this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
170 points (94.7% liked)
Linux
65872 readers
721 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
AUR has never been a good idea. I don't use it and this news proved me right.
Does that mean a distro official package manager would be immune to infections? Of course not, but they do offer a more secure distribution system and build greater trust. Minimizing the chance of malware being spread through their means.
Edit: If you have the knowledge and time to inspect the AUR packages you install, AUR might be good for you. I have none of these, that's why I stick to my official distro packages (and sometimes also some flatpak but from official sources)
But is Arch sufficiently complete without AUR packages? It is being criticized - and rightly so - that the magnificient Arch Wiki is full of references to AUR packages. That could in fact mislead new users.
I am an happy Arch user, since about ten years... But I use it differently. I am running Debian stable on the hardware, which has all the drivers I need (after getting rid of NVidia graphics, which was just a mistake to buy). I use Debian for my work / office / productivity system, to read email, and so on.
But for some stuff, I need newer software: For trying out new features or libraries (I am a developer). For testing out new window managers. Leisure programming. And so on. I use Arch for this. After a few years of dual booting (which caused occasional breakage), I settled on running Arch in a VM. Which works fine for me.
And the last shift I am experiencing is that I use more and more the Guix package manager. The reason for this is that when one tries out a lot of things, and does only system upgrades for many years (which means not doing a reinstall, but replacing the oldstable packages with the newer stable packages), the system becomes a bit untidy over time. Old packages, scripts, and configurations accumulate, and it is hard to get rid of it without breaking things, because one just cannot delete everything one does not remember what it was needed for. And there is so much stuff in software that, after all, turns out to be not such a good idea. Yes, a fresh OS install leaves a tidy system, but it would cost a few days. (By the way, accumulating cruft in the long term is also somewhat of an disadvantage of rolling release distros.)
Now, Guix solves that, because I have a temporary, deterministic environment for every programming project (just like a Python venv). And by this way, stuff does not contaminate the base system, and is garbage collected when it is not used any more.
And, Guix has quite recent packages, similar to Arch.
Now I use Arch less and less.
Unless something changed in a big way in the last few years, that's not really true. When I was running arch, I had maybe a dozen AUR packages installed, none of which I would consider essential. And yes: I was one of those weirdos who would actually take a good look at the pkgbuild diff before installing an update.