Hello /g/, Please give me some reasons why I should switch from Debian to Arch. I want to so bad, but I don't know why I just can't make the switch. I think it's all the wireless issues i've had in the past. Please convince me.
Switching is silly without comparing in VMs first.
There are two kinds of distros. One is for stability and doing things besides tweaking and experimentation. The other is for tweaking and play, not getting shit done.
If your host is an enterprise or other highly stable distro your play distros can live in VMs.
>Taking this bait
Arch will never be accepted on /g/ because its blindly followed meme to hate on it.
If you're using Debian stable, try Sid first. Read their wiki and see if you like it. If you do then you may as well stick with that since Arch will be relatively similar, albeit with a different package manager (and arguably better documentation, which you'll need because the Arch community will tell you to RTFM if its obvious you haven't).
If you don't need bleeding edge for compatibility reasons and your performance you see now is acceptable then you may as well just stay in your safe haven if you're afraid of breaking things.
I use Sid now and am very happy with it. Doesn't deserve the name unstable. I was thinking about Arch since it was so lightweight but imo its too much work. With Debian I can log on and go.
I've used Arch for the last year because there was a pile of things I didn't like about Debian and how some of its dependencies worked out.
Now that it's set up, it hasn't even been that big of a deal to keep it up to date. Its the upfront work that everyone complains about, mostly because its an easy point to pick at.
In the end, you pick the distro of your choice based on your preferences and at least for me Arch fit the bill. YMMV.
>mostly because its an easy point to pick at
It's something that died out 15 years ago and has stayed that way for a reason. I can bet 50p that at least three distros would suit your needs just as well as Arch.
If it works for you, then that's great. Ultimately, the biggest factor in your OS choice should be what you personally prefer working with and what is least cumbersome for you.
I'm personally using Arch because I prefer rolling releaseto having to due large dist-upgrades, I love how pacman handles dependencies and upgrades/downgrades, and I think AUR rocks.
Paying for shitware that works half the time (if that), spys on you, and is a monoply.
Uses free software, open source (because we aren't greedy fucks), works almost always, doesn't spy (except Ubuntu), and isn't monoply.
Or maybe having used Linux distros as my primary OSes for the last decade I'm just comfortable enough with the tooling that its not a huge deal?
What would you really gain in Arch from the addition of an installer? Pacstrap is basically as much as an "installer" as I want for Arch, since an installer for a minimal distro would barely be more than a wrapper around the filesystem creation process and maybe setting your mirrors up.
Anything further renders Arch irrelevant to its purpose, and nobody is forcing Arch down the throats of the average user who don't have a care for that kind of technical dive into the guts of their OS anyway.
I switched from using ubuntu for 5 years to arch 4 days ago.
Install wasn't hard at all, if you can apt-get something you can install arch.
got my drivers for nvidia optimus easily installed no hassles, everything is running great.
As for benefits? AUR is nice, but it doesnt really have long term benefits, you install a package and its done, there will come a point where you probably have all the packages you need.
first experience with systemd though, i have to say for all the autismal whining its actually pretty nice to use, enabling/disabling services is ez as fuck and ive had no issues with it.
On the same setup as i used on ubuntu (i3 with no compositor or desktop manager) I get about 150mb less ram usage on idle so thats nice.
comparing the two, there is no real reason to use one over the other, however afaic this extends to every distro, or atleast every non-fsf approved distro.
I rate my arch experience 9/10, but i also rate my linux experience in general as 9/10.
There is no difference, install if you're bored/you broke your current system. Don't if you're not going to enjoy the change
Sorry if anything is hard to understand just finished christmas lunch and ive had too many beers
Because all that "Arch way" bullshit is about providing users the opportunity to muck around with the guts of their OS from the ground up. There are already several distros that do "minimal" but without similar flexibility.
If you just want minimal with no interest in actually determining what that really is for yourself, there are many better choices than Arch. Expecting Arch to be convenient for you just because "muh installer" is a poor choice.
I appreciate your response. The only thing that gets me is that Debian is so damn compatible and I love it. But Arch uses less system resources. Not that is an issue for the machine I might install it on. I have it on this old Dell Dimension e310 Pentium 4 ht and it kicks ass especially with the lxde DE.
Pacstrapping and configuring netctl manually is not 'guts of their OS'. That would be having to compile your menu and core utils from scratch, and that's what Gentoo is for. Arch really is just a minimal distro, one with lazy devs who would rather write bogus philosophy than write a damn installer like everyone else. That wouldn't be much of a problem since it could be ignored, but some jackass had to post his ricer OS on /g/ and make the /v/irgins believe it was something elite and not pointless at all, therefore I have to explain to a new person why he shouldn't install Arch and look like a jackass doing so.
dude aur is so great though.
get that pacaur.
>pacaur -S some obscure bullshit program that 2 people use
>it pops up in the list
afaic pacaur is the main reason to use arch, but like i said eventually its benefit wears off
if he wants to compile things
Installing gcc and things to help compile isnt really a selling point when on a full install using pacaur shitloads i have 1/3rd the packages installed compared to ubuntu.
But I still have every program that I used installed.
I never said you had to stop at pacstrap and netctl, but you're insistent that it must be so. The difference between Arch and Gentoo is essentially hours of compile time, since your average Gentoo user probably doesn't audit every package they build. Every distro has its own philosophy even if you choose to ignore it when its convenient, like right now.
If Arch really is as terrible as everyone implies, I'm sure we wouldn't even be discussing the lack of some kind of dolled up installer. It would be tossed to the wayside with other all but forgotten distros like Slackware. The fact is Arch can be anywhere on the scale from a minimal distro to bloated pile of shit, all depending upon what the user decides to install. By the time you reach bloat levels the installer will have been the least of your concerns.
If you are gonna take the time to install arch you might aswell get it
If you have a fast wired connection you could probably crank out an installation in like 4.5 hours
Id say get debian sid ive been using it ever since ive been introduced to linux and I use it as my main os
I have never gotten arch to properly work every install its a different problem I even had a friend show me his arch and it broke right in front of us
If you want access to the aur and pacman package manager get manjaro its basically arch with zero bullshit.
I quint boot
But deffinetly try arch or manjaro and see if they are right for you. You might be pleasantly suprised
>Responding to arguments by attacking a person's character
Calling someone ignorant but not even making an attempt to back up that statement on its own is ad hominem.
It is also a convenient cop out when you've nowhere else to go in a conversation.
I would, but the burden of proof was on you to show that I'm ignorant of something. Which I would accept, if you actually went somewhere with that idea.
Also >>45772917 is not me.
You claim that Slackware is irrelevant. It is very relevant. Your scope of knowledge is only what is posted on /g/, and you seem to be ignorant of the fact that 4chan discusses shit.
>I would, but the burden of proof was on you to show that I'm ignorant of something
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.
My argument was that Slackware is hardly in the limelight anymore. It's last release annoucement was over a year ago and I was only making a point that we're discussing common choices of distributions. Slackware isn't one of the first that come to mind.
He was the one to make the claim that I was ignorant. I made a claim that Slackware is all but irrelevant, which is not saying its irrelevant. Because that is fact, so it his claim of ignorance was unfounded.
>4chan discusses shit
It's been Christmas for nearly 3 hours and Santa still hasn't brought me that vintage collection of Slackware floppies I always wanted.
I'm far too emotionally distraught to sleep now. I fear Santa may only leave me used AOL trial discs and copies of Ubuntu 8.04.
I installed Arch in an nspawn the other day. pacstrap was broken by design "lolarch" and I had to edit it just to get it to install to /
This is how I boot Arch.
systemd is so fucking awesome.