Arch is the best Linux Distro ever made, prove me wrong
Pro tip: You can't
Bait: The Thread [spoiler] good doubles btw!
My wife's boyfriend uses this distro, but I'm a debian guy myself. I seriously think he should grow up and use a real operating system instead of some toy OS, but it's his loss really. My lady doesn't agree, but like a famous person once said, "I think the lady protest too much" LoL.
My wife's bull Tyrone uses Ubuntu on his laptop. I was in my Cuck shed in the backyard while they were having sex (not allowed in the house when they're making love).
Me and Tyrone's son love to watch movies in there.
My Gentoo using step-son was having trouble with the ladies until I took him under my wing and showed him the Arch way. Now he's banging white chicks e'ry day, just like his new dad.
It's the best distro as a secondary OS. As a primary Debian LTS / Xubuntu minimal LTS are the best.
apt is shit btw
Once you get a full time job, once you have to share screen/presentation Arch is no longer reliable, to be quite honest. I moved to Xubuntu because I just cannot afford random package breakage due to un-reviewed updates.
Arch wiki is really nice but the developers are autistic and force the unstable, unsecured AUR onto their userbase
The only thing that bothers me with Xubuntu is the number of retarded indians that infested the Linux community
i don't like it when sofware does too many things it isn't supposed to do.
And i have the freedom of choice to choose something different (and in addition, imo better than arch despite of systemd)
What does Arch bring to the table?
Debian has a minimal install option, is committed to freedom, has an awesome package manager, has tons of packages available, and has multiple release tracks that allow one to stay cutting edge should one wish.
RedHat is commercially supported.
CentOS is the free version of RedHat.
SLES is commercially supported, with a deal with Microsoft to interoperate.
Ubuntu is Debian made easier.
Gentoo is for people who like to recompile software for their hardware.
I get all of the above distros. I don't run them all myself -- especially not gentoo -- but I understand why some people do.
What's the point of Arch? I poked at the website and wikipedia pages, but don't see an explanation of what it gives you over, say, a base Debian install.
Note: this is not intended as a troll. I'm curious as to what Arch brought to the table. Why was it introduced? I'm sure there's an answer, just curious what.
I tend to have less trouble with my arch install than I've ever had with any other OS. Ubuntu breaks every 6 months, Windows is like a loaf of bread, you can't keep fresh, Debian has retarded repos and PPAs are annoying as fuck to keep synchronized.
I'd give up a lot just to keep AUR given the alternatives.
Very up to date packages, minimal modification of packages from what comes upstream. Once you've set up your arch system, everything is extremely simple to maintain and administer (most other distros seem to come with idiotic default behaviours that are annoying or get in the way).
Ultimately, any Linux distro can be as much like any other as it wants to be, but Arch is by far the simplest baseline to work from to get to where you want if you're the kind of enthusiast who likes to tinker and do custom stuff.
OP is right, guys.
ArchLinux is best linux.
Debian's repos are complete ass though, out of date (even testing) and lacking a lot of common software for no good reason. Debian has nothing as good as the AUR, and apt is a pig disgusting package manager compared with pacman. Just comparing the time consumed and usefulness of the output of a pacman -Syu versus an apt-get upgrade will tell you that.
As a winfag who's only remotely familiar with Linux from various school VMs, what's the difference between the two installs other than the fact that the apt output is more verbose?
That's what I meant, yeah. I tried it out for a while, but the versions for many packages were several point releases behind upstream. In some cases, years behind, broken ass versions of things.
OK, this was a long time ago, but I remember a snes emulator, snes9x I think that was hanging around their official repos in a non-working state on an old version, even unstable. The reason I finally dropped it was when they took ages to push a new mesa version that opened up important features in my graphics card. Arch testing had it within a few days and it worked perfectly well.
Kek, it's just either a default theme it comes with from devs, or else something the user set himself. Talking about theme and colourschemes with a distro like arch is missing the point entirely. Like that tool from Distrowatch who reviewed it by installing KDE and complaining about what KDE's defaults are. Arch is arch, a blank canvas with some fantastic tools to help you draw your own OS onto it.
indians are everywhere m8 even in the Arch community. At least we don't have wananbe hackers who just saw Mr Robot, right?
Sorry, rajesh. I forgot your kind are here as well
whats with the community meme? I use arch daily since my laptop is too shit to run windows above 5fps but every time I've had a problem which lead me to the community forum the thread always go's similar to the following:
>OP: "oh hai guies i have problem x, pls fix xD"
>#1: *requests more details*
>OP: *gives more details*
>Several days/weeks/months pass
>OP: "nvm fix'd it, now i'll quickly outline the fix I used in as little detail as possible, omitting actual values where possible"
i mean props to the OP for actually replying with _something_, but I'm yet to have a case where someone actually provides a fix on the forum.
> Propietary software
> Not using GNU's curated Arch, Parabola
It's like you enjoy NSA on your back door
>i'm yet to have a case where someone actually provides a fix on the forum.
So try and im guilty of it my self.Even made the mistake of posting to the mailing list.I didnt post why because fuck the community,they didnt help me fuck them.They can figure it out them selves,or one of the non-mod in-every-thread know it alls pipe in.Funny when shit hits the fan they never post
It takes 10 mins to install Arch with choice of DE. It is an overhyped distro which looks and feels like shit. Couldn't be bothered to rice my Arch install, I just removed the partition.
Next project: Gentoo
Arch is basically just Debian with fresher packages and less breakage. I'm surprised so many people get scared away from it by the installer and end up never trying it for real.
Anyone who was putting it off, try out Architect to install it.
You are wrong, OP, Because the kernel of arch isn't a free software and many other softwares which is provided by main repo also aren't free software. See:
Installation is not the issue anymore. AUR and pacman suck balls. I had a hard time locating any software and packages. Google search leads to Arch Wiki with links for packages that don't work. Arch does not have a default archive manager and it frustrated the fuck out me having to work with Ark as it was the only one available int he repos.
Fuck AUR, I rather use apt and PPA, at least Google covers it widely and I have never run into a dead end.
>I had a hard time locating any software and packages
>Arch does not have a default archive manager
Arch doesn't really have much defaults.
In the repos you'll find e.g. xarchiver or file-roller for archives.
I hope you are baiting
>pacman is shit ( see >>52239297 )
>apt is not
>what is aur helper
>what is packer/yaourt/pacman search
>what is minimal distro
I have had it just booted to the live session for few days i have set the timezone and other stuff but have had no time to set it up. =/
inb4 i'm retarded, there is leterally no excuse for that
Is Arch a good choice distro for a somewhat novice Linux user?
I'm considering installing it on my laptop. I do have some basic understanding of command line that I have practiced on a virtual machine running Ubuntu. This is going to be the first time I'm installing non Windows OS.
what are the chances of this happening?
generally its not for a novice user unless you are enthusiastic about linux in general
but nothing is stopping you
try installing it in to virtualmachine just like you did ubuntu?
>what are the chances of this happening?
I never heard of that ever happening or see any reason why it should
its just linux as any other except you actually are doing the steps during the install
and just nothing comes to mind that could brick anything
This is just bullshit. They say as long as their repositorys have non-free packages it's not respecting your freedom. But nobody forces you too install those non-free packages, so fuck off.
I like Antergos.
Just works and doesn't look like caca OOTB
We were talking about apt
Fuck off bait posting faggot
If I was bait posting I would have praised Manjaro
It's pretty buggy desu
I've had to downgrade 2 packages and have had other glitches that I still haven't worked out. But I am "pushing the envelope" by using wayland and booting btrfs snapshots.
I said I like it, not that it is the best.
What are the issues? It is literally >99% Arch. These are the non arch packages:
except for the first two, all are in the AUR.
>>52249245The following NEW packages will be installed:
0 packages upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 3,503 kB of archives. After unpacking 11.0 MB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?] Y
Get: 1 http://ftp.se.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 geany-common all 1.26+dfsg-1 [2,193 kB]
Get: 2 http://ftp.se.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 geany amd64 1.26+dfsg-1 [1,310 kB]
Fetched 3,503 kB in 3s (894 kB/s)
Selecting previously unselected package geany-common.
(Reading database ... 776551 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to unpack .../geany-common_1.26+dfsg-1_all.deb ...
Unpacking geany-common (1.26+dfsg-1) ...
Selecting previously unselected package geany.
Preparing to unpack .../geany_1.26+dfsg-1_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking geany (1.26+dfsg-1) ...
Processing triggers for hicolor-icon-theme (0.13-1) ...
Processing triggers for doc-base (0.10.6) ...
Processing 1 added doc-base file...
Registering documents with dwww...
Registering documents with scrollkeeper...
Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.21-6) ...
Processing triggers for mime-support (3.59) ...
Processing triggers for gnome-menus (3.13.3-6) ...
Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils (0.22-1) ...
Processing triggers for man-db (2.7.5-1) ...
Setting up geany-common (1.26+dfsg-1) ...
Setting up geany (1.26+dfsg-1) ...
Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.21-6) ...
>I am a aspiring hacker and love to learn new languages. Programming lover, writer and web developer, I blog when I get spare time from these.
get something that let's you take snapshots, use before updates and don't update the hour before a big presentation, problem solved
definitely possible to have arch stable, but requires a bit more than conventional distros for sure
>Why was it introduced?
tl;dr: Judd Vinet used Crux and some other stuff and liked them but didn't like their package management. So, he made his own distro.
Is Arch really the best?
I've only tried Mint 17, Ubuntu 12, and Arch + Gnome3. I've been running Arch + Gnome3 for almost a week now and I have to say I really really like it. "Pacman" has been perfect, where as with Ubuntu and Mint using "sudo apt-get install" for any package would just make it complain about dependencies not being met(Even when I use -D).
>Is Arch a good choice distro for a somewhat novice Linux user?
Honestly, not at all and I don't see the point. Assuming we're talking daily driver home OSes, the Mint/buntus for newbies meme (or openSUSE for a more hipsterish alternative) is actually well justified. The different Linux distros aren't actually that different in the end, the vast majority of software you can get on one you can also grab on others, so the end result is mostly the same. Mint/buntus just get to the "functional" point straight away while most others need hours or even days spent troubleshooting with the terminal and a bunch of 5 year old posts from Google to get going the way you really want them to.
It's true that pre-chanology should be the only true definition of oldfag, but the master rusemen of a few years back far worse than what 4chan is now in a way. The incredibly boring, paranoid time after that, when people feared memelord kids like a terminal illness was almost even worse. Today it's all a parody of itself, but at least it's fun again.