument? Debian not having an AUR analogue? It’s a shit response from someone who couldn’t even be bothered to look up any information on what the AUR is or how it’s supposed to be used. And what exactly is wrong with using debian on a “main pc”? If people want ancient packages with backported security patches they can knock themselves out. It doesn’t fit my requirements, but there’s nothing wrong with it either.
Its rather subjective but it wouldn’t be the first time updating arch has broken my system and its fair that some people don’t want to deal with that and much prefer some more mature.
And i have no qualms with people who do use debian for a main system but i do assume everyone who do are retired folk with a long career in computing behind them and aren’t in the market to change to another.
The AUR is not the standard arch package repository and arch as a distro shouldn’t be judged by it’s merits or dangers. Yes, obviously a rolling release distro is not the best fit for most people, but that’s beside the point. Debian is completely fine for people who are looking to replace their windows machine with something stable and don’t need ton of exotic software or especially recent packages.
Who is having breaking update issues anymore in 2026? I’ve been running vanilla Arch for 10 years and the only times that has happened (there have been a handful I guess) the archwiki says “hey there’s a breaking change run these 2 commands” and it’s fixed. As a beginner on Linux I actually switched to Arch because every Ubuntu issue I googled was 6 to 10 lines to fix while arch was 1 to 3 lines. The only problem is that the OS expects that you be able to read, which is sometimes tough.
I can’t imagine being on a system that is multiple major releases behind on basic things like nvim and python. I guess if you’re content not to use anything remotely current it makes sense.
Why anyone is using Arch at this point is beyond me.
Every update is a potential failure waiting to happen. And on top of that, their user repos are infected with malware.
Yeah, I’m going to stick with Debian.
Installing from the AUR on arch is nearly the equivalent of an install from a PPA on Debian.
Of course the secondary opt-in user repo with unvetted package maintainers is infected with malware, it’d be a miracle if it weren’t! They warn as much in the docs. Use at your own risk, or package and maintain it yourself, because you’re likely not finding it packaged more reliably elsewhere.
And I love Debian, but if you think the Debian repos with 30,000+ packages and 1000+ community maintainers aren’t also infected with malware…
Being critical towards operating system: Great
Actual argument: fair
Solution: oof
Debian is by all means great, for many things, but for a main pc? Shivers
What makes this a fair argument? Debian not having an AUR analogue? It’s a shit response from someone who couldn’t even be bothered to look up any information on what the AUR is or how it’s supposed to be used. And what exactly is wrong with using debian on a “main pc”? If people want ancient packages with backported security patches they can knock themselves out. It doesn’t fit my requirements, but there’s nothing wrong with it either.
Its rather subjective but it wouldn’t be the first time updating arch has broken my system and its fair that some people don’t want to deal with that and much prefer some more mature.
And i have no qualms with people who do use debian for a main system but i do assume everyone who do are retired folk with a long career in computing behind them and aren’t in the market to change to another.
deleted by creator
The AUR is not the standard arch package repository and arch as a distro shouldn’t be judged by it’s merits or dangers. Yes, obviously a rolling release distro is not the best fit for most people, but that’s beside the point. Debian is completely fine for people who are looking to replace their windows machine with something stable and don’t need ton of exotic software or especially recent packages.
Who is having breaking update issues anymore in 2026? I’ve been running vanilla Arch for 10 years and the only times that has happened (there have been a handful I guess) the archwiki says “hey there’s a breaking change run these 2 commands” and it’s fixed. As a beginner on Linux I actually switched to Arch because every Ubuntu issue I googled was 6 to 10 lines to fix while arch was 1 to 3 lines. The only problem is that the OS expects that you be able to read, which is sometimes tough.
I can’t imagine being on a system that is multiple major releases behind on basic things like nvim and python. I guess if you’re content not to use anything remotely current it makes sense.
@webghost0101 @ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace You are weird.
I wouldn’t want to be perceived in any other way.