Is arch as shit as they say compared to Ubuntu Mate and Lubu

>>61629005
Ubuntu is for people who want to play it safe or are new to Linux.

Arch is for people who want bleeding edge updates no matter what. It's not shit, it's just different. Just like every other Distro.

>>61629025
Yeah, I want my shit to just werk. Also, having PPAs and good repos is always nice.

Ubunut is for people who want an OS that just werks™. Arch is for tryhards who are too dumb to use gentoo.

Yes.

/thread

>>61629005
Arch is fucking trash and there is no use case except for autists

>tfw you never know if your previously functioning programs just became "bleeding egde" malware due to some typo

If you need bleeding edge, it's usually only for particular programs, and you should be able to set it up yourself. Arch is just idiotic.

>>61629637
>If you need bleeding edge, it's usually only for particular programs, and you should be able to set it up yourself.

If you're lucky and there are binaries. Otherwise, you have to compile from source, which is a pain in the ass if you have to hunt for dependencies that also aren't in the default repos, or you can hunt for a repo that has it, and pray it's not a botnet.

The comments about how as you grow older you just want something that works resonated with me. It seems like the older I get, the less I want to fudge with my OS.

>>61629637
You exaggerate the term bleeding edge. It's not nearly as buggy as you make it sound. Do you honestly think Upstream just throws shit at a wall and hopes it sticks?

>>61629694
With Arch? Yes.

>>61629703
You're a moron, they provide exactly what Upstream puts out.

>>61629005

Arch user, as long as I can install emacs it doesn't really make a difference to me.

Used ubuntu, macos and windows for yeards, installed gentoo for a week before I realised it was a meme.