I really need a functional programming environment on my new-built

No, Arch only provides a functional ricing environment.

>>52693183
Use Ubuntu. There are reasons why people call Arch a timesink

>>52693183
Arch's "hardcoreness" is quite overstated, but then again, you can get a "functional programming environment" out of any distro ever, so it all depends on if you have any other demands and how much you want to customize. No logical reason to fiddle with .confs for hours for a result that is already preinstalled in Ubuntu anyway.

>>52693183
arch tends to be (in practice) more of a hobbyist distribution. if you really just want functionality out of the box it's hard to recommend anything over distros like debian or ubuntu, arch can definitely do anything that any other distro can do, but it will fight you every step of the way, forcing you to learn more about how linux actually works. for some, this is the goal, but much of what you learn may not ever directly carry over to being useful in your professional life. my first install of arch it took me three full days, working 8+ hours to get it installed and working with my window manager, with far less functionality than you get with a fresh install of a more user-friendly distribution, many of which notably give it to you in about 15 minutes instead.

i don't think i'll ever be able to say that my arch machine is MORE functional than a fresh debian or ubuntu install, but it's at least on the level. i had (and continue to have) a lot of fun working through it though

>>52693990
>my first install of arch it took me three full days
What the fuck? It takes like maybe two hours. Don't tell me that using parted can be that hard.

>>52694023
>two hours
unacceptable

>>52694023
once upon a time, i started from absolute 0. to be fair, i took my time trying to actually absorb what was happening instead of blindly following the wiki.

>>52694031
That was my first try, reading the guides and all. No doubt I could do better with a little practice.
>>52694036
What is there to absorb about the installer though? Partitions, configuring grub, setting up a WM/DE, is there even anything else of note?

Thanks for the help guys. Another question, what are the use cases of Debian and Fedora?

>>52694124
Debian if you didn't find base Ubuntu minimalistic enough
Fedora if you anticipate new shit but don't want to play with a loaded gun like Arch

Both are pretty much all-purpose kind of deals though. Ultimately most distros are interchangeable though.

>>52693183
Try both. Choose the one who you like the most in your machine (tm)

>>52694171
Awesome, thanks. I'd like stability and functionality, so I think I'll try Debian out.

>>52694215
In that case, go for Debian Testing.

>>52693183
Archlinux is pretty good, I'd recommend you it, be it only for the AUR.

A functional programming environment is made of a lot of functions, which may be brought by packages from Archlinux or Debian. Gentoo offers good performances, which would be helpful when building open-source projects you've hacked the source code of, but it doesn't offer as much packages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions#Package_management_and_installation

You should also consider FreeBSD.

You'd need a text editor, be it vim or Emacs. You'd need to find a config file on the Internet such as .vimrc.

Talking about power, I'd suggest you Xfce. KDE is a pretty good DE, but resources-heavy. And the reference code editors are in console anyway.

What is good with Archlinux is that you can install all the DE you want without problems.

Talking about Ubuntu, I tried to anonymize documents using mat. It didn't work. I think there are several other problems with this particular distro which may make it a toxic dev environment.

Just install them in virtualboxes to avoid splitting your disk in several small distros you wouldn't delete and taking 200 GiB each one. I wouldn't recommend you setting less storage then, talking from experience (manjaro distro with 50 GiB, that was terrible).

>>52694215
and yet again, anti arch retards steer op away from possibly the best distro out
kek

>>52694434
fuck off. No one who does anything productive with their lives uses Arch

>>52693183
You don't need to use Arch to do functional programming.

>>52693183
If you don't know what you're doing don't touch Arch. Install Fedora or Mint.

>>52693183
Asking /g/ anything is like pissing over your shoulder.
Pointless.

start with something else unless you're prepared to spend hours tinkerering and learning linux

best option: dual boot and use a seperate computer so you can have a functional environment to work in, and an arch install to tinker with

i needed linux for a new job and went with slackware, but used a windows 10 install to work until i got the hang of linux. now i just use the linux install.

>>52693225
Arch on suicide watch

>>52693225
>>52693901
>>52694171
>>52694456
Christ,this place has sunk to deplorable levels.Are you all newfags fresh off the Wangblows boat?Or is this a reddit raid?

Arch is for people who want to tinker with Linux. And by tinker, I mean spending a large portion of your time messing with the system to get it to work right. I'd recommend it to hobbyists but never in a production machine.

Debian is for server admins who want to tinker with servers.And by tinker, I mean installing htop and ssh, because even though it is commonly described as stable for servers, it breaks like a motherfucker if you foolishly try to use it as a desktop.

>>52693183
-debian testing for stability + latest updates
-mint for stability + plenty of support
any *buntu (hopefully MATE or XFCE) for all three

Arch is cancer, not for actual use.

Try Linux mint Debian edition

Use Ubuntu if you are new, Gnome is nice functional and has good work flow. Debian is also nice for servers and other stuff.

i am a complete dumfuck installed arch and it works flawlessly
it aint hard and I like having up to date packages
up to you though

>>52693225
>>52693901
>>52693943
>>52694171
>>52694215
>>52694243
>>52694456
>>52695496
>>52696140
>>52696140
>>52696140
>>52696278
>>52696339
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

>>52693183
From my experience, Raspian, (and of course a Raspberry Pi) work best for easy hardware programming and whatnot. But again, you can set up an easy going programming platform from just about any OS.

>>52693183
protip: it doesnt matter

>>52693183
Linux Mint or Lubuntu.

What kind of programming? Arch is good if you need newest libraries and software.

>>52693183
The fuck are you asking us for?

Install gentoo. Or elementary OS

>>52693183
I use emacs with haskell-mode on arch. Works like a charm.

> is it worth tinkering with?
Yes, but make sure you have some time. I'm in uni where the year is dividend into 4 parts. I only start seriously screwing with me PC between those, so only Every 3 months (that means uninstalling my WM and getting a new one, changing config in a way that could fuck up my PC).
The big advantage of arch is you van get exactly the system you like. The drawback is that setting it up ain't always easy.

Get slackware

use ubuntu or deriatives like kubuntu xubuntu i personally like lubuntu.

>>52693990
>forcing you to learn more about how linux actually works
>how linux actually works
>works

that's the point, Arch doesnt work. Let's not pretend troubleshooting why your particular audio configuration doesnt behave properly gives you some profound insight into how a computer works.

If you want to learn "how linux actually works" you do LFS

>>52693990
My first install with my only other linux experience being mint took an hour. When I rebooted realized I forgot the grub config file felt like a complete noob, started from scratch 10 minutes later booted in properly. Drivers and DE installed in about 30.

Try NixOS or GuixSD, now your whole OS is functional.

>>52699455
No way, dude: Slackware has become buggy as fuck. It ain't like it used to be.

>>52694456
Not the guy you're replying to, but yes I do.

You're just consuming your time on earth in a useless job to earn money you don't know what to do with and it makes you sad.

Actually I have a corrupt file when updating my Archlinux distro, I may just delete it and install it again. I'll see with some of these persons people call "friends" if they have an idea.

Gonna it pancakes with some of them tonight (not the ones who're running Archlinux). We just walked in the mountains around my town, that was hard but fun. A few days ago (thursday) I went in a students syndicate, we ate a kebab then drank alcool at a marxist teacher's home.

Another friend running Archlinux is in a selective school to learn how to manage networks.

Archlinux may have changed from the few years ago I wasn't actually using it.

Also, my biggest waste of time on my computer is arguing with strangers like you on /g/.

There is no reason for Arch to be as tedious to install as it currently is. You're better off installing Debian testing and go with "expert mode". That way you're only doing what you need to do (partitioning, setting users, etc) and you can tell it to only install the base system if you want with no DE. Then after you're done you can have the fine control over what packages are installed.

>>52703540
* eat pancakes by the way. Time to take a shower.

File: 1452604709909.gif (1MB, 296x160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 296x160px

>>52694089
>That was my first try, reading the guides and all. No doubt I could do better with a little practice.

>practice
>installing a distro

>>52703648
I did it in a VM, because people were all going about how hard and time consuming it is. In reality it's barely more complex than using any one of the installers like Architect, and less prone to errors. I wish that they'd bundle the wiki guide inside the install media though, would simplify the process with absolute minimum work required.

>install arch
>xorg doesn't work
>amd drivers don't work
>sound jumps randomly between headphones and hdmi
>pacman fucks shit up constantly

I feel like by installing Arch, you learn more about the fuckeries of Arch than you do Linux itself.
Though I do sort of like it still.

>>52695504
/g/ has finally realized that Arch is a waste of time, and that people who want to get things done use Debian or Xubuntu

>>52693990
few hours even with carefully reading wiki, installation is short, its the setup that consumes days you mentioned, heck I still write a script or two to make something automatic and faster. but installiing, cmn you dont need 3 days to get it to terminal ...

>>52703918
No arch is perfect if you wana learn how linux works, ofcours you wont use it if you want to work on it(even though I do webdev on one). you can dual boot anyway

>>52703918
there are seriously people on this board who are too stupid to handle Arch. Holy shit I wouldn't wanna have your shitty low IQ genetics.

>>52704739
Arch is literally easier to handle and maintain than debian or xubuntu

>>52703918
>waste of time says anon
>let's make a statement with no argument to make people waste their time with me!

flawless

Why does everyone pretend like arch is so tough? The install is certainly a little obnoxious, but that's what architect or archbang are for.

No matter which install route you take, it's only a couple pacman commands late by which you have a functioning system, and from that point on it's just as easy as any other linux system.

You don't need to be a "hobbyist" ready to "tinker" with it, just install the programs you want to use and use them?

I'm guessing most people mentioning it have never tried it.

>>52704755
Get a load of this guy

>>52704755
yep, this.

>>52704798
It's the same people that are scared of command lines because it's not a point-and-click adventure.

File: 1451959440961.png (263KB, 1660x1940px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1660x1940px

>>52704796
>>52704739
>>52704693

>>52693183
Arch is for when you DON'T want something functional. For when your hobby is writing config files, troubleshooting errors and reading docs. Expect 20 hours per week on solving problems and new and fancy errors noone has seen before.

Get a normal distro if you want something that works.

>>52704981
these did used to be funny, but /g/ has so little content and seeing them reposted all day for years just fucking kills whatever humor they had

>>52693990
> my first install of arch it took me three full days, working 8+ hours to get it installed

My first arch install took me two days and many hours of work just to get internet working. I probably shaved a day because I had a friend who had installed arch before who helped me both days.

>>52705051
don't you have your .bashrc to be working on?

>>52705033
please don't talk out your ass

>>52693183
>I really need a functional programming environment on my new-built computer.

Literally can be done on any operating system.

>>52705069
uh my bashrc has been pretty well untouched for two years

File: 1400985439735.jpg (202KB, 717x880px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 717x880px

>>52703918
I swear to god this faggot is on every Arch thread hating on it.

You even admitted in one thread that you actually didn't even install it. Fucking retard

>>52704798
> I'm guessing most people mentioning it have never tried it.

Or have used it for years. I have used it a long time and it's a unstable distro mainly made for tinkering and spending time troubleshooting weird errors that nobody has seen before. Which is fun, but when I need to use a computer for something I always use some other distro that won't break if you look at it wrong.
I have no trouble with the command line, bash scripting or anything like that. But Arch is a pain for people who don't want to spend hours on end maintaining their system.

4years using arch, and I probably spent less than half a day troubleshooting anythings.
wtf is wrong with you people are you all imcompetents ?

>>52705145
I think you're thinking of someone else because I've used Arch for a little over a year

>>52705264
I've used it for years and never had to spend more time maintaining it than any of the debian based distros I run. Meanwhile the package management is completely superior.

I'm not sure what your issue is that you're encountering "weird errors that nobody has seen before" but every time I've had an issue (none of which have even been OS specific) it was answered succinctly in the arch wiki or forums.

>>52705324
> Look at me, I am a 1337 haX0r that have so much skills that I can tame this experiemental troubleshooting distro that everyone else have problems with.
Fuck off, I used Arch for months and got sick and tired of all the troubleshooting because I was tricked to installing it due to bragging fucks like you who pretend it's stable.

>>52705436
The Arch wiki is shit and don't help anyone who don't have a degree in computer science. it completely skips steps, don't explain most things and the forums are even worse. More unhelpful people than the Arch community is hard to find. "read the wiki" is how everything is answered or with ridicule. So normal people just end up spending hours reading the documentation for the applications involved instead. And then when the problem is solved you just have to make a 'pacman -Syu' then suddenly the audio stops working or only works for 5 second intervalls every time you press play after pausing it, or all videos you play only show the left side of the video while the rest is black or the whole DE breaks and wont start even with a reinstall. And when you go to forums to ask you get the good old "read the wiki" which don't explain shit.

All other distros are preferable.

>>52705627
so you're telling me arch is harder to install than gentoo???

>>52705719
Arch is post-optimised gentoo with binaries. It's better in every way.

>>52705754
so then these people are all just idiots then? because i've installed gentoo on 4 machines, im sure i could install arch since you dont have to configure the kernel manually and you don't have to compile every package from source.

File: xfiqCir.jpg (78KB, 832x584px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 832x584px

>>52698521

>>52705824
The installation process is almost identical with the exception of configuring the kernel yes.

(and most people just genkernel anyway)

Install Arch

File: 1432689111979.png (766KB, 916x720px) Image search: [Google]

766KB, 916x720px

>>52706008
>genkernel

>>52706008
What about Funtoo?

>>52705084
Of course it can be, but you're making things difficult for yourself depending on what you want to program.

I couldn't stand writing C, Python, Scheme or CL on Windows - I don't even want to write them on OS X.

>>52704755
>>52704981
>arch always breaks
>arch is for noobs and is easy to maintain
Well, which is it?

>>52693183
your best bet is to install every OS in this thread and see what werks for you

>>52693225
LOL!

>>52706414
Arch is shit

>>52693183
Arch is fun. Do you like fun OP?

>>52706414
Not for noob, but once it's set, it's quite easy to use / maintain

>>52693183
I've been using arch daily for about a year now, I have had 0 issues, installing was dead simple (wiki is amazing) and pacman is the best package manager there is.

All these people saying that arch is a timesink are retards who can't read the wiki.

Isn't Arch just a pansy-ass version of Gentoo?

>>52708690
FYI reading a wiki is already into timesink territory.

No wiki was ever read for the average consumer to install OSX or Windows.

put in, install whoohoo

>>52693183
As an Arch user of 4+ years: if you want a "functional" system, just install Debian stable, OP.

Arch is an edgy, elitist meme distro focused only on "bleeding edge" rather than stability or usability. Worse, the developers couldn't care less about your freedom -- the repositories mix free and non-free software freely.

On the stability of Arch, your mileage may vary. On Debian stable, it's nearly certain.

>>52708750
Gentoo disallows non-free software to be installed without explicitly declaring in a file that you accept this or that license.

>>52708745
If you want something that "just werks" don't use arch, that shouldn't even have to be said imo.
But calling something a timesink because it takes 5-10 minutes of reading to setup is idiotic.

>>52708811
>5-10 minutes of reading
Come on. We both know it takes a fair bit more.

If you got through it in that time, fine. But imagine someone who doesn't know shit. Don't use experts as measurements for how hard something is.

Fedora all the way

>>52708843
1) Initial install
2) xorg setup

Those are the two things I read when I was installing, it really shouldn't take too much time to do that (assuming prior Linux knowledge).

>someone who doesn't know shit
People new to Linux should use Ubuntu or Mint.

>>52708983
>(assuming prior Linux knowledge).
never
ever do that

>>52709108
You're right.

File: helpful guide.png (16KB, 613x403px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 613x403px

>>52693183

Is there any GOOD tutorials for installing Arch?

>>52709426
What's wrong with the one on the wiki or the flowchart floating around /g/ once in a while?

>>52709372
/thread