Package Signing Comes To Pacman and Arch Linux

fwarren writes "One of the main complaints heard around here on why some Slashdotters don't run Arch Linux is that the packages are not signed. Fear no more: Arch Linux and Pacman now allow for package signing."

Arch Linux: what's the differentiating factor?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does Arch bring to the table?

Debian has a minimal install option, is committed to freedom, has an awesome package manager, has tons of packages available, and has multiple release tracks that allow one to stay cutting edge should one wish.

RedHat is commercially supported.

CentOS is the free version of RedHat.

SLES is commercially supported, with a deal with Microsoft to interoperate.

Ubuntu is Debian made easier.

Gentoo is for people who like to recompile software for their hardware.

I get all of the above distros. I don't run them all myself -- especially not gentoo -- but I understand why some people do.

What's the point of Arch? I poked at the website and wikipedia pages, but don't see an explanation of what it gives you over, say, a base Debian install.

Note: this is not intended as a troll. I'm curious as to what Arch brought to the table. Why was it introduced? I'm sure there's an answer, just curious what.

Re:Arch Linux: what's the differentiating factor?

[dejanc]

What does Arch bring to the table?

1. It's a rolling release distribution, which many people like.
2. Package manager is very easy to use
3. Making new packages and modifying existing ones is extremely easy. Not only is the syntax of package definition very simple, but all package sources are easily available with the ABS (Arch Build System, something like ports).
4. The previous point is the reason that AUR (centralized repository of user-submitted packages) is very popular and generally of acceptable quality.