Arch dev: >It has never been a minimalist distribution. Splitting packages is rare compared to other distributions, and dependencies aren't made optional whenever possible.
>It has also never been a distribution offering much user freedom / choice compared to Gentoo and even Debian.
>Arch is the *opposite* of a user-centric freedom. The opinion of users has no weight here. Only the developers have an opinion, and there aren't voting systems as there are in Debian.
>Arch has *never* been minimalist...
>Arch is the opposite of a distribution with lots of user freedom. Users will come and go based on whether they like the technical decisions made by the developers. The popularily of those decisions has no impact on how things are done, regardless of how vocal users are about it.
>make a gentoo thread >spend the whole op talking about arch hmm really makes u think...
Bentley Ramirez
The majority of the hardcore GNU/Linux enthusiasts of this board are Arch users. This thread is intended to create awareness that they are cucking themselves to the devs, and to offer Gentoo as an alternative.
Adrian Jenkins
>Why not switch to Gentoo? Because I could build a particle collider and atomise my own scrotum off in the time it takes to compile GCC.
Juan Stewart
>compiling takes a long time Nice meme. I have an i5 and gcc compiles in 20 minutes.
Jordan Cooper
>gentoo >not exherbo
Found the pleb.
Isaiah White
you base this information on desktop threads? There have been like a thousand strawpolls on Sup Forums for preferred distro and debian wins by miles every time.
Nolan Ross
This. Arch only appears popular because autism is more common among Arch users which makes them feel a need to modify the appearance of their desktop and use girls from Japanese cartoons, very often including pedophilia fantasies. Debian users such as myself are usually adult and professional users who care more about functionality than about appearance.
Evan Brooks
>my time is worthless: the post
Daniel Hall
>hardcore GNU/Linux enthusiasts When I say this, I am referring to the autists who spend hours tweaking the amount of pixels in the borders of their windows, etc.
>Debian users such as myself are usually adult and professional users >more about functionality than about appearance. Functionality has little to do with what distribution you are using. All of them generally work the same. It really comes down to the package manager and the amount of customization options.
Brayden Taylor
>I never sleep, the post
Adam Johnson
As long as the distro you use works for you, then it doesn't matter. It's all GNU/Linux where everything is ultimately interchangeable. People like OP just enjoy starting and engaging in flame wars over which distro is better because I guess they have nothing better to do.
My two cents: I like Arch because it's simple to use, it has tons of packages available due to AUR, and pacman is faster than every other package manager. I dislike Arch because it doesn't have a standard installer, it's inherently unstable (only made worse by AUR), and it's a bit bloated for the sake of simplicity.
Tyler Edwards
Arch is very developer-centric.
Isaac Jones
>As long as the distro you use works for you, then it doesn't matter. What do you mean by "works"? They all "work" for everyone, but why should we be complacent with using an inferior system, and not discussing what could make one system superior to another? Ubuntu definitely works for me, but I wouldn't ever want to use it because of Unity and Canonical in general.
Landon Brooks
>Debian Enjoy your ancient software Debian deserves to die already. it is essentially useless now that Lubuntu and Ubuntu MATE exist
Lucas Hall
>What do you mean by "works"? I mean it does what you want it to do without too much work. "What you want it to do" is different for everyone, so no one distro is best.
>They all "work" for everyone False. Every distro does not work for every person.
>why should we be complacent with using an inferior system, ... You shouldn't. In that instance, the distro doesn't work for you, so use a different one.
>... and not discussing what could make one system superior to another? I'm not opposed to comparing distros to eachother for pros and cons (I gave my two cents on Arch), but the people I'm talking about (like OP) want to generalize it into "this one is the absolute best, and that one (or the rest) are absolute shit." Like obviously Arch and Gentoo have different features, so they appeal to different people.
>Ubuntu definitely works for me, but I wouldn't ever want to use it because of Unity and Canonical in general. I guess we may have different interpretations of the word "work," but I would say that if you don't agree with Ubuntu/Canonical ethically, then the distro doesn't work for you. It doesn't do what you want, right?
Andrew Wright
>using *buntu get cucked
Bentley Fisher
but what do i put on my servers then
Anthony Lopez
So the only advantage Debian has is that it is not called Ubuntu? Tell me what it does better than Ubuntu.
Blake Young
>Amount of customization Enlighten me on how arch offers MORE customization
Xavier Bailey
Not have adware
David Thompson
>I mean it does what you want it to do without too much work. But all distributions are capable of this. Can you come up with a specific example?
>Every distro does not work for every person. Every distribution has the potential to. Besides package management, what is the difference for the average user between Arch using KDE or the average user on Kubuntu?
>then the distro doesn't work for you. It doesn't do what you want, right? But, see, it _does_ work. I could easily perform my daily tasks on Ubuntu just as well as I could on Arch or Gentoo. I just don't want to use it because of Unity and Canonical.
Hudson Miller
When you get to the meat of the issue it becomes very apparent that all distros are for the most part the same, and all of the REAL reasons to chose one over the other are overlooked on this site and instead people just talk about how they have "more control" because the package manager is unable to keep the system stable.
Lincoln Young
- Ubuntu is based on Debian's Unstable branch with a bunch of shit tacked on, so it's probably less stable than Debian in general - Debian comes with exclusively free software by default, but allows you to opt in to non-free repositories if you want
That's about it. The primary difference between them is that Ubuntu and its flavors are more preconfigured than Debian, and the whole FOSS ethics thing.
Josiah Diaz
This is the typical response from Debian users: "I don't know the difference between Debian and Ubuntu."
>"muh ancient software makes Debian stable"
>Debian comes with exclusively free software by default, but allows you to opt in to non-free repositories if you want So the biggest difference is default apps and FOSS ethics.
Tyler Johnson
>justifies capitulating into the adoption of systemd with "hey guys everyone else is doing it, this seems to be a trendy thing"
Charles Young
If Granpoo is so good, then why does every survey and poll and popularity contest put Debian and Ubuntu miles ahead of both Granpoo and Arch?
Checkmate autists
David Rivera
>more people use it, therefore it must be better
so thath means NT is the best OS?
Jacob Cox
SystemD is good for laptops and desktops, it's only shit on servers.
Jaxon Watson
Because the majority of Sup Forums users are visitors from Sup Forums who use Ubuntu in virtualbox.
Jose Morales
I'm mostly referring to Gentoo here, but try to sudo apt-get openrc, reboot, and tell me what init system you are now using.
Joshua Morgan
NT is a decent OS for its target audience, which is normies, casuals and gaymans. Ubuntu is the best Linux for people who don't want to fuck around with compiling and tweaking shit to make it work.
Easton Richardson
I'm not good enough with computers to know which kernel modules need to be on/off so gotta stay with arch
Alexander Reyes
>But all distributions are capable of this. Yeah, they're capable, but people don't want to do (or aren't capable of doing) all the work involved in fixing a distro to do what you want.
>Can you come up with a specific example? Let's say you use Debian and for some reason your specific graphics card doesn't work, even with the non-free parts enabled. It's too much work for you to change it, so you prefer a different distro, at least for that hardware. Another example is that you ethically disagree with Ubuntu's decision to include proprietary software by default, so you use a distro that does care.
>Besides package management, what is the difference for the average user between Arch using KDE or the average user on Kubuntu? The entire way the system is set up, the way you configure them, their communities, their package availability and which versions are available, and the way they're installed. Basically everything.
>But, see, it _does_ work. Yeah, functionally, but ethically it doesn't work for you. Again, I think we're interpreting the word differently. >I just don't want to use it [Ubuntu] because of Unity and Canonical. Sounds like Unity and Canonical don't work for you.
I'm pretty sure we're mostly on the same page and a lot of this is semantics, breh.
Colton Taylor
In other words, Ubuntu is a decent OS for its target audience, which is normies, casuals and ???
Levi Diaz
but ur shitposting on a intellectually devoid board tho
Sebastian Nelson
I don't think you can class us as normies or casuals because we're not, otherwise we would just use Wangblows. We're people who like Linux and the freedom and security and empowerment it offers, but we also value our time enough not to bother with shit like Granpoo or Arch. I've been using Linux (mostly Ubuntu) for about 11 years, I have a Ubuntuforums account dating back to 2005. I have far more knowledge of Linux than you ever will.
Adam Wright
CentOS, obviously.
Tyler Hughes
>It's very unstable
It's been pretty good for awhile. The only distro I've had that shit the bed after an update, was linux mint. Funnily enough that's what prompted me to move to Arch.
Chase Garcia
>>"muh ancient software makes Debian stable" lol. It isn't just stable because it's been held back. They put their packages through a series of trials over a long period of time in order to be sure there's no outstanding bugs or issues, and they have a security team that keeps the Stable branch secure with patches. See this page if you give actually give a shit about not being ignorant: debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/sect.release-lifecycle.html
Also, as I said, Ubuntu is based on Debian's *Unstable* branch, but with tons of changes, and they somewhat encourage more instability via the PPA system. HOWEVER plenty of people use Ubuntu + flavors just fine, and the different flavors actually have different teams maintaining them, so they can be much more unique beyond just the DE. For example, Ubuntu MATE has its own package-setup app which uses more than just Ubuntu for sources, which is pretty neat.
>So the biggest difference is default apps and FOSS ethics. "The primary difference between them is that Ubuntu and its flavors are more preconfigured than Debian, and the whole FOSS ethics thing." So yes.
Kevin Gonzalez
>ancient software
There is testing, and unstable, you know
Isaiah Stewart
Ubuntu is the official gateway of normies who want to put a toe into the Linux world. I can't count how many times I've taught kids in Python classes who have Ubuntu in a virtualbox and they think it makes them l337 hackers.
>value our time enough not to bother with shit like Granpoo or Arch I would argue that due to the amount of over-engineering that Ubuntu suffers from, after you get past the initial compilation of software you need from Gentoo, or even Arch's relatively quick setup, you will have less problems with them compared to Ubuntu.
>I have a Ubuntuforums account >I have far more knowledge of Linux than you ever will. Not sure if you're joking, but okay. If that is true, you probably went out of your way to go beyond the Windows-like barrier that Ubuntu uses to shield the average Ubuntu user from anything scary, like configuring a text file.
Adrian Turner
>Ubuntu is the official gateway of normies who want to put a toe into the Linux world. Yeah, because it's the most well-known and (in the past) it was the easiest to install. Also it's got better marketing than pretty much every other (non-enterprise) distro. It's typically what people hear and learn about first.
Carter Flores
I prefer Slackware. I have no need to compile everything from scratch and can rice it just as much as any other distro and doesn't need to be overly complex. It just works.
Justin Hill
I honestly don't care about the opinions of this clown. You'll find a differing opinion for any point of view and I stick with what I like. I don't give two shits about what Arch devs do or think and likewise for Gentoo. Gentoo doesn't fit my ideal of comfort due to the extra work and time involved and I'm sure there's lots of others who would feel the same. Be happy there's anyone using any branch of Linux, rather than creating smear campaigns to make yourself feel better.
Asher Myers
Ok I get what you mean. I was thinking more along the lines of desktop ricing since that's generally all Sup Forums cares about.
