Why aren't you using an Arch based distro yet user?

Why aren't you using an Arch based distro yet user?

>but muh stability
I've only had Arch crash on me once, and that was because of a shitty game

>muh support
Arch wiki

>muh long and hard install
Use manjaro then

With Arch based distros you have all your packages in 2 repos, you never have to install a repo again. Not to mention the rolling release and bleeding edge software.

Its no wonder that Linux hasn't gained much desktop users, with shitty Debian based distros being the most commonly known.

Other urls found in this thread:

cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Debian is for entry-level coding only
Top-tier server stuff and actual hacking? Arch.

because I want my distro to work (mostly) out of the box without doing any unnecessary work?

I'm not baiting you user, but aiming not to spend too much time with configuring & troubleshooting my GNU\Linux based OS.

>implying you can't install Debian based packages with Arch/Manjaro

The only thing that didn't work out of the box for me was my sound, that was an easy fix through a simple installation of Pulseaudio.

>not seeing the obvious bait
Tripfags just keep becoming dumber and dumber every year.

I had some troubles with it, and some things didn't really wanted to work like they should've worked like.

Also, I was aiming for good support, so... the user () is a bit right about software support for Debian based system. Just download the deb file, install it, and I'm good.

Fair enough
See

>stability
Stability isn't just about crashing, it's about version upgrades requiring further configuration or worse causing compatibility issues. Really not a huge deal if you're just running a distro on your personal computer.
>manjaro
These guys don't push security upgrades and they can't remember to update their SSL certificates.

Arch AUR, packages that have been updated in the last 3 months: about 13000
Arch x86_64 packages: 6283
Total ~ 19500 packages

Debian x86_64 packages in sid WITHOUT any user repositories: ~ 28000

>what is rollback
For servers Debian makes sense, for desktop use Arch based distros makes sense.

>Manjaro guys don't don't push security updates
>memeing

Debian can do both.

And how many of those debian packages are actually useful?

Arch/Manjaro does desktop better.

>Arch/Manjaro does desktop better.
In what way? I'm really curious :)

How many in Arch are useful?
That's an utterly subjective opinion.

I am using arch and have been for years now.

All of the major packages in Debian are in Arch as well, and you can install .deb files in arch.

See

Because I don't want to use a distro developed by guys so lazy they can't package the software they ship configured already with sane defaults.

The only two distinct arguments have been refuted. Other distributions have both rolling releases and more packages.
So how does Arch "do desktop better", apart from being more bloated than Debian? Bootstrapped Arch is larger than bootstrapped Debian btw.

This is a meme because debian splits packages into normal and -dev. So effectively you have to divide the number of debian packages by two. Real numbers:

Arch: 19500
Debian: 14000

Debian cucks BTFO

>So effectively you have to divide the number of debian packages by two.
Wrong. I leave the "why" as an exercise to the feeble-minded reader.

Arch is the distro of choice of kernel developers. Any more questions?

1. I never have to install a repo ever
2. Debian isn't rolling release its on a 3 month cycle
3. Literally just sudo pacman -S/yaourt -S to install any package ever and its done
4. Arch wiki.

Debian splits a lot of package while Arch Keeps It Simple (tm) and rarely splits packages

Yes, one more:
Why I should care about what the kernel developers does in their computers that isn't related with the kernel directly?

>2. Debian isn't rolling release its on a 3 month cycle
It is apparent that you never even used Debian

That's actually true. I once tried to install Debian on a laptop using their graphical installer (TM) but it just hung after a while and didn't respond to input anymore. And that's why I don't use debian.

Arch is the favorite distribution of kernel developers, AI researchers, rocket scientists and expert hackers such as myself
Debian: noobs and clueless hipsters

--> Also
>linus uses fedora

So why didn't you bootstrap Debian like a true 1337 Arch hacker would?

>you can install .deb files in arch.

I use Arch and I'm a big fan of it, but this is a little misrepresentative. Yes it can be done, but it's not exactly pleasant. They typically depend on large chains of other debian packages and you end up installing half the bloody OS to get anything done.

Sounds complicated. Why is there more than one way to install debian? Anyway I just installed arch afterwards without a problem.

Literally EVERY distribution has a bootstrap installation method.

Well excuse me but I thought debian was supposed to be stable and just work. If not even their normal installer works then I can't imagine what would have happened if I had managed to install it somehow.

>Debian offers a bootstrapping method of install
>therefore it must be unstable
What?

Technically you can install Arch packages in Debian if you want to get your feet wet. Granted it's completely pointless. Same thing goes for Debian packages in Arch though.

>debian's graphical installer is fubar
>therefore it must be unstable

>tfw radical user

and you ca use the AUR with literally any distro if you are not a retard, what is your point?

Sound logic, bro.

If your installation process is less usable than arch's then you're asking to be trashed.

because pacman obliterates config files

my comfy as fuck slackpkg prompts for each conflicting rc/conf with diff output and lets you keep/overwrite/merge each as needed

Stop buying shitty core 2 duo shinkpads, user. I have installed Debian the last week in a lot of computers and no one has suffered any problem.

~$ tail -5000 /var/log/pacman.log | grep pacnew
[2015-09-14 18:18] [ALPM] warning: /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist installed as /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist.pacnew
[2015-09-30 21:56] [ALPM] warning: /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist installed as /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist.pacnew
[2015-10-08 02:24] [ALPM] warning: /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist installed as /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist.pacnew
[2015-10-25 02:40] [ALPM] warning: /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist installed as /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist.pacnew
[2015-11-09 21:42] [ALPM] warning: /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist installed as /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist.pacnew
[2015-12-04 00:39] [ALPM] warning: /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist installed as /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist.pacnew
[2016-01-30 16:36] [ALPM] warning: /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist installed as /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist.pacnew
[2016-01-30 16:36] [ALPM] warning: /etc/php/conf.d/apcu.ini installed as /etc/php/conf.d/apcu.ini.pacnew
[2016-02-11 21:16] [ALPM] warning: /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist installed as /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist.pacnew
[2016-02-11 21:16] [ALPM] warning: /etc/pacman.conf installed as /etc/pacman.conf.pacnew
[2016-03-24 14:40] [ALPM] warning: /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist installed as /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist.pacnew
[2016-04-18 22:47] [ALPM] warning: /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist installed as /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist.pacnew
[2016-05-08 18:38] [ALPM] warning: /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist installed as /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist.pacnew
[2016-05-11 16:09] [ALPM] warning: /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist installed as /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist.pacnew
[2016-05-17 17:42] [ALPM] warning: /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist installed as /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist.pacnew
[2016-05-31 20:40] [ALPM] warning: /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist installed as /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist.pacnew

love this meme

tl;dr: arch has better hardware support than debian

I used to but I like Gentoo so much more.

it may be a meme, but i experienced it first-hand, which makes it true
plenty of other reasons not to use arch though
>systemd
>rollback is a pain in the ass from what i remember
>the user community you get associated with

Also Arch only supports Systemd. That was one thing I always hated about it.

>installed debian via netinstall on 4 different machines this year
>all of them just werked
>tfw they have exactly the same hardware support and you are just too retarded to compile a kernel, add a repo or use the nonfree installer

next you'll tell me that elitism is bad. lack of elitism caused Sup Forums to become meme central and Sup Forums to become Sup Forums with tech support

elitism could have prevented this

>muh sysvinit
>muh minimalism
>muh 1970's glorified design guidelines

>lack of elitism made Sup Forums Sup Forums with tech support
no, the most popular Sup Forums browser (clover) making it the default board destroyed the quality.

>>tfw they have exactly the same hardware support and you are just too retarded to compile a kernel, add a repo or use the nonfree installer
maybe it would have worked if I had compiled my own kernel, enabled my own repos, changed to another install, etc. but I want something that just works by default.

having to jump through so many hoops to install debian on a simple consumer laptop is what makes it a hobbyist distro.

>jumping through so many hoops
>literally changing a text file or using cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/
>hobbyist distro used as a base by the most popular distro and used in fucking space

>long and hard install
It really isn't. The installation iso has install.txt that literally tells you everything you need to do.

I don't know. I just followed the instructions on the website and in the installer. If it had told me to do that then I would have done it. But it didn't.

Debian is only a base, not a usable desktop OS unto itself. Ubuntu is employing many people to turn it into something that can be considered ready for users.

meanwhile my debian sid is more stable than buntu 16.04 at times.
if debian is too hard for you, maybe you should read their documentation and wiki and handbook? or a few man pages, it definitely helps.

>implying arch users are elitists
>implying that being the biggest retard on retard mountain makes you elite
i love elitism
using slackware makes me feel pretty elite because all the experience i have gained trying to make things work over the last 14 years means i can come up with (at least) quick and dirty solutions for annoying inconvenience in most other poorly-designed distros. in comparison, 95% of arch users are clueless idiots who have to consult the wiki for everything and/or open forum threads with inane questions because all they can do is follow directions that they don't understand

if anything is hard then it's writing an installer that not just hangs indefinitely if it fails to detect the hardware.

it's too hard for debian apparently. maybe it's too hard for arch too but at least they don't pretend otherwise.

I use dwm which makes me elite according to the dwm homepage. Questions?

arch had an installer.
the debian isntaller only very very rarely has bugs. you would find out if you actually knew how to report them or read the mailing lists. i am pretty sure you were using the beta installer that some people think is the installer for stretch.
>>I use dwm which makes me elite according to the dwm homepage. Questions?
it does? i am thinking of purging it if that is true.

i use dwm too on my netbook. it's comfy

>it does? i am thinking of purging it if that is true.
It's all true.

dammit, I'm still keeping it, dwm is comfy as hell.

I am right now. I still hate systemd, but Arch hasn't been nearly as much trouble as I was memed to believe. In fact, for the most part everything just werks.

Of all the base software in a fresh Arch install, what settings need to be adjusted to something more "sane"?

What's the best distribution for taking screenshots of my desktop all day with a terminal open that shows everyone in the world what distribution I'm using?

Neat logo distros:
logos
mageia
debian
trisquel
arch
protip: screenfetch -D
pro

>I have no sufficient evidence to back up my erroneous claims.

Far from all packages are libraries, numbnuts.

>Use manjaro then
no

use antergos or similar shit, that gives you nice gui install and at most one package from their own repo for the numix icons

manjaro is dependent on their own repos that lag behind the arch's ones by weeks if not a month

What makes you think I'm not?

I'm using Arch gnu/linux.

No USE flags.

I use Debian. I have had zero crashes.

Seriously what makes people think that arch takes long to install? I had an old netbook laying around running gd win7 home and I installed arch more or less in the time it takes to get the packages. It is a more cumbersome task on computers with more components (setting up RAID still irritates me) but still it's like 2 hours tops.

but I am user.

I've tried to install Gentoo and Funtoo and I get lost and confused in the handbook with compiling the kernel and modules and USE flags.
What do I enable for USE?
Does compiling lead to better power management?

I'm on Trisquel, but I'd love to give Gen/Funtoo a shot again.

>waiting on GUIXSDto reach stable

Because Debian is better.

>waiting on GUIXSDto reach stable
seconding this, GuixSD+dwm would be perfect.

Honestly, if you can't figure it out with clearly written instructions, Funtoo is not for you.

Wtf? Distro doesn't define that shit

>What do I enable for USE?
Whatever you need the resulting program to (not) do. For instance, if a program carries the ncurses USE flag you can enable it to include ncurses support and disable it to disable ncurses support.
All of this is already explained in the wiki in greater detail. You should look that up.

>Does compiling lead to better power management?
I don't even know where to begin here.

I guess the main installation method is still the ncurses based one, not sure if the GUI installer is considered stable yet.
Also the GUI installer might have gotten stuck by some other process running (e.g. DHCP or disk discovery)

>Top-tier server stuff
>Arch
Please kill yourself so this stupid knowledge doesn't spread.

>mad cuz too dumb to install Arch

You're implying that I use Systemv? I use OpenRC

But I use manjaro.

I would want to use arch but I'm too noob.

Pretty much the entire world uses CentOS and debian for servers you stupid troll. I have used both arch and debian and much prefer debian.

I love arch, i have arch almost everywhere
BUT!, for a production server with lot of clients and where time is critical, arch its a big risk if you wanna make a mayor update at least you know exactly what are you doing.

arch has actually been the smoothest, most stable installation I've ever had. Everything just werks™ out of the box on my laptop. absolutely happy with it

Because of professional business environment. If you want to use linux on a business machine, you have only 3 choices: red hat based, Debian based, Suse.

>3 mech keyboards
>external mech numpad
>bifi for reference
>4 monitors+chinkpad
you are missing a trackball mouse/vertical mouse for maximum meme feel

looking at it again, how many bifis do you eat each day? this looks unhealthy. almost as bad as straight butter.

I own about 20 mech Keyboards. But that one on the right side is a notebook...

Many. Maybe to much. I love it and I live near the company that produces it. So the factory outlet got all my money.

Cause I'm not a faggot cuck.
I use Gentoo, the real technologist's OS.

Because I unironically installed gentoo

Of course, servers need to be Debian based for maximum stability.

One of the reasons I moved out of the Arch community is that a lot of the community itself just brags about using Arch Linux. Also Arch only supports Systemd and I don't like precompiled binaries either. I never see people in the Gentoo community bragging about using Gentoo because they're actually professional. To each their own.

i have a job and a side job why would i want a third job as an unpaid OS engineer when mint is free and it actually works?