Maintainers delete the beginner guide just so they can feel better about their worthless secret club

>maintainers delete the beginner guide just so they can feel better about their worthless secret club
cant make this shit up

Other urls found in this thread:

wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/installation_guide
archlinux.org/packages/testing/x86_64/linux/
fossbytes.com/ubuntu-linux-safari-adobe-edge-hacked-pwn2own-2017/
ubuntu.com/usn/
ubuntu.com/usn/?page=2
ubuntu.com/usn/?page=3
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/installation_guide

???

bulk of the userbase probably couldn't install it now lmao

If anyone finds this difficult they shouldn't be operating a computer. Installing Arch took me 15 minutes the first time I did so. The longest part was waiting for downloads and updates.

You are utterly delusional

You are utterly retarded.

It's not even a secret club, if the new guide is actually difficult for you, you're retarded. Installing Arch literally only requires comprehension in a language that the wiki is translated to.

Arch linux is fucking stupid, the first part of the guide is manatory, why the fuck dont they just give you a ncurses next->next->next for the first bit

only 15 minutes versus 5 for anything else without having to do any psuedo dropout "learning"

But that would defeat the entire point which is to keep everyone out. in the future the installer will come encrypted and with its own test which will be the only way to unencrypt it and you have to suck some guy's irc OP nick off to get in and they'll justify this by calling it "learning"

probaly have to construct a 1 line command using awk, grep, sed and a turkish dictionary to write anime haiku about dev team to get in

As I said the longest part of it was downloading/updating packages, which was ~ 500MB and took 10 minutes because of my shitty internet. It takes just as long to install Ubuntu/Debian for the same reason.

You won't learn anything by installing Arch, or any OS for that matter, aside from Gentoo. It's about functionality, and Arch is very powerful, fast and customisable. I've been using it for a couple of months now with 0 fuckups and the one time I did have to manually compile something was a custom mptcp kernel and that took < 30 minutes. I don't understand why people are saying Arch is a meme-distro by people with no time. It only requires time if you're a faggot and like to rice weeb shit into everything, but the same can be said for every other distro.

There is an installer for arch, I can't remember the name exactly.

Logic works like this:

Arch / dropout distros have a chance to have a fuckup "but if you're pro and waste your time" you can bring this number down to 0.
Ubuntu / everything else always have 0 fuckups.

Purposefully removing core elements of automated distros due to autism, failing to use the package manager for faux-reasons like "it's a 30 minute old package", and then they "break" doesn't count

There is nothing left besides your hipster / special snowflake boiling to the top and thinking you "need" to do this. It's just about being different and has nothing to do with technology.

I call this "quantum arch installer autism"

-Say that arch is too hard to install, it's "there are installers out there"
-Use an installer, it's "only noobs use installers"

If an arch user says either of these things it's fine so the conversation is one way

but if you use that you, why not just use debian? Arch linux is fucking insane, checking the wiki and front page before updating to make sure the devs havent fucked something up again.
"we are a rolling cutting edge distro! so these things happen" no!! do some quality control audits you fuckers.

>faux-reasons like "it's a 30 minute old package"
kek, but muh bleeding edge!

I use Ubuntu, why would anyone use Arch ever except as an autistic hobby? Just saying, an installer does exist.

Arch is a joke distro which is made for schoolkids to learn CLI, that's why it has only minimal installer, Arch has no real use in production. Production level distros have such minimal installers, for example Ubuntu Core or Debootstrap.

Why would you use arch linux if you're not a developer?

tfw too stupid to install arch but just stupid enough to post about it on Sup Forums

It's called evolution if anyone is wondering.

0 fuckups meant 0 errors. I haven't had to fix anything since it just werks.

I don't like Arch because it's different, I like it because it's powerful, customisable and pacman is definitely superior to apt in terms of speed, and contrary to what you said is much simpler.

Also, everything goes through rigorous testing before being publicized. The only reason it's "bleeding edge" is because the devs aren't lazy niggers and probably get a stiffy every time they update something.

Every minimal installer is 'powerful' and 'customisable', schoolkids just don't know about minimal installers.

I'm also "just saying". you get recommended one but if you actually do it, it's just something else, you can't win which is why I call it quantum bullshit. All of this should come across as a massive red flag to anyone in the private sector. The whole automation versus manual control argument was relevant 15 years ago, now a C2D laptop is $20.

linux is irrelevant except for its ability to be a host and run business apps, if you have to do "maintenance", you've completely failed. The hardest reason why it's so hard to explain to any arch sperg why timesinking is suicide tier is because they have absolutely no concept between 15 minutes, and 15 days. It's all just "a quantity of time" to them. This is important because even if the claim of 4-8% improvement of speed exists, you're completely ignoring the weeks it took to get there versus something that was ready to go in 5 minutes. But what is a minute, or a day, or a month, when you've been circlejerking your life away in IRC for decades.

and apt is definitely superior to pacman in terms of speed, and contrary to what you said is much simpler.

>Also, everything goes through rigorous testing
That's why no one except amateurs use it in production.

>Arch because it's different
How? Besides the absence of an installer obviously.

>I like it because it's powerful, customisable
How is it any more powerful or customizable than literally any other distro though?

>and pacman is definitely superior
This is simply your opinion, all package managers do the same fucking thing.

The autism of the arch community against an installer is staggering. I have installed arch several times, it's not complicated and you don't really learn much besides figuring out which packages you need to do X. It's just tedious. Anybody who isn't completely stupid, can read the wiki and use Google can install arch.

Using arch however, is extremely comfortable, especially due to the aur. Lots of the scientific stuff I use for work I would have to get from ppas or install manually in Ubuntu. And every time there is a version upgrade everything breaks. Not sure if this has gotten better, but arch is stable for me in comparison.

However, I have recently used antergos to just skip the annoying install process. Are there any good arch installers that are preferable? Last I checked there weren't any which were remotely usable.

>can't prove me wrong so claims nonsensical things

It's my opinion like you said. All distros do pretty much the same thing, but I just prefer pacman because it's really simple and fast, and from personal experience I've had to use dpkg/manually compile shit in Ubuntu/Debian more frequently than I've had to use makepkg in Arch. Besides, I like keeping things up to date, or "bleeding edge".

>annoying install process
You type like 5 commands

Right, so you agree arch is not more powerful or customizable than any other distro?

In fairness, the beginner guide was a mess could have used streamlining. But the new guide does reek of some elitism since it gets rid of most of the spoonfeeding.

Pretty much everyone outside the Arch community hates the Arch community in a mob-like fashion.
Now tell me why should the Arch community cater to those outside it??

There are numerous options that can be done for the first part of the installation especially if you are doing something really esoteric like I did. I have a self-signed GRUB bootloader with an encrypted boot partition with the encryption keyfile to my root partition embeded in initramfs which subsequently contains the keyfiles for my BTRFS external hard drive which contains my optional home partition with a fallback option to load my home partition from my mirror of it on a NFSv4 server I have set up to be accessible on WAN over an encrypted VPN connection. I also have a lot of special kernel options like compressed RAM when it gets to the last 25% of free memory.

Arch is good if you've got specialized and esoteric setups.

versus 0 on anything else

private clubs and circlejerks are indeed perfectly fine until you start bleating to everyone else that it's the best because you are only making more newcomers turn into journalists from 2004 who will forever think linux is stuck in this year. If you would stay quiet, or actually bar people from entering, then this would work out. But we know you won't do this because it's the only form of socializing you have left.

Why does the mere existance of Arch trigger people so hard? You can't even mention Arch here without people sperging out about "timesink OS" and "hurr everything's unstable, I use my OS for REAL WORK!" Meanwhile stuff like Gentoo is praised even though it's arguable even more of a waste of time. I just don't understand why people get so angru about Arch. You realize no one's pointing a gun at your head and making you use it right?

You can do the same thing in any other distro, it's just genuinely easier in Arch.
>never had broken packages
>never had dependency issues
>rarely have to manually compile something
Unlike Ubuntu/Debian where something seems to break every 5 minutes or I have dependency issues up my ass. I'm beginning to think anyone who claims the opposite has actually used Arch.

>versus 0 on anything else
Install Gentoo.

And then spend the next two hours figuring out which packages you need to get your desktop environment configured and working properly. I'm not illiterate and I don't give two shits about ricing. I just want arch working out of the box.

Then install Antergos, no one's making you install Arch. Again, why should Arch cater to people who hate it and want to fundamentally change how it works?

Updating packages is much faster if you use the delta repos.

>mfw my arch box is several years old
>mfw i don't even remember how to install arch and I don't give a fuck about it

>not writing a install script for your specific custom arch install
>installing arch more than once

>mfw I realize the retards that bitch about arch couldn't make even one working installation, because that's all it takes to have a fully functioning rolling release distro

I want brainlets to leave Sup Forums

pacman -S sddm plasma
systemctl enable sddm

Just saved you 2 hours apparently.

It's not about being private or a circlejerk at all! It's not about barring people from entering.
Arch is free and the community is open (and it's not like there's a secret hideout anyway).

It's about not giving a fuck to the mindless Arch haters, which, as of these times, is the vast majority of the "beginners".
So why should it have to spoonfeed beginners down to every little detail only to have them find something to whine about and increase the hate on the ~hate train~?

Arch Linux is a great OS and that's why I treat it as so and give it the praise it deserves.

Oops forgot a vital command
systemctl start sddm
This will save you a reboot. Or was that too difficult?

Don't hate, I've been using it for years. Pretending everything is perfect is not a great response to constructive critique.

Maybe I should really try KDE. Xfce is getting more and more buggy.

>Ubuntu/Debian where something seems to break every 5 minutes or I have dependency issues up my ass.
lol you're definitely doing something wrong then lad.

> I'm beginning to think anyone who claims the opposite has actually used Arch.
Mate, breakage on arch is common... You always have to read the news page before updating, in case they can't properly configure an update again. You don't have to do that on ubuntu, you can upgrade blindly and there will never be breakage. You're either very ignorant or simply lying.

It is perfect.
It's just a nonstandard installation method.
Why does Arch have to fit in with every other OS?
Why is being different bad in 2017?

Also, fuck you for being condescending. With Xfce you will spend time looking for additional packages. No idea about KDE.

troll or not you're wasting everyone's time and causing massive amounts of total newcomers to linux to think it is all like this and that there is no other easy alternative. you don't have to account for the high and low of CS, you are accounting for people who for burning a iso to a CD is asking a lot. this mentality is completely toxic and only hurts the linux community at large.

I am not defending stupidity - you could try to siphon off some ubuntu users to your dropout IRC if you want, but if you honestly think that swaths of windows and mac users will spend more than 5 minutes terminal timesinking then you haven't had any kind of job or responsibilities, ever, period. That kind of jump if you are not CS inclined is going to be way too much.

> (You)
>It is perfect.

Great mentality there.

Arch is like Ditto. It can become anything.
A desktop computer for gaming on windows via KVM and/or Wine while using linux versions of games if possible.
A laptop based software development oriented OS.
A hacking and RCE oriented OS like Kali, but with even more possible tools to use easily available on AUR.
A power efficient thin client to remotely control and connect to many other computers.
A webserver and/or mailserver.
And many more other possibilities.

Antegros or anything based on arch fits right into the arch quantum bullshit installer autism.

>if it's too hard then just use antegros
>"lol only noobs use antegros what's the matter couldn't be a real loser and install arch?"

Believe it or not I'm very much with him on ubuntu or debian breaking, that's why I said earlier

>autistically removing things and then saying it breaks doesn't count

We've gotten into the details before of this in previous threads and the claim "ubuntu always breaks for me" is a valid one - keyword here is "ME". If you start being autistic and removing things, it will break. That is why timesink distros work out in that they are effectively autism containment, they follow the guide and think they're being super unique even though everyone else did the same shit. The missing link between arch breaking or not is your autism. Which is why we're all here. Arch shits genuinely think that everyone else is just as bad upstairs as them.

>breakage on arch is common...
It really isn't though.

Don't install Xfce then.

Why does every distro have to appeal to Windows and Mac users exactly? There are 9000 beginner distros out there, if anything Windows and Mac users are probably more intimidated by the amount of Ubuntu clones than Arch.

Who's asking for people who can't install it to try to install it??

It's just there.
Do I really have to account for dumb normies downloading Arch without reading anything about it first?

And I DON'T WANT Windows and Mac users to try to install Arch...
They're free to install any easy distro, learn how to interact with Linux and try to install Arch when they're comfortable with it.

Ubuntu is like pokedit. It lets you get the same shit that archfags spent weeks grinding for.

-Press a button and it installs itself
-Never have to worry about "maintenance" or timesinking
-Community that actually gives you real information besides jerking off about EVs or IRC OP status
-Saves a massive amount of time for something that most people consider childish

Gee I dunno dude how about 80% of "what distro should I try" threads. Even on this board. Every 15 minutes.

We know your shitty little game, just fuck off already.

How thin-skinned do you have to be to get this upset about someone making fun of you for using the installer? This is your third post whining about how the mean old Arch community made fun of you, muh "quantum bullshit." Again, why do you care?

>It really isn't though.

Literally the first message on the Arch news page right now:
>upgrade requires manual intervention

I rest my case.

Removing one file is so difficult? Is this what your entire bias-hatred for Arch is founded upon? Really?

>-Press a button and it installs itself
Arch just uses a manual installation method, how is that inherently bad? And there are one-button installers as well.

>-Never have to worry about "maintenance" or timesinking
same, I have an Arch server I haven't updated in 2 years

>-Community that actually gives you real information besides jerking off about EVs or IRC OP status
The Arch wiki is the ONLY good wiki about Linux related software, used by everyone independently of their distro, so you're welcome.

>-Saves a massive amount of time for something that most people consider childish
If you think manually formatting a partition, running 1 (one) command to install a system in it and then configuring it is childish, then I say YOU'RE childish. Now who's being childish here?

You may as well complain about all the "Install Gentoo" posts. This is fucking Sup Forums, if some newbie actually tries Gentoo because anons here told him too, then gets mad because it's too hard, he's probably too dumb for Sup Forums, much less Linux.

>hatred
lolwat? I'm just proving my point that arch updates break shit all the fucking time, something you insist on denying for some reason. I'm not saying it's difficult, I'm saying it's unnecessary nonsense that other distros just handle a lot better.

Nothing about arch is difficult, it's just tedious.

Yeah because "what distro should I try" gives a whole lot of fucking context about the person's aptitude for Linux.

But I guess you're right, it's wrong to expect a drop of technical literacy on Sup Forums

Autists do this shit all the time.

Github is the worst. People that don't even include example config files or a simple readme because they want you to "read the code and figure it out yourself". Fucker, I am a developer myself and I would never make it more difficuly for others.

>The Arch wiki is the ONLY good wiki about Linux related software, used by everyone independently of their distro, so you're welcome.
This. The ubuntu documentation is pretty shit. Arch Wiki has always had exactly what I've been looking for. And with the many extra tips from users who have actually gone through what I am trying to do its more useful than the manpages themselves.

>Breaks shit all the time
>All the time
>All
>the
>time

>Taking a common phrase literal as if that proves anything but my own autism

ok lad

I'm not pretending everything is perfect, it's just that the policy from the beginning has been if you want an installer, make one. People have made installers, but they don't get a ton of recognition or are eventually abandoned. This leads me to believe there just isn't enough demand for an Arch installer.

Whereas on Ubuntu/Debian it's not just a file you need to delete, it's an entire repo, including installing new ones and/or manually configuring packages. Also they won't include shit like that on their news page because there's too many to report, or they're just too lazy to test it properly.

the central problem about the arch community is that before they inevitably kill themselves they also keep it going by getting some new person to repeat the process and infect everyone online. It's already started so we will never have an opportunity where enough of them will kill themselves at once to stop it. Hopefully in the future eugenics will solve this problem. For now, sponsor an arch linux early suicide option on your local linux forum today

Reminder that void is arch without the autism

>why dont they just give you a ncurses next->next->next for the first bit
they used to. nobody wanted to maintain it, so they had it removed
I kinda agree with them, though. As a developer, they strive to make things simple for themselves. simple things mean higher maintainability, lower complexity and fewer bugs
arch-chroot? it works, never have to touch it again for 10 years
installation gui? change it everytime something underling the OS itself changed
please be kind with me if my opinion is shit

Software updates don't come from out of the ass of the O.S. developers, it comes from the _software_ developers.

And these updates affect everyone that uses Linux! If a software you use changes drastically, YOU'RE gonna have to adapt to it! Everyone will! Not just Arch users.

The thing here is, Arch actually has a medium for talking with their users about an update that will change something in a major way.

wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/installation_guide

>it's not just a file you need to delete, it's an entire repo, including installing new ones and/or manually configuring packages
What are you on mate? I've had to do this exactly once when the repos for the nvidia drivers changed. Once in 6 years.

>Arch actually has a medium for talking with their users about an update
The thing here is, Ubuntu actually makes sure that updates simply don't break shit. When something changes in a major way, which rarely happens, they have a similar news page.

>still claiming that updates break arch
Why are you using ancient memes user, you sound like a shill.

>The thing here is, Ubuntu actually makes sure that updates simply don't break shit. When something changes in a major way, which rarely happens, they have a similar news page.
So does Arch. Every package goes through the testing repos first.

>still denying arch updates don't break shit constantly
Why are you ignoring the arch homepage? You sound like a shill.

> Every package goes through the testing repos first.
upgrade requires manual intervention

>they have a similar news page.
Do they?
Is it the OMG! Ubuntu! website?
Or maybe Planet Ubuntu? Oh no
>Planet Ubuntu is a window into the world, work and lives of Ubuntu developers and contributors.
Noobslab? Ubuntumaniac?
fridge.ubuntu.com?
THEY ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT IRC OPERATORS ON FRIDGE.UBUNTU.COM
LMAO YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP

...

archlinux.org/packages/testing/x86_64/linux/

So does Arch. Our sweet 4.10.4-1 kernel is on its way (kernel updates at least twice a month for Arch) and is currently in testing. Stay mad on your broken 4.8 kernel, bitch. fossbytes.com/ubuntu-linux-safari-adobe-edge-hacked-pwn2own-2017/

>upgrade requires manual intervention
>OH NO! I literally have to type 3 commands! I can't do this
Brainlets like you should commit suicide. Its an unavoidable situation due to the upstream providers.

>Why are you ignoring the arch homepage
Oh I see, so there is a manual intervention needed to upgrade the system for the first time since two years and now you see that as a justification for your autistic fits how "hurr durr arch breaks evry tiem xD"? Are you pretending to be retarded?

The fact is installing Arch isn't that hard and every installer gets abandoned. No one cares about having an installer on Arch, and the people that do script their own. The only people who complain about this "issue" are people who never had any intention of using Arch in the first place

1 command if you
rm /etc/ssl/certs/ca-certificates.crt; pacman -Syuw

why do brainlets dislike arch so much? oh wait, i know

>Do they?
Yes, it's ubuntu.com/usn/
There's also various other resources which can all be found on ubuntu.com/support/community-support.

Keep shilling though I guess...

>I can't do this
I'll repeat this once again for you since you clearly didn't understand it the first time: I'm not saying it's difficult, I'm saying it's unnecessary nonsense that other distros just handle a lot better.

>for the first time since two years
We both know you're lying.

You can also just force the upgrade as well. What's funny is people would know how to solve any potential issues like these if the read the wiki article on pacman, which the installation guide explicitly recommends that you do.

>Ubuntu security notices
curl -s ubuntu.com/usn/ | grep kernel | wc -l
32

...

THIRTY TWO SECURITY NOTICES FOR KERNEL EXPLOITS BEING PATCHED

DO YOU THINK THEY GOT EM ALL BOYS?

UBUNTU BTFO

>only 15 minutes versus 5 for anything else without having to do any psuedo dropout "learning"
LMAO Debian takes at least 30 minutes to install all of its bloatware.

>Ubuntu security notices
I have a feeling these are just the security notices.

>Ubuntu / everything else always have 0 fuckups.

Not really.

I'm a retard when it comes to Linux.

>install default xubuntu
>closing the lid doesn't put the laptop in sleepmode, fucks up the locking too
>can't figure out how to fix it

>install arch
>install xfce
>everything works fine

>y-you're lying!
If you'd "know" that I lie then you'd surely provide some evidence to counter my lies, wouldn't you? Unless of course you are just shit posting old memes just because you couldn't setup at least one fully functioning arch box.

>can't figure out how to fix it
You can fix that using the power applet bundled with Xubuntu, which the Arch xfce4 group does not include.

colon caret close bracket

That's just page 1
curl -s ubuntu.com/usn/?page=2 | grep kernel | wc -l
48
>74 pages

>old memes
>Latest News
uhuh, keep shilling archfag

These burns ITT are going to take time to heal

curl -s ubuntu.com/usn/?page=3 | grep kernel | wc -l
52
Should I keep going?

>you couldn't setup
kek, he thinks setting up arch is an achievement.