- Pacman
- Octopi
- Pacseek
- Aura
- Pamac
- Cow
- Nix
- Other
0
voters
3 Likes
Frankly, none. It’s just a package manager. All do the same thing honestly.
3 Likes
yay in so far as I have a favourite
2 Likes
Pacseek and Pacman. What else 
3 Likes
Wow I didn’t know about pacseek, it is very useful!
Thanks to have shared it guys!
4 Likes
Pacseek is my favorite 
1 Like
Also just learned about pacseek from this thread. Pretty cool. Am test driving now. Thanks!
1 Like
Yay.
But I’ll certainly have a look at pacseek
1 Like
Yay, so I chose “other” in the poll.
I might see what Pacseek is all about. It does look intriguing.
2 Likes
I voted pacseek but likely use yay more often but when you are looking items up, pacseek is my go to.
4 Likes
paru
3 Likes
yay, followed by paru although i really have no reason to use yay over paru or paru over yay, I just use yay cuz i was already using it before paru. And I love the name.
Pacman is also fantastic, but honestly I think portage is better. Just requires a little bit more patience, not a lot, just a little bit.
2 Likes
Well I would love to say I have a favorite, and using A GUI one like pamac or discover can have the added advantage of screenshots, web links to the makers, and long descriptions, and yet way to many packagers put no info nor usable information in them for their offerings, and it’s not the maker of the package manager to do that for them, only make a manager that has the facilities to do so, so that sucks hard!
Add to it they all have problems and drawbacks, and I use Yay and pamac, but yay seems to have more install errors in updates, and I just heard that Yay may be behind in date in what it is showing, so not keeping up with release dates or something like that, and many in the forum were saying “DO NOT USE IT!” but it sounds fishy to me, and well Pamac is always broke in one way or the other , and for every fix something else is messed up!
I like the look and feel of KDE’s Discover, but for some reason packages it installs never show up as installed in yay or pamac, it has no AUR support, and if there is a way to add additional non distro PPA’s (I think its the right acronym) I haven’t found it!
So really they all end up a love hate relationship!
I never understood why it must be so hard to make one that does it all well! 
Probably because there isn’t a central package server or something along these lines, so updating things like screenshots or descriptions can be a bit in the butt. Flatpak packages have these things, I assume, because it is easier to do it than on Debian/Ubuntu, then on Fedora, then on openSUSE, then on whatever other distros there may be.
This is a personal opinion, but while graphically managing packages is sometimes nice, doing it through a command isn’t that hard either and has the same effect. I only like GUI package manager utilities for updating, especially if they’re tightly integrated with the distro and desktop environment. Updating my packages from Discover on openSUSE and applying them after a restart instead of immediately being applied is honestly all sorts of nice.
Most of the package managers have the same functionalities, so I base my opinion on raw speed. For me, it’s pacman/yay and nix (with flakes); none of the others are even close. While I do like emerge, even installing a binary package is slow. dnf5 is definitely an improvement for Fedora.
I only use pacseek to check for updates.
Probably because there isn’t a central package server or something along these lines, so updating things like screenshots or descriptions can be a bit in the butt. Flatpak packages have these things, I assume, because it is easier to do it than on Debian/Ubuntu, then on Fedora, then on openSUSE, then on whatever other distros there may be.
Repo’s are central package servers, it’s the whole reason they exist: to get all software, and updates to the OS all from a single place. When you install a Linux OS AKA 'Distro" where Linux is the kernel all distros are based on, and distro’s can be based on other distros Like Ubuntu being based on Debian, Mint on Ubuntu… It’s confusing (can be) because Arch, Red hat, Slackware, and Debian, (i think there’s a few more) are directly built on the Kernel, but still distro’s, Some call them “Mother”, “Main”, “Base” distro’s. Then there are Ubuntu, and others based on Dabian, and others like Manjaro and EndeavourOS are based on Arch, Manjaro has it’s own repo based on the software found in the Arch distro, but may have changes to them for Manjaro specifically, but we on EOS get our software directly from the Arch repo (fewer problems), many distros are based on Ubuntu and there’s really not a good naming convention to at a glance know what’s based on what, nor has there ever been, but it would help
When I was on Windows I never knew how bad it was to have to go to the makers sights to download them. Looking for them had issues. Keeping them up to date had issues, some you just had to check on once in a while, others had their own update notifiers, and so you may have like 40 of them always loaded and checking back to the makers sight, taking up memory and doing things on your PC with you not knowing how and when… then I tried Linux and was like: Why the F doesn’t windows do this, and well, it’s where "App stores came from: Copying how it was done in Linux, but not always exactly the same way, nor as good.
So there are many repo’s (central servers), but for valid reasons, but all work very similar, and so with pictures and descriptions which are just that (Images and text) no matter which repo a software is on, they can be exactly the same for let’s say Inkscape, GIMP, and any other software, as the programs work the same on all, and are not in the package, but on the server, and so it’s more of a matter of a repo supporting them, and the package maintainers to add them with but a few clicks with their packages, and well some fail at that, or fail at making a few screen shots and descriptions, some don’t even bother to have an Icon, which is the best way to recognize a program instantly!
In the Linux world there has always been a lot of fighting about when unified features are good, or bad, so some distro’s repos have rules making things a requirement to put a package on them like having a picture and description (I think Ubuntu just may) and some don’t because they don’t want strife with the package maintainers, but to me that’s pathetic, because it’s a good practice, and easy enough to do, to allow them to not have them, and package managers shouldn’t be offended by it, and they in not necessarily being the software maker but only the package maintainers who may use different package formats, like Snap’s, Flatpaks, builds using differing build systems… but the software is the same, so they should be supplied with the descriptions and screen shots, web links to their forums and builds from the software make: it shouldn’t be hard, just a standard they all adhere to, to make it easier on the users who they are making software for in the first place!
A terminal app can easily support descriptions, pictures not so much, and really a GUI app can be nothing more than a layer on top of a terminal app, making it easier to use, or make the same calls and have the very same commands going to the same repo’s to get the very same stuff.
Linux needs a better way of doing things and some regulation is good and beneficial for all, and in a democratic system easily get a large majority vote, so a few complaints for bad reasons is a silly thing not to have more rules and regulations, but Linux is based on freedom, and so people are free to do stupid things too, and waste a lot of time (hours, weeks and more) arguing with users and others over it instead of doing a few minutes of extra work.
1 Like
To whom ever it concerns:
The block quote thing is counter intuitive and works completely different than the thing to add code, and other features and very hard to use if not used to it, and RTFM helps but needs to be memorized (which I suck at) or looked at every time one wants to use it.
I know no one here makes the UI, but whoever does needs to be told to make things work in a more intuitive and unified way. Even if the underlying tech is different, the user should have no need to know, nor deal with that, only report problems which I herewith do! 
Anyone with the authority, and maybe some leverage: Please help with that. 
1 Like
I pick Pacman (Pacman including yay if this counts as the same)
While all package managers do the same thing, the same could be said that all operating systems do the same thing yet most of us prefer Linux over alternatives (Or even within Linux different distros), or we prefer a specific music player or a browser despite all doing the same thing. However I do understand an OS or browser is far more complex compared to what a package manger does by itself.
I like pacman as it’s simple, easy, and quick to use and I like to use the CLI for it. Sure all of them are easy when you are used to them but the flow and usability of pacman feels the best for me. However I haven’t used all of these such as Nix, Octopi etc but I have used at least the main common methods among distros, perhaps not recently but in the past.
That’s an ad hominem with no substance.
What exactly you are referring to (I made several comments and replies, on a few issues), and an actual point of contention or valid argument will do, and maybe have meaning, if you actually have one, and are correct that is.
So do you have any of that?
Also the guy you are using is actually not very intelligent, so a bad example, and doing what he often does: Pointing out others stupidity despite being pretty darned stupid himself!