Serious question here, not trolling. I'm relatively new to Linux, been getting comfortable with it over the past 6 months.
Is there any practical or truly useful reason for using Arch Linux aside from autism brownie points? What do you actually get that is personally beneficial
From what I'm seeing, the most widely utilized distros are: Ubuntu/Mint (General Purpose) and Redhat/CentOS/Fedora/OpenSUSE (Business & Enterprise).
Why does everyone here pump Arch up so much?
Other urls found in this thread:
wiki.archlinux.org
suckless.org
twitter.com
>Why does everyone here pump Arch up so much?
Because they're lagging behind a bit. They want a no bloat and extremely configurable distro but haven't seen the light of Void Linux yet.
Enjoy your systemd archfags
>Why does everyone here pump Arch up so much?
Autism
Pacman and the AUR/yaourt/pamac in my case is why I like it. Much better than hunting PPAs, copr repos or whatever said distro requires. Besides that more of the software I use is in the main repos anyways. That and it is a much leaner install.
>is there any practical reason
Arch is for baby fags who can't deal install a real distro like gentoo, think distros like fedora and Debian are too mainstream, and don't want to be grouped in with people who use Ubuntu or mint. If this sounds like you, arch is perfect
>Arch is a "pro" distribution, which means it's better than a noob distro, like Ubuntu
>community full of teenagers
>no actual software developers ever even heard of it
>mfw it's the worst distro but we keep memeing it
fast, up-to-date, vanilla packages. pretty reliable too, i've had more problems doing version updates on other distros that are supposed to be more stable. arch is unironically the easiest thing for me to use, which says a lot about the state of linux on the desktop, but i digress.
ask an arch user for a single example of arch being used for something productive and see what you get
>i've had more problems doing version updates on other distros that are supposed to be more stable
>sticker crooked
ur a terrible autism mom is what
not once has pacman -Syu fucked up my system.
>be her teenage son
>just socially awkward, not actually autistic
>she insists on driving you to school every day
ok, I've used many different distros and I'm currently posting from a debian stretch laptop, but arch is my favorite distro.
It really comes down to what you want from your distro. Arch is a very minimal and bloat free distro, but it also isn't very user friendly. There are two main advantages that I see arch having over other distros.
1. It just werks. Now what do I mean by this? Well the fact that you have to set up almost everything by yourself means you have a very good understanding of how most parts of the os work. So when things go wrong, and they will with almost any distro, if you have been using arch you will be able to find the issue and figure out exactly why it was happening. If you're using ubuntu and you run into an issue, it's much more difficult to actually learn from that experience and figure out what you did wrong that caused the issue in the first place.
In that regard, after you have some experience using arch it becomes a decently stable system that doesn't run into many issues.
2. The package manager, pacman, is the fastest I have ever used. It's pretty simple, has a shit ton of documentation, and is also very fast.
All that being said, if you want a distro that will work without much effort arch is not for you.
In reality, I use it because it's fun in a hobbyist way. I like being able to fidle around with things and learn/discover parts of linux with the help of the massive and well deailed arch wiki. It's well documented, fun, bleeding edge and will test your abilities to use linux and be rewarding all the meanwhile when you have a cool rice and everything is running stable thanks to your well nourished knoledge-base of system maintainece and understanding of linux. It's for fun.
fiddle*
well detailed*
Knowledge*
maintenance*
I guess I have Down's today
arch is objectively worse for hobbyists since it's only x86 officially, whereas debian supports 10 architectures and 4 kernels
You are a fucking casual.
The best hobbyist distro is Linux From Scratch, and if you can follow the Arch Wiki you can follow the LFS book.
>well nourished knowledge
>stable
>understanding of linux
Arch fags are this delusional.
Either grow up and use Debian, or use a real hobbyist distro.
I don't believe this is true, but instead the opposite
Quote from the arch FAQ
"What architectures does Arch support?
Arch only supports the x86_64 (sometimes called amd64) architecture. Support for i686 is being phased out and will be completely dropped in November 2017[1]: if you are still running a 32-bit system you may be interested in reading #Can I switch from i686 to x86_64 without reinstalling?.
"
ew lfs is hard
>ew lfs is hard
Arch fags everyone
Arch is a binary-based rolling release distro. Version-based distros have package freezes to ensure stability, which is nice for most users , however this also means you aren't getting any new software upgrades (outside of security fixes) which sucks for a variety of reasons. As a result, many users end up adding third party repos to get new package upgrades, however these can break your system during version upgrades. Arch is pretty good about keeping close to vanilla upstream.
Compared to fedora rawhide, opensuse tumbleweed and debian sid, arch is generally more stable.
The aur is really convenient, albeit insecure, since it contains a shit ton of software, from the latest git releases to old obscure software, which can easily be installed and managed with a pacman wrapper.
- pacman >>>>>>> apt
- up2date software that is stable (it really is)
- Arch User Repository
- simple and sane packaging system
- no PPA shit
- no preinstalled bloat
- wiki
- you're a member of the cool kids club
>no preinstalled bloat
What is systemd then?
I got gtx 1080 when it came out and ubuntu wouldn't even start installer since ubuntu is not up-to-date like arch, so gtx 1080 wasn't supported yet for a pretty long time.
There are more packages on arch. When discord was still in alpha stage, you could still find it on aur to install for arch, but not on discord. There are more community packages for arch than ubuntu.
Installing stuff is usually much easier. For example if you want latest nvidia drivers, on arch you just do
pacman -S nvidia
and you have latest drivers. With ubuntu you have to go to nvidia website and download installer, run it in virtual console mode, manually setup shit and then it still doesn't work and you have to troubleshoot.
If you find a github page that tells you how to install the software on linux, usually for ubuntu you have to install > 5 packages while on arch it's none and you just have to call make.
Arch wiki is the best way to find information about linux related stuff; which comes down to the point that arch community is greater than other distro communities.
And for the lazy people, there are arch installers which let you even choose which desktop environment you want, choosing from like 15 different ones; even though you can install new desktop environements with just one command, like:
pacman -S xfce4
poettering software complaints = autism
Arch is very good as a daily distro, at least to me. It's light on my netbook, it's easy for me to set it up to my visual liking, and I like the package manager. The AUR is really great if you use yaourt, too.
I didn't install it manually, though. I used an installer like a sane human being.
>you could still find it on aur to install for arch, but not on discord
i meant not for ubuntu*
xbps >>>>>>> pacman
up-to-date software and if not, update the package build script yourself and feel good for contributing back
see above, void-packages repository (or an unofficial one, or your own)
actually simple and sane packaging system
no systemd shit, instead you get a very fast and pure runit init system
no pre-installed bloat or nonfree software
optional musl libc
you're a member of the NEW 1337
>PID 1 in charge of shit that shouldn't be PID 1 = pure retardation. Kill yourself back to Windows you fucking NSAd shillctl
back to Sup Forums
>if you use yaourt
Install pacaur, you'll be surprised how much better it is. Apart from being 100% more secure. Btw, there's also pamac-pacaur if you're using pamac
You get a minimal distro. With effort you "build your own"
The hook and the reasons it gained meme status are the community and OS breaking changes to the codebase where you have to fix it by checking the newspage.
Or you'd do that before every update.
My advice: stay away. I've used it for a year.
Wanting software to actually work is autism now?
How is it more secure? Also one of the main reasons I like yaourt is you can search for packages, can pacaur do that?
OP:
>I'm relatively new to Linux, been getting comfortable with it over the past 6 months.
You:
>and if not, update the package build script yourself
Retardation confirmed...
>PID 1 in charge of shit that shouldn't be PID 1
Confirmed again.
wiki.archlinux.org
So you're saying that systemd and pulseaudio both don't work. Interesting. I'm using both right now and don't have any issues and never had one.
i've heard of this but i see no reason to switch. yaourt just works. i like it.
Hello Lennart.
It seems you have lost your way to Sup Forums again,
Red Hat is the other way silly.
Then you are either new to Linux, or you haven't been using poetterware long enough.
What makes you think I was replying to OP? Do you have trouble following Sup Forums threads? Are you lost?
>Retardation confirmed...
Someone that doesn't have the mental capacity to understand and use an example buildscript to create or update another one (with the help of other very friendly maintainers) shouldn't be legally allowed on the Internet.
>Confirmed again.
suckless.org
>unironically linking suckless
>unironically posting "unironically linking suckless"
Confirmed for CIA
I'd recommend pacuar m8.
default
edit/view build1
install/update pkg1
edit/view build2
install/update pkg2
edit/view build3
install/update pkg3
pacaur
edit/view
build1
build2
build3
install/update
pkg1
pkg2
pkg3
I personally User Arch (or Manjaro) because i'm too lazy to search die Software Online, so i can just Yaourt -S "insert anything here" and 90% of the Time it installs
I use arch because:
- rolling release
- learning more about linux while using it (can be a negative, though)
- community driven (I liked canonical. Ububtu was my first linux. But I don't anymore.)
- yaourt (don't use it much, though)
I would like to come back to ubuntu, but canonical behind it scares me off.
> (OP)
That feels when pacman finds Xorg and your display manager and then decides to update the kernel and NVIDIA drivers at the same time
>
>What makes you think I was replying to OP? Do you have trouble following Sup Forums threads? Are you lost?
>>Retardation confirmed...
>Someone that doesn't have the mental capacity to understand and use an example buildscript to create or update another one (with the help of other very friendly maintainers) shouldn't be legally allowed on the Internet.
>>Confirmed again.
>suckless.org
Does systemd come with an office suite yet
Be an adult, install Fedora
It's just a meme. Professionals use distros like Fedora and Debian.
oh fugg. I remember it did that yesterday.
I won't be able to boot up today?
I've been running the same Arch install for four years with literally zero problems.
>Fedora
Backdoored
>Debian
Either stale packages or lack of timely security patches
part of the the reason they tell new users to install arch is to install arch for real you have to be able to figure out how to change your desktop environment, and the inability to change the desktop environment through the command line is something that hinders alot of new linux users because they think they are stuck with the desktop environment their distro comes with.
For older linux users they mainly use arch because they want to test out brand new software, knowing it may break.
>Fedora
Backdoored
*citation needed
That does sound nice, but I now remember why I use yaourt instead, it supports the ABS.
why would you not lie on the first post?
keep the normies dumb
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
That's the wrong eay of thinking. If everybody thought that way you too would be a n0rmie right now
Incorrect, fat boy. See pic related.
Because I like it? Every day we have threads like this. The same shit over and over. Mods should just ban these OS war threads. Everyone complains that we don't want to be Sup Forums yet this is so much worse than any console war. Sage.
Switching from systemD takes twenty minutes tops. Go be new somewhere else.