I'm downloading Manjaro.
What are /g/ thoughts about this distro ?
Amazing Distro, stable and good looking out of the box, uses pacman & aur, mhwd helps you do some configurations, has its own kernel switcher program etc.
the only bad thing is neckbeards shouting at you for having a desktop as good as theirs if not better with half the hassle.
I've tried archbang a year or so ago but it was way too broken to be taken seriously. Their site was also down for like a month shortly after.
Why not just install Antergos with openbox and copy the archbang/crunchbang config files?
Last time I personally tried to install Antergos, it totally fucked up. I don't think their mirrors have speed to anywhere outside the US, and for some reason it doesn't just use the arch ones. I've never liked it since myself.
But don't let me stop you op, it might work now.
I'm not in the US and the mirrors work fine. And they do use the arch ones. They only have a couple of packages in their specific repo which you can disable with almost no impact.
Well I don't know. Works on MY machine.
I use Manjaro Xfce as main system. Great, stable, no problems.
I like it for a beginner distro, but it's not really like using Arch if that's what you are looking for. Aside from Pacman anyway. It's more similar to using Mint. I think Manjaro Xfce looks a little nicer than Mint XFCE. There's also a Fluxbox version which I like more--it comes with no systemd too which is great imo.
I eventually moved onto Arch or tried too. Like I said it's different, and I found that I don't really care for Arch. I ended up using OpenBSD for serious stuff, but I keep Manjaro around for goofing off.
You'll get a lot of people talking shit about Manjaro here. Any distro really. Mostly it's bullshit, because most of the people here are completely full of shit, and have no clue what they are talking about. Try it out. Maybe you'll like it, maybe not.
Installing Arch isn't the problem. That's actually interesting the first few times you do it, and you learn a lot from it. There's also architect.
No, the problem is maintaining it afterwards. It's tedious. Some people like that, others don't.
There's something you need to know about Linux, that rarely gets said. Distro really doesn't fucking matter in the end. You can make any distro be like any other. You can harden any distro to be as secure as possible, or you can make them as insecure as Windows XP. It's just a matter of how much time and effort you want to put into things. Distros are just assemble and prepackaged suites of software and configurations, so that you don't have to build your IS from scratch. They do have their own ways of doing things, but nothing is really set in stone. You could very well compile everything from scratch for Mint and have it use postage (or more easily, NetBSD's pkgsrc which is very similar concept to portage, except it's designed to be easily portable), or you could set Gentoo up to just use Apt or Yum. You could turn Manjaro into a rock solid server, or make Cent a great desktop. Most don't want to fuck around with their systems to such an extreme degree, hence why we have distros.
Install openRC iso and live life without systemDick in your throat. Also works rather well on my netbook where most other distros would be too heavy.
But I'd still rather install either openSUSE or Xubuntu on my more capable machines.
I was using Manjaro about month. then i found i hate all DEs (kde, xcce, lxde, gnome etc). three days ago i fucked up some configs and system could not boot.
i downloaded openbox version. BUT it has kernel 4.0 (=unsupported).
then i tried to use arch, but there was some problem with pacman. now i'm running archbang. no problems, yet.
> am i true arch user, even if i used archbang, /g/?
Arch user here, I actually find arch easier to use. Easier to maintain than anything except debian. Pacman is wonderful imo. That said, totally agree with you. Distros are supposed to make it easy to do what you need to do. They fill niches.
Your going full Autist bro.
>Fucking up config files causing systemboot failure
G would be proud.
Use i3 or less autistic awesome. Tiling window managers are good for autists like you.
I personally prefer arch, but manjaro is allright.
Don't fall for meme distros like debian that give you old-ass software packages and kernel versions even when using their unstable branch that can't even boot on NVMe, use your modern hardware optimally and never update their packages or patch security issues^*.
^* most debian users don't even have a clue how bad security on debian is: https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/02/01/on-webkit-security-updates/
i'm not 100% sure it were configs. maybe something with kernel
i actually tried i3, but i hate how it looks. i like fact that i can iconify my apps and just to look silently at my wallpaper
I do find Arch appealing in a lot of ways. It's not a bad distro at all. It was the one I thought I'd end up using.
My problem with it is that OpenBSD has really spoiled me. It's got the power of an OS like Arch or Gentoo, but everything is as simplified as possible. It's a nice balance between a user-friendly, beginner OS, and a power user's. It tries to make the tedious things as painless as possible, without taking away your full control of things. For the stuff you are actually interested in doing, it stays out of your way as much as possible. It's certainly got a learning curve, but it doesn't make things hard or arbitrary just for the sake of being hard or arbitrary.
Patching it is about the worst thing as far as maintenance goes, and that's not too bad, once you get the hang of it. Plus you don't have to do it all that often.
After using OpenBSD a while, and then trying to use another OS, even another BSD, it will leave you almost constantly comparing it negatively to OpenBSD. Just about anything you try to do, you'll be thinking how much simpler it is in OpenBSD. If it weren't for that, I'd probably use Arch, or maybe Slackware.
That's not to say it doesn't have its flaws and downsides though. If you're wanting to watch movies or play games it's probably the worst IS you could pick for that. If you care a lot about high performance it's definitely the wrong OS. That's why I dual boot it with an easy-mode Linux distro. OpenBSD for serious work, Linux for fucking around.
> no systemd
> no bloat
>easy to use
>repo got latest version of all kinds of shit
What's the catch? I'm one week in and it seems too good to be true
is install Mint a new meme or something?
what is with all these people recomending it all the sudden... last I knew the distro was dumbed down garbage. So many safeguards for new users that it made windows 8 look like a dream OS.
the only pathway to arch is already being a neckbeard with no life that runs linux to brag about how cool and different he is for running linux rather than actually using it.
because it's the "just works" version of linux, even more so than ubuntu without all its bullshit without being too nazi about free as in freedom (e.g. bundles mp3 codecs because fuck it why not), while still being lightweight and being extremely similar to windows in UX except it's stable as a fucking rock
so yeah it's cool
> Being a neckbeard with no life is a requirement to learn Arch.
I have a pretty good life, I have lots of friends outside. Even girls want me now. I also own a 2011 model Mercedes E Class, living in a Mansion, and still using Linux.
> Just a shittier version of Arch
Not really. I stepped on the Arch pathway using Manjaro first, then I started to use the actual Arch Linux.
>I have a pretty good life, I have lots of friends outside. Even girls want me now. I also own a 2011 model Mercedes E Class, living in a Mansion, and still using Linux.
I'm another Arch guy.
I'm schizophreniac, i'm diagnosed with near-autism and have 0 friends; i don't believe anyone and i'm concerned that we live in something like matrix, because there is no reason for life to exist
I do own a Mercedes. It is in this picture.
Somewhere, out there in the vast land of dead Linux distros, Mandriva lies with a headstone that reads:
"I did it first..."
I see. I used 17.1 for a few months and had no issue of the sort.
What kind of safeguards can they put against sudo? If you're tech savvy enough to open up a terminal you're tech savvy enough to know what to do.
>neckbeards shouting at you for having a desktop as good as theirs if not better with half the hassle.
Why does everyone think installing Arch is hard, just because it's done by terminal? I'm able to install it and get to a functional desktop in less than 20 minutes. And not because I'm so smart, but because it's so simple. You just have to know basic linux commands.
Before there was Mint, Ubuntu, Manjaro, and any other "easy to use" distro there was Mandrake Linux.
Easy to get started, a lot of shit "just worked" that a lot of other distros required a lot of effort to get going.
Plus, it was based on Red Hat, and even back then Red Hat was pretty much the standard distro used in enterprise environments so moving from Mandrake to RH was pretty easy.
I cut my teeth on Mandrake 6.1 in Jan 2000 (actually bought it from Babbages, Macmillan-Mandrake 6.5 they called it). I didn't switch to CentOS until maybe 2007 or so but even still I always kept a machine around with Mandrake (by then Mandriva) until about 2009.
to be honest most of the older distros just worked... in fact most distros even now just work, I hate to break it to the autists here, but it acutally just comes down to preferance
>Red Hat was pretty much the standard distro used in enterprise environments
no, that was SUSE
Here is a pic of me with its keys.
>to be honest most of the older distros just worked... in fact most distros even now just work, I hate to break it to the autists here, but it acutally just comes down to preferance
In 2000 most distros didn't "just work" and this is very well documented. I still have to stop myself from disabling "Plug and Play" and ACPI in the bios on my machines that are designated for Linux 'cause I got so used to doing it before installing a distro for so long it became natural.
>>Red Hat was pretty much the standard distro used in enterprise environments
>no, that was SUSE
In the US, it was definitely Red Hat. I would agree SUSE was was many a European nation's preferred distro, but RH was very common out here.