Thread replies: 12
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 2016-07-25-092849_3620x1440_scrot.png (1MB, 3620x1440px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 3620x1440px
obviously only gentoo and arch are the only reasonable options for a host operating systems.
Gentoo seems error prone as packages are compiled from source, whereas Arch keeps it simple; stupid.
I'd mostly like to here from gentoo nerds as to how it is superior to Arch. I'd like to hear about the installation process and how it differs from Arch, which only requires a simple pacstrap and some simple configuration.
is there a real difference, in the long run? i love how easy it is to find packages for arch, and I'm resisting the switch to gentoo.
>>
>>55749427
Gotta go with Windows XP if ur into compatibility
>>
>>55749427
TROLL? Arch is only a meme for gentooless faggots
>>
>>55749476
/g/ quickly devolving into /b/
>>
>>55749427
gentoo: makes a solid post on /g/ with solid grammar
arch: terrible grammar post on /g/ with mismatching pluralization
>>
>>55749427
Gentoo is too mainstream. Use Sourcemage instead.
>>
>Arch
I think you mean Parabola, unless you want to install botnets on your computer?
>>
>>55750154
>>55750150
>>55749533
>>55749458
botnet posts
>>
>>55750154
Botnets.
Interesting since network up and down traffic is absolute zero for me.
But I guess you just love fapping to cheese pizza so much that you assume every distro is reporting you.
>>
>>55749427
The only downside to gentoo is the time it takes to compile shit.
>>
>>55750317
Good job reading. Parabola is the default choice, and you pick Arch if and only if you want botnets.
>>
>>55750333
Maybe, but it's not like you can't do other stuff while it compiles in the background
Thread posts: 12
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1