I’m a little bit underwhelmed, I thought that based off the fact so many people seem to make using this distro their personality I expected… well, more I guess?

Once the basic stuff is set-up, like wifi, a few basic packages, a desktop environment/window manager, and a bit of desktop environment and terminal customisation, then that’s it. Nothing special, just a Linux distribution with less default programs and occasionally having to look up how to install a hardware driver or something if you need to use bluetooth for the first time or something like that.

Am I missing something? How can I make using Arch Linux my personality when once it’s set up it’s just like any other computer?

What exactly is it that people obsess over? The desktop environment and terminal customisation? Setting up NetworkManager with nmcli? Using Vim to edit a .conf file?

  • Maragato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Any major Linux distribution has a system for building packages, it’s not something special to Arch. In fact, Arch’s great advantage of the aur repository actually becomes a disadvantage by introducing instability and insecurity into your system when you add programs from that repository. It’s amazing that people criticize Windows security with .exe’s and then install packages from external repositories with the security of “trust in the repository”. How can you trust code with root access to the system just because it’s in the aur repository? That’s the main question I would ask Arch users.

    • ѕєχυαℓ ρσℓутσρє@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It’s a choice. We know that it’s riskier to use stuff from AUR. Which is why it’s highly recommended to read the PKGBUILD before installing the package. The basic Arch install doesn’t even include an AUR helper. That said, AUR is typically very reliable for packages with a decent userbase. It’s mostly due to the community aspect. Bad actors are caught relatively easily as the PKGBUILD is available to look at.

    • cupboard@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s amazing that people criticize Windows security with .exe’s and then install packages from external repositories with the security of “trust in the repository”.

      As with almost every case of these sorts of comparisons, these are likely separate groups of people holding separate groups of opinions.

      I don’t use Arch anymore, but when I did I found that the AUR was really useful to quickly install niche applications that would take ages to be approved on to an official repository. Often those would be made by the application developers themselves or members of the community. I would personally vet the packaging script myself, but I’m sure many wouldn’t - and that’s fine. As with most software, there’s some trust involved and often you assume that if you’re installing from a reputable repository it’s going to be fine. If people aren’t vetting the installation scripts and are installing from random repositories, that’s really their problem. I’m glad the possibility existed and it’s the one thing I’ve missed in distros I’ve used since then.

    • nous@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Any major Linux distribution has a system for building packages

      I have built packages for all the major ones. Non arch packages are a pain to build and I never want to do it again. In contrast arch PKGBUILDs are quite simple and straight forward.

      How can you trust code with root access to the system just because it’s in the aur repository?

      Because you can view the source that builds the packages before building them. A quick check to not see any weird commands in the builds script and that it is going to an upstream repo is normally good enough. Though I bet most people work on the if others trust it then so do I mentality. Overall due to its relative popularity it is not a big target for threats when compared to things like NPM - which loads of people trust blindly as well and typically on vastly more important machines and servers.

    • ChonkaLoo@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Well there is far less malware on Linux tbf so comparison is not completely accurate. But same caution applies, try to vet and understand what you install. That part is also easier with the AUR as it’s transparent in the packagebuild what it does unlike random exes with closed source. It’s also a large community with many eyes on the code so unless it’s a package with few users then it’s gonna get caught pretty quickly.

    • Yardy Sardley@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Not sure if sarcasm or actual disinformation. You’re not supposed to trust the aur, that’s kinda the whole point of it. The build scripts are transparent enough to allow users to manage their own risk, and at no point does building a package require root access.