[kkoste]

Ironically the tone of your comment suggests hints of elitism.

My guess is that you think pacman is inferior to apt or rpm. But for some reason you don't want to go into depth with what is actuallly wrong with pacman and you just regurgitates a comment or article you've read at some point that bashes pacman.

[skyyler]

The article describes having trouble with the included graphical package manager.

> 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.

>Turns out, Pamac is fairly broken, so the solution is to install the bauh GUI…

Take a deep breath next time you think someone is criticising your preferred software.

[1231232131231]

Maybe the elitism was the friends we made along the way.

[royjacobs]

As skyyler pointed out, my gripe is not with pacman but the fact that the author of TFA asserts that an OS is user-friendly even though it ships with a broken package management GUI out of the box.

I don't have a horse in the pacman/apt/rpm race since life is too short for those kinds of arguments and I'm sure they all have their pros and cons. Having said that, I'm not sure why having a preference for apt or rpm would be elitist though.