As someone who used to use Arch a decade ago: I still use pacman for devkitpro at least, and I do miss how fast its parallel downloads get, but the tool I use to manage packages is far from the most important difference between distros to me, even if you assume not needing AUR.
I unironically prefer apt over pacman, simply because my monkeybrain got addicted to running pacman -S (that was how to update, right?) and I dropped in productivity. apt is just “nah fam, there’s nothing new for you” most days, which gives me the quiet time I want and need.
I ran Manjaro BTW. It was nice while it lasted, but Debian is my new friend now.
The difference here is more between release types, I think. Arch is rolling, so there are updates you can get every few minutes. Debian is a rock, and rocks aren’t known for moving a lot.
no way anyone would voluntarily use apt after using pacman
well, for 90% of users it makes literally no difference whatsoever. It’s just the command you have to type in so you can get new software.
As someone who used to use Arch a decade ago: I still use pacman for devkitpro at least, and I do miss how fast its parallel downloads get, but the tool I use to manage packages is far from the most important difference between distros to me, even if you assume not needing AUR.
I unironically prefer
aptoverpacman, simply because my monkeybrain got addicted to runningpacman -S(that was how to update, right?) and I dropped in productivity.aptis just “nah fam, there’s nothing new for you” most days, which gives me the quiet time I want and need.I ran Manjaro BTW. It was nice while it lasted, but Debian is my new friend now.
The difference here is more between release types, I think. Arch is rolling, so there are updates you can get every few minutes. Debian is a rock, and rocks aren’t known for moving a lot.
(The command is
sudo pacman -Syubtw)