[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Click for more| Home]

Arch Linux

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 79
Thread images: 2

File: Arch-linux-logo.png (41KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Arch-linux-logo.png
41KB, 1200x1200px
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.
>>
use what works for you.
>>
>using systemd for any reason
>>
>>45771018
Thanks, I love that you can watch Netflix in Arch now. That's what I mainly used Debian for. I need some pros and cons.
>>
>>45771038

>le systemdicks meme
>>
Is there something bad about systemd?
>>
AUR is nice.

That's about it.

If you want bleeding edge, just use debian unstable/experimental.

Arch breaks all the fucking time in my experience, even more than Debian sid.
>>
>>45771092
I use Sid now which is bleeding edge and rolling release as well. I'll just stick with Debian! thanks
>>
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.
>>
Use Arch only on shit underpowered netbooks with zero disk space. Anywhere else it is completely outclassed even if it weren't stupid.
>>
>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.
>>
>>45771005
Use Windows.
>>
>>45772266
>blindly followed meme to hate on it
>is what Archfags believe
>>
>>45772266
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.
>>
>>45772289
>Use Windows
Stop riding Gates' golden cock.
>>
>>45771046
You can watch Netflix on anything (chrome)

>>45772309
This
>>
>>45772309

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.
>>
>>45772323
Better than getting splinters on Torvald's wooden shlong.
>>
>>45771103
>bleeding Edge
>some packages are still 1 month delayed
>>
>>45772377
>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.
>>
>>45772309
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.
>>
>>45772384
>You
Paying for shitware that works half the time (if that), spys on you, and is a monoply.

>Me
Uses free software, open source (because we aren't greedy fucks), works almost always, doesn't spy (except Ubuntu), and isn't monoply.

>You
please die
>>
>>45772433
Again, at least I'm not getting anal splinters.
>>
>>45772404

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.
>>
>>45772461
Please, adults are speaking.
>>
>>45772486
I know I'm speaking.
>>
>>45772486
>adults
>desktop linux
You owe me a new keyboard.
>>
>>45772465
>irrelevant to its purpose
How would having an installer render Arch irrelevant to the purpose of a system with a low footprint to install on netbooks?
>>
>>45772547
There are a few modified versions of Arch that are self installing GUI menus that keep the OS minimal.
>>
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
>>
>>45772566
And why does the main Arch refuse to adopt said GUI menus? Anaconda was released in 1999, it's foolish not to have one.
>>
>>45772547

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.
>>
>>45772574
>>45772572 here, i dont get it either

perhaps as an intentional barrier to keep out the absolute lowest common denominator.

explains the hate towards babbies-first-arch distros
>>
>>45772572
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.
>>
>>45772642
>Debian is so damn compatible
thats 99% of distros.
anything you have installed on debian will install on any other distro
>>
>>45772590
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.
>>
>>45772654
Very true, but Debian has the nice .deb packages that arch doesn't. and installing software from the AUR isn't so hard, but just the convenience is so nice.
>>
>>45772664
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
>install
working program

afaic pacaur is the main reason to use arch, but like i said eventually its benefit wears off
>>
>>45772682
>lack of installer apparently to not install shit you don't want
>requires package build tools you don't want to grab a third party package
>>
>>45772699
it could be the drinks but i have no fucking clue what you are trying to convey here
>>
>>45772720
Does a weeaboo have use for GCC?
>>
>>45772723
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.
>>
>>45772656
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.
>>
>>45772746
s/selling/reason not to use it/
>>
>>45772749
>slackware
>forgotten distro
And this is why nobody likes Archfags.
>>
lol that is so stupid. Why do you think you have to use arch? If you like debian, use debian. What a tool
>>
>>45772769

>all but forgotten

FTFY

I'm aware Slackware is still sort of around. But it's hardly been anyone's go-to distro for years except for the small following that surrounds it.
>>
>install gentoo

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

Gentoo/for fun
Manjaro/for fun
Hackintosh/for fun
Windows/gaming
Debian/goddamn everything


But deffinetly try arch or manjaro and see if they are right for you. You might be pleasantly suprised
>>
>>45772783
Because people rave about Arch and I was jw what all the hype was about. What everyones logic was.
>>
>>45771005
>Please give me some reasons why I should switch from Debian to Arch
>I want to
Seems like enough reason to me
>>
>>45772795
You're ignorance is only further proving my point.
>>
>>45772798
>people rave about Arch
No, Archfags are noisy, other Linux users don't give a damn, and autistic Linux users aren't loud enough to shut them up.
>>
>>45772816

>Countering with ad hominem

Yeah, nah. But this is /g/ so I guess that's par for the course.
>>
>>45772847
>misusing the phrase ad hominem

>>>/v/
>>
>>45772847
I don't have a dog in this fight, but that was not an ad hominem argument.
>>
>>45772860
>Ad hominem
>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.
>>
>>45772903
Look ignorance up in the dictionary.
>>
>>45772912
Don't tell me what to do, faglord.
>>
>>45772917
It is exactly my place to tell you what to do, my dear uke.
>>
>>45772912

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.
>>
>>45772936
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.
>>
>>45772936
>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.
>>
>>45772952
Slackware is a very powerful OS and anyone who talks down on it is an asshole.
>>
>>45772973
Or an ignorant child, like most Archfags.
>>
>>45772978
I;ve used Slack and its nice. Easy to install too. easier than Arch and more powerful imho. At least its stable.
>>
>>45772952
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.

>>45772962

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

Well yeah.
>>
>>45773008
Go to bed, kid. It's Christmas in the morning.
>>
>>45773021
Is underageb& still a thing in 2015 on /g/?
>>
>>45773015

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.
>>
>>45773032
Are time travelers already a thing in 2014 on /g/?
>>
>>45773063
Yes. That whole KJU thing was basically a fake gun that fires a flag with the word BANG on it.
>>
File: systemd.gif (657KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
systemd.gif
657KB, 1920x1080px
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 /

Anyway...
This is how I boot Arch.
systemd is so fucking awesome.
>>
>>45773088
>systemd is so fucking awesome.
i just lost all faith in humanity
>>
>>45773179
You never had any faith in humanity to begin with. You're probably one of the ones bothering to shit on The Interview. Learn to live a little, friend.
>>
>>45771005
I'm having those very wireless issues as we speak. Shit ain't easy, but I got a method to connect to my wireless network
>>
>>45774131
the wiki article is very well-written it took me 5 minutes to set it up
>>
>>45771005

Just buy a wireless card that is supported in Linux and problem solved
>>
>>45773088
systemd shills out in full force tonight eh?

Everyone knows systemd is garbage, please stop pretending.
>>
>>45771005
>i want to so bad
Then do it you. What more reason do you need than wanting to do it?
Thread posts: 79
Thread images: 2


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
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 content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.