Red pill me on Arch vs. Gentoo /g/

'no'

>>59947857
Arch like pegging
Gentoo love BBC.

>>59947857
Gentoo is used by Google, Arch is for NEETs

>>59947857
Gentoo is going from almost zero to lightning fast OS with a manual when you have time/need to.
Arch is a normal, widely accepted distro. Software nstallation is simple and there's a lot available. This distro is not minimal at all.

>>59947857
Both suck ass and suck your soul by wasting your life doing manual tasks that were automated 30 years ago.

Time sink. All operating systems have been compromised. So there is literally no advantage of using Linux anymore.

>>59947857
one is source based, the other isn't
one use systemd the other don't
arch have pacman and the aur
gentoo have portage
both have a nice wiki and the community seems okay for both.

if you're a cuck and like to watch when software gets compiled then go for gentoo. If you're chad and want bitchin fast pc you go for arch

>>59947857
Arch is for ricer-tier trap memers.
Gentoo still has those people, but at least they can actually install Gentoo.

>>59949062
this isn't wrong

>>59947857
Arch is for autistic neets that don't know how to use a computer but like to pretend they are l33t h4x0rs and Gentoo is for people that actually know how to use linux and have way too much free time.

Just play hangman to find out.
------d

systemd

>>59950808
>>59950593
Am I right?

>>59950353
I am now officially a chad. Thanks Anon.

~10-15 years ago there were basically 4 big distros to choose from and gentoo was one of them. slackware was the goto distro for all oldschool unix hardliners, redhat (similar as today) was mostly used in enterprise environments and most commercial applications came only as rpms, debian wasn't as popular as it is today, people liked it mostly for apt, and gentoo was the distro for people who wanted to tweak and optimize their system as much as possible (and took more than 1 fucking day to build on a P4 / Athlon XP from stage 1)

today gentoo is nowhere as popular as it was back then because there is no need to tweak/optimize everything that much and other distros let you customize your installation good enough (package splits where you can just select what features you want to install)

Arch... only exists for it's developers. there isn't really any reason to use it over other distros. and i'm not even sure if you can call arch a distro by todays standards because the purpose of a distro is to patch/modify everything to get one "tightly" (can't compare to OpenBSD, FreeBSD,...) integrated stable system, which means that within a versions lifetime the feature set, api, etc is _stable_ - it always works and behaves exactly the same.

>>59950813
Correct!
(You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You)

>>59950353
Or Debian netinst or Ubuntu server or any other distro with a minimal install option
>>59949062
am femanon can verify this statement