So I've failed for the Arch meme

File: subscribed.jpg (1KB, 125x41px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 125x41px

>>61322044

>>61322044
>is it true that it improves the hardware performance?
No, not really. If you want performance gains you have to use Gentoo, although with modern hardware things will probably already be so fast you can't tell a difference between a package and compiling from source with custom flags.

>>61322146
compiling everything from source will get really annoying

>>61322044
>but is it true that it improves the hardware performance?
You can squeeze out a little bit more out of your hardware if you don't use a bloated DE and avoid pointless eye candy like window compositors.

>>61322044
>So I've failed for the Arch meme
Oh boy, you've failed at much more than that.

>>61322499
Nah I'm tryin' to favour performance over graphics.

>>61323189
What do you mean by this?

>>61322146
>Gentoo
kek

>>61322499
You can do the same with, say, a minimal Ubuntu install.

I'd argue the real advantage of Arch is its package management system. pacman and packer have legitimately simplified my life.

File: GTFO 2.png (1MB, 1280x1393px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x1393px

>>61322044
>dual boot Win10/Mint>Kali>Debian
>he doesn't use OVMF
fucking get out

>>61323393
I'm not a big fan of apt as well. Pacman seems to be the best package manager out there.