Is installing arch worth it over Ubuntu? How does it run/compatibility?

>>59445923
here comes the arch/gentoo meme boys

>>59445935
Will they really? I was expecting more USE WINDOWS XD memers

>>59445923

If you have to ask it's not.

File: arch debian 1436067052686.jpg (535KB, 641x4513px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 641x4513px

>>59445923

>>59445923
pacman is simpler to use than apt, and repos have more pkgs without any of that ppa bullshit, so its easier to maintain, and is also on the bleeding edge
ubuntu is nice and stable and easier to configure

and both are total shit
source based distros is the only way to go

>>59445923
It depends on your idea of worth. I used Arch for around a year before going back to Xubuntu. Arch is objectively better, and aur is very nice but sometimes shit break and then you have to put in some work. For me it was recent infinitality bundle breakage, fixing the mess it left behind was too much of effort for me and I ended up wiping Arch and installing Xubuntu.
I only use linux on my laptop, which is 90% of time fap machine anyway. I don't really give a shit.

>>59445923
Definitely. But you don't have to do it the hard way anymore Antergos/Manjaro/arch-anywhere exist. the first two even come with gui pacman clients.

>>59446163

>Arch is objectively better

Typical Arch sneauflake. There is no such thing as "objectively better" in general. It's all about what you are trying to achieve.

Ubuntu is "objectively better" in usability over Arch.

>update arch

Breaks

>update *buntu

Partially breaks

Pick your poison

>>59446077
kek

File: transferir (2).jpg (6KB, 295x171px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 295x171px

>pee residue

Arch gives you more control of your system and its rolling release
Archbang is basically Arch with an installer for those who cant be hassled to.go throgh manual installation I recommend it

>>59445923
It's not for fags. Stick with Ubuntu.

File: sniff.png (616KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 1280x720px

>>59445923
Would sniff

>>59445923
>Is installing arch worth it over Ubuntu?
yes

>How does it run/compatibility?
Runs nicely, in many cases even faster then ubuntu. Anything that works on ubuntu can be launched on arch.

>Is it a hassle?
Yes, but you learn during installing it. Installing arch is a point where you make the biggest step in leaving gnu/linux illiterate status.

>>59445923
Compatibility is never an issue among Linux distributions, except for 32 bit vs 64 bit.

If you use a lot of stuff from GitHub and struggle to keep it up to date arch AUR is a godsent

>>59445923
If you want to have Arch... go with Manjaro openRC

>Or just le gentoo

>>59445923
install gentoo

>>59446610
you haven't been using linux for long i guess ?

>>59446077
>>59446163
>>59446322

where does this 'arch breaks after install' shit come from? it's broken after an update literally once for me, and that was the infinality/harfbuzz bug. All I did was uninstall infinality, take 5 minutes to follow some guide for improving font rendering settings, and everything is fine again.

>>59447047
I only use what I need to. And as far as I am concerned, over the years of me hopping over from various distros, there have been no compatibility issues (I always start from scratch if that matters). But my point is what I use is available every where.

>>59445923

Void Linux.

Arch without systemd and with the ability to compile stuff easily.

>>59446610
lol

>>59448701
I've only just installed arch and font rendering still seems kinda off, what did you do to fix it?

>>59451328
It's in a recent Arch forum post.Tbh, I really didn't see all that much of a difference in font rendering after Infinality went away.

>>59445923
Install gentoo

>>59446077
arch is not aoirce based.

>>59452614
source*
wow, im retarded

>>59451652
>>59447007
ha i get it cause

File: IMG-20170315-WA0005.jpg (101KB, 1280x722px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1280x722px

Choosing arch over void in "$(date %Y)" is just stupid