I’m curious if there is a recommended GUI package manager for EndeavourOS? There are quite a few for Arch that will work on EnOS, some better than others. Yes, I know about Pacman/Yay but they are text-based. I’m looking for GUI (I still install via Pacman/Yay).
Currently I’m using Discover (I’m on KDE/Plasma) for searching different packages available in the repos and AUR, but I’m wondering if there’s a better option. Manjaro uses Pamac as the default, but EnOS doesn’t have anything like that as a default.
Several years ago, It’sFoss published an article listing all the ones for Arch. https://itsfoss.com/arch-linux-gui-package-managers/
Being a few years old, it’s likely outdated.
So what are YOU using in EnOS (and why)?
Discover should never be used for anything other than Flatpak. There really is no full GUI package manager for Arch or EndeavourOS. At least not in the “software store” style with reviews and lovely color images.
I use Discover for Flatpak and terminal for Arch repos and AUR. But I also use Pacseek, which is probably the closest thing to a GUI package manager as you’ll get for EndeavourOS. Pacseek is available in the AUR.
Some do use Pamac and Octopi with EndeavouOS. I can’t attest to either’s usability though.
Do you have an specific usecase for a graphical package manager?
There are several of them that should work. Like octopi, bauh.
Even pamac should work in principle though the app may break from time to time due to the lag of upgrading dependencies between Arch and the AUR. It is ultimately based on libalpm via a detour: libpamac.
Avoid anything based on packagekit (discover, gnome software) for installing and/or updating packages. You could still use them for browsing the repos or managing your flatpaks (and addons in case of KDE).
Its also acceptable for themes and extensions and the like.
But the only way it does ‘packages’ on Arch/eos is through packagekit - packagekit should never be used for package management on Arch/eos as it is fundamentally broken and insecure.
The only one is octopi as it is truly just a frontend for pacman (and optionally supported AUR helpers).
pamac is broken.
Always has been, probably always will be.
As they decided instead not to use pacman .. but interface with ALPM in their own (broken) way.
This causes many problems simply due to their own infamiliarity with how it works.
But also because they have their own (weird/incorrect) ideas .. such as how they for years combined recursive+cascade removal, or how it deals with depends - which resulted in many broken systems recently, or how it deals with orphans .. and so on.
Kuz they dont know what the heck they are doing.
Not having a default UI package manager almost turned me away from EOS in the beginning. Having made my experiences with “naked” Arch, Arcolinux and Manjaro, I still consider myself not too well-versed in the Arch world. For a newbie, this can all be a bit overwhelming at first.
I’m happy that I stayed—EOS is the first Arch-based distro that I actually kept. I love tinkering around, but I also have to get real work done. Which is actually possible using EOS.
Nevertheless, even I started out with EOS/Cinnamon and installing Pamac. It’s just so convenient for searching, looking descriptions and dependencies up. A good start.
After only a few days, and learning lots of Pacman and Yay commands, I realized that EOS has a good philosophy: Stay lean and mean, stay close to Arch, but make important things like installation and system updates easy. Plus, I use Pamac very very seldom now. It will eventually go, but it clearly helped making me stay with EOS.
One of the things I love the Linux & FOSS world for: No wars, but working together, and building an ecosystem of freedom and choice.
So thanks, Manjaro, for Pamac. You helped me across to EndeavourOS, which I love.
Fortunately (and unfortunately) EndeavourOs is a terminal centric distro.
This has been discussed much before.
As far as I understand there are a few apps that are like text based front ends that are supposed to run fine.
There are lots here in this thread Pamac/Octopi/Pacseek Alternatives- To AUR or Not to AUR? I tend to like somehow pacseek. but didn’t try it even once, I am OK with yay.
by the way I have seen a nice app on CachyOS that I liked much better even than octopi which is “CachyOS Package Installer”
I am just playing a bit with CachyOS on a spare machine.
Yes, it is actually much simpler. But users form other distros and Windows are used to GUI.
Though the only issue for a “noob” user if they did like “yay browser” or “yay office” they will get hundreds of results, which is not the case with GUI.
They must be more specific to get a reasonable search result.
If I want to install software on Arch, I go to the Arch website and do a package search (nice and graphical), then I copy the package name into the terminal, prefaced by “sudo pacman -Syu” (because you should always install on a fully updated system). Its a fairly simple and foolproof method.
I don’t get this “religiously” clinging to the concept of “terminal centric system” while I believe that no less than 90-95% of no less than 90-95% of users (give or take), use GUI point and click applications to use their system on a daily basis.
Even when installing the system, you basically don’t need to open a terminal not even once. Launch the installer, point, click and click next and you are done.
Also on the system, most relevant system maintenance can be done via the welcome app.
Most of the time, I observe this “terminal centric” centricity in connection with when a user ask for a GUI package manager and not otherwise.
Now, if you install Archlinux as mandated by Archwiki, I would call it terminal centric. What you do later with that system is another story.
I would just retire “terminal centric” as it it seems to be more of an “ideal” with not so much use in practice.
Not at all! I mean that this “terminal centric” concept doesn’t mean that much or at all in practice.
So therefore, I don’t get this obsession on the part of some users to cling to a concept which seems to be more of a “catch phrase” than something substantial.
Thanks everyone for the advice and mentoring. I’ve got some ideas to investigate in my journey.
Yes, I understand that linux in general is a “terminal centric” OS and every single distro leans on the use of the terminal (except maybe Mint). For my own part, when installing/updating packages I use this order:
That’s our new motto, ‘I use terminal, and so should you, btw’
I’m giving you a hard time (purposefully), but getting away from terminal very much reduces the power of Linux. I don’t want to see it become another Windows where you can only do what your GUI allows. Plus, it is the safe and most efficient way to do most anything.
Just think of regular expressions for one!
I am not advocating the “exclusive” use of GUI at the cost of using the terminal.
What I am saying is that, to me, calling a distro “terminal centric” when 90-95% of the thing most of the users do most of the time on their systems are done with GUI applications, is a misnomer.
I can understand that some users gravitate more towards the use of terminal than others. You can be a “terminal centric” user on a distribution like Linux Mint where practically you can do most everything with pointing and clicking in some GUI app.
May be I am wrong but to me there is a difference between being a “terminal centric” user and being a “terminal centric” distro
