[ajross]

While true, tarring Arch here is a little unfair. AUR isn't enabled by default. It can't even be used via the same package front end, and in fact the "official" usage model requires that you clone the source yourself.

Indeed, AUR is bad as a software distribution mechanism (really it's best understood as a proving ground for baby packages before they get real maintainers and distro blessing), but it's less bad than NPM which puts the malware in the trusted/default/automated path.

[matheusmoreira]

I'm not tarring Arch, I was praising it. I made sure to explicitly spell out the "User Repository". Arch is the one that does it right.

[Ancapistani]

I didn’t take it that way at all - rather, Arch is the only one that does it “right” with the AUR.

[nailer]

If you want a usable system, you enable AUR. It's not 'doing it right', it's avoiding responsibility.

[antiframe]

Depends on who 'you' are. I have one package I installed from the AUR and it's from a corporation that just repackages their builds. The problem is always who vets the packages. I trust the Arch team and I trust that one corporation. Also to use the AUR it's a different command, so I can't get surprised by an AUR package. It's not a pacman -Syu is going to pull in a new unknown to me AUR package.

[Ancapistani]

It's putting the responsibility on the party most capable and interested in evaluating the packages for security.