Your experience sounds weird. Reading it remind me of people who come from programming paradigm X try paradigm Y and only use methods from X only to conclude that Y sucks.
Why would you use 4 package managers to do 1 thing ? Most people who use arch use 1 and it does the job. All of them are built around pacman + smth for AUR packages. Personally I use pacui.
Why would you convert package from other distro, if another distro has it then it most certainly exists in the AUR, never once had to touch another distro's packaging.
I don't know about the "the modder's distro" part but I personally had much less headaches with it than I had with Ubuntu,fedora,debian, and CentOS.
The only thing that sucks for me (regardless of distro) is Nvidia updates.
> Why would you convert package from other distro, if another distro has it then it most certainly exists in the AUR, never once had to touch another distro's packaging.
A lot of software packages I've been using lately don't exist in the AUR. My tastes might be more niche than yours, I don't know.
> Why would you use 4 package managers to do 1 thing ?
Because all the software I'm trying to install has documentation like "install with pacman" or "install with pamac" or "install with yay" or "install from source" or "install from AUR" or... I think you get where this is going.
> Your experience sounds weird. Reading it remind me of people who come from programming paradigm X try paradigm Y and only use methods from X only to conclude that Y sucks.
Reading your rebuttal to my experience reminds me of people who answer questions on Stackoverflow like, "why would you do it this way? Your question isn't valid, your question _should have been_..." That is to say, rather than attempt to understand where I'm coming from, you thought to overwrite my experience with your own, as if yours is the truer experience to be had. My time using Arch and Arch-variant distros led me to having a seemingly fragmented experience over where to find software. That's got nothing to do with X being better than Y, it has more to do with X being mostly one or two overall places to find software, and Y being fragmented between 4-5 + conversions between apt/yum packages and PKGBUILD scripts. I'm not saying Y is inherently worse, I'm saying it's a fragmented and confusing user experience, in my humble opinion. My main dev machine still runs Manjaro because I've come to enjoy its opinionated handling of Arch, though if I were to re-image that computer I'd probably go back to either Fedora or Ubuntu.
> but I personally had much less headaches with it than I had with Ubuntu,fedora,debian, and CentOS.
Personally, I'm fine with using Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, or even Arch. I'm not saying any one of them are bad or worse than the other. I'm just saying that, to me, Arch came with some additional challenges that I don't experience from other distros, mostly revolving around how software packages are found and installed.
My bad if my response came as a rebuttal, it was more of a confusion of the circumstances that led you to do things the way you did. Was it just a lack of knowledge about arch or some esoteric setup I've never seen.
I understand that a newcomer at the beginning can be confused about the relationship between pacman, pamac, AUR, yay, etc
similar cli programs exist in other distros though are not as encouraged.
That is how I read it, but it's all good. Sorry for misreading your tone.
> I understand that a newcomer at the beginning can be confused about the relationship between pacman, pamac, AUR, yay, etc
Perhaps that's the source of my confusion. So with:
Red Hat-like distros the tools are usually dnf or yum, which are evolutions over rpm.
Debian-like distros the tools are usually apt or apt-get (which are more or less the exact same thing), which are evolutions over dpkg.
With Arch, I kind of assumed that pamac and pacman are similar things, no idea if yay is related to anything else though. And I think pamac actually can install things from the AUR. My confusion definitely stems from loading up documentation from every different piece of software I tend to install, and each one of them listing a different utility for installing their package. If these are all the same thing with different UIs, installing packages from the same repositories, then that's definitely where I got lost.
And then I'd often be further annoyed to find out that the software vendor doesn't have a package for Arch, and nobody put one in the AUR yet, so I'd take the deb pkg and run it through debtap to get a PKGBUILD script. Doing which has netted me varied results.
Why would you use 4 package managers to do 1 thing ? Most people who use arch use 1 and it does the job. All of them are built around pacman + smth for AUR packages. Personally I use pacui. Why would you convert package from other distro, if another distro has it then it most certainly exists in the AUR, never once had to touch another distro's packaging.
I don't know about the "the modder's distro" part but I personally had much less headaches with it than I had with Ubuntu,fedora,debian, and CentOS.
The only thing that sucks for me (regardless of distro) is Nvidia updates.