I'm currently using Arch Linux with i3wm. I have done it from scratch, not a single bloatware.
However, I am feeling rather attracted to Debian, and I have no idea why. I somehow feel like Debian is the next step, but it's just a feeling.
Why should and shouldn't I change to Debian?
Debian still uses an old ass kernel, but other than that it's pretty stable.
Whoever made that image is an idiot and needs to kys themself
>not installing gentoo
Stop wasting your time if it working for you.
Stop wasting time and fiddling around with broken OSs. Install gentoo, the only stable OS.
Debian is awful, OP. Arch is fine, any distro is fine as long as the package manager is good.
Apt is no good. Slackware has a better package manager than debian.
Debian has high desktop performance but if you want hardware acceleration or good 3d performance then your arch setup is probably better
If openSUSE Tumbleweed isn't cutting edge then nothing is. Also, great performance (how does one measure performance between distros btw?).
Performance is entirely going to depend on what you're running. AUR is still bigger than OBS, but OBS is pretty gud.
Move from i3 to a non noob tiler like bspwm
>Fedora ranks higher on 'Installation' metric than Ubuntu
How was this determined?
If I was going to install a distro today, I'd probably pick Fedora, I heard they use Wayland by default now.
>the next step
The next step is actually doing something useful, rather than pointlessly configuring and tweaking yet more operating systems.
Coming from Arch and used to very cutting edge software, Debian will be very annoying with its old packages. But if you want to spend you life actually working and not to worry about the distro, well just go ahead and try it.
P.D. IMHO Slackware is a better option coming from Arch.
Debian Sid. For the love of God don't fall for the Gentoo meme.. you already fell for the Arch meme.
installing gentoo isnt the hard part (not meming), everything after kernel config (xorg, logging daemons, iptables) is because it is so monotonous
When you don't care about newest version of some software you don't really need to upgrade, you should use Debian. As long as arch works for you, there's no need to switch.
This is absolute bull shit to place Arch and Gentoo together.
Arch is a joke distro which is made to teach schoolkids CLI, it's never employed in production by serious companies. Every developed distro has a minimal installer up to installing an OS from a chroot environment, for example Ubuntu Core or debootstrap, schoolkids don't know about it, they think that there's only a GUI installer in Ubuntu and Debian.
Gentoo is a professional distro with a high level of flexibility through the robust established compilation toolchain, the unified interface for compilation flags in the portage system, good tools for kernel compilation. For example Google uses Gentoo as a base for Chrome OS.
To cut long story short, Arch is for pajeets who can't manage their time but who want to show that they know CLI, Gentoo is for professional engineers who want a reliable and flexible system.
Void Linux is better though.
>not a single bloatware.
That's pretty impossible with Arch.
Archs focus is being easy, not being minimal, and guess what? Bloat makes things easy.
The fuck kind of graphic is that? Linux mint is one of the easiest to install. Also my first linux distro, I have fond memories of nostalgia.
>not using solus
arch used to be about minimalism (KISS). How far the almost-mighty have fallen.
KISS and minimalism are not the same thing
Might try it some day but nothing is better than gentoo, not void, not alpine. It's simply a consequence of source-based install. If there as a distro with full binary sets plus full source sets with USE flags, CFLAGs, keywords, LICENSE, etc, then it would beat gentoo but nothing like that exists.
KISS is a super-set of minimalism.
For Arch, that applies to changes from upstream. If Upstream however is bloated, Arch won't reduce the bloat.
Minimalism (as in package size or features) is not the goal of KISS in Arch at all.
But the goal of arch was not to include bloated packages by default and to let the user easily change parts of the system.
>Arch
>Mint
>Security
HAHAHAHHAHAHA. No.
>Arch is a pragmatic distribution rather than an ideological one. The principles here are only useful guidelines. Ultimately, design decisions are made on a case-by-case basis through developer consensus.
No one cares, bloat is way more practical than minimalism.
>Linux Mint - Security... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Now it is. That wasn't what arch used to stand for until (((systemd)))
Debian is for lazy people who just want a system that does its shit but nothing more. Arch is for hobbyists.
I'm a lazy fuck, I run Debian.
The image is complete bullshit btw.
Go for testing or unstable for relatively modern system or if only specific packages is what you want you can use backports.
>years-old package
>relatively modern
Emphasis on 'relatively' I guess.
It's only stable in the sense that it doesn't change, meaning that every package is chuckfull of bugs no other distro ever encounters, but you can patch them and be certain the patch will be applicable forever henceforth.
>testing or unstable
>years old packages
Yes. Welcome to debmemebian.
Distro hopping is a waste of time.
Debian is pretty comfy, though. If you use the minimal install, you get the bare minimum and you can install everything else by hand, so it's as unbloated as you want it to be. The wiki is pretty good, it has a huge selection of packages, comes with only libre packages installed by default, the installer is so good it actually tells you if you need proprietary differs and how they're called during install, your system won't break after an update, etc.
Old packages are only a problem if you fap to version numbers. Debian Stable with backported Firefox and LibreOffice works like a charm.
>who cares about having software that has the mandatory features you need to do real work?
>you're just fapping to being able to work!
>you're just fapping to the idea of your OS not crashing every 5 seconds!
>you're just fapping to the idea that debian isn't spying on you!
Ahhh...testing...the one where security updates aren't a thing?
Those are a pretty bad idea anyway
And where packages are often older than in stable.
>Why should and shouldn't I change to Debian?
Poor package support unless you use an unstable version of Debian. Professionals use Fedora if they use Linux on desktop. No faggotry, just productivity (with support for modern packages)
> move from a great tilling window manager to a more exotic one just to look cool.
whoever made that graphic has no idea
They actually use ubuntu, and only because it's easier to find laptops certified for ubuntu than for fedora. Ubuntu is a buggy piece of unusable crap. On my work laptop, unity caused display corruption to the point of killing X and compiz (can't be disabled) randomly took up 100% of CPU, freezing everything for a random amount of minutes. The software center randomly decides it doesn't want to install a package (no error message of any kind) and the update manager keeps telling me there's an error (that's so long it goes offscreen when hovering the update notifier) and that I need to update.
Others at work have also experienced the same problems.
I've yet to see Fedora used in a professional context.
>every package is chuckfull of bugs
The whole point of "it's not outdated, it's stable :^)" is to only add packages that are confirmed to have no bugs to the repositories. A package has to go through extensive testing which is why the repos have usually outdated software.
There is no software that has no bugs. Trying to backport security fixes into older versions also may create new bugs.
Try comparing Debian packages (e.g. kernel) with Arch and Fedora. Debian testing and unstable are usually closer to upstream in terms of versions than Arch.
Debian:
4.9 or 4.9
Arch:
4.10
Fedora:
4.11
Upstream:
4.10 (stable) or 4.11 (rc)
What would you guys recommend if I want a "Bare Minimum" distro that will only run a few programs like QEMU and Veracrypt?
Something that I can harden as well.
I started out on Arch and i3 some years ago and moved to Debian fairly recently. I love apt-get, and I use Debian in work, although I pretty much only use the terminal. I think most people should use Debian just because its frequency of use, and I find that Debian gives you the same amount of control over your system as Arch. However, its documentation is an outdated mess.
That being said, I actually find Arch much easier to install than Debian, although that is likely because I'm an autistic moron. With Debian I had to navigate this retarded GUI, and it automatically installed the base system (something like 51 packages) without letting me view the documentation first, which bothered me, although they all seem fairly necessary. You also have to download a terminal text editor from the command line to edit the sources file in a bunch of ways in order to switch to testing or unstable because the default is stable. I found that out the hard way after spending half an hour trying to apt-get i3 and that package that lets you launch it, customising more shit, then when I switched to testing, it all broke quite horribly. But now that I'm on testing everything just werks. You also need to connect via ethernet cable during installation.
TL;DR my Debian laptop runs almost exactly the same as my Arch one did, but Debian is more practical
>who cares about having software that has the mandatory features you need to do real work?
What can't you do on Debian? And if you can't, just use other distro. I'm saying why it works for everyone else.
>you're just fapping to being able to work!
Ídem.
>you're just fapping to the idea of your OS not crashing every 5 seconds!
Debian doesn't crash every 5 seconds.
>you're just fapping to the idea that debian isn't spying on you!
What did he mean by this?
Debians packages are so old that the spy-updates haven't made it into stable yet.
Yeah seriously. Mint having more hardware support than Debian? Also everything lists "security" as the same exact value, but arch had to be dragged kicking and screaming into package signing
Then how come packages in debian's repos are the buggiest of any distro bar none?
gentoo
>w-who cares t-that I was b-btfo just use a-another distro DEBIAN WINS AGAIN
AUR is also full of broken shit
Tails/Whonix
Arch is all wrong on that image. It has top tier community, documentation, and packages. Really pretty much top tier everything except maybe installation, which isn't that hard anyway.
Maybe it factors in the size? All those values are useless without knowing what they're supposed to represent anyway.
It's the only distro that IT will officially support at my office. People that don't want Macs and can't stand windows are given that option.
what the fuck is the "installation" measure for? Wtf
>There is no software that has no bugs
Of course, but you get the point
According to what? Your personal experience?
>Fedora security is the same as all the other distros
>Only one to come pre-configured with SELinux
Stopped reading right there
I came just to sage your shit for this dumb-ass image.
I will sage too!
Of course, when you do this, some dickhead is bound to show up and bump the thread.