Package Signing Comes To Pacman and Arch Linux 103
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."
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Arch Linux: what's the differentiating factor? (Score:5, Informative)
My favourite Arch feature is the AUR [archlinux.org] (Arch User Repository) where anyone can submit their own packages which other uses can then install.
Because of the AUR, Arch is more likely to have a package for some given obscure application that Debian would be missing. Also, these packages are kept up to date to a greater extent than you'll see on Debian. Finally they're all in one place where as you don't have to constantly add repositories to your package manager's repo list.
Re:Arch Linux: what's the differentiating factor? (Score:5, Informative)
Great documentation and vanilla packages. That about sums it up. It's like Slackware with improved package management.
I've been running systems built from Debian base for about a decade. Recently I kept running into the Arch wiki when I wanted to solve a problem. e.g. if I want to reenable ctrl-alt-backspace in Xorg. If I google that, I get a page full of shitty Ubuntu related solutions that depend on extra packages or gui configuration tools.
But there's one result that sticks out. The Arch wiki [archlinux.org] provides a nicely organized richly linked list of things you might want to configure, and how to configure them. This is how you collect and present useful information. I figured, if I find myself consistantly using the documentation for a distro, maybe I should check out the actual distro.
So I still use Debian on most of my systems, but have thrown Arch on a couple for fun. It's easy, it works, and it doesn't feel as crufty as Debian does. Package signing will make it a contender for real work. Yay Arch!