Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnisgood | Hacker News Reader

> It's user-friendly if you think having a package manager that's broken out of the box is user-friendly.

Are you referring to pacman here? If so, why do you believe it to be broken? Plus one could make a GUI front-end for it that is user-friendly.

View on HN

TFA describes trouble with the included GUI front-end, resorting to installing a different one after manually updating pacman in the terminal.

User friendly, that ordeal is not.

So the issue is with the GUI, and not the package manager itself?

I do mean this in the nicest way possible:

You could read the linked article and quickly find out for yourself :-)

OK, but I was responding to:

> It's user-friendly if you think having a package manager that's broken out of the box is user-friendly.

The package manager here is pacman, and it implies that pacman is broken out of the box.

If the primary way the user is interacting with the package manager in this user-friendly distro is via the GUI then of course I mean the GUI when talking about the package manager.

Alrighties, got chu. In that case I agree.

You still haven't read the article, have you? :-(

Shush, I have! I am just nitpicking here. :P

Does nitpicking often yield good information in your experience?

Sometimes. I already told you why I asked the question, it did not specify the GUI per se, only the package manager, and the GUI front-end to that package manager is NOT the package manager itself, which is exactly what has been said. It has already been answered though. But again, if someone mentions the package manager and not the GUI, why would I believe otherwise? I was simply asking for clarification. Does asking for clarification often yield good information in your experience?

Sometimes, re-reading the source material can elucidate questions I have about comments :-)

In this case, it's really obvious what everyone was talking about with the context of the article fresh in my mind.

His comment is very clear after you read the OP link.

> I did have a small issue with Pamac after the installation. When I tried to run the app, it refused to sync with the update databases and wouldn't show any applications available for installation. Fortunately, I knew how to update Arch manually (with the command sudo pacman -Syu). After running that command (and rebooting), I expected Pamac to behave exactly as expected. It did not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com