>>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
>>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?
>>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).
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 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 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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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 ...
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.