Why the fuck would anyone use this shit when it does nothing special and everything it does another distro does better...

Why the fuck would anyone use this shit when it does nothing special and everything it does another distro does better? Is there just something I'm missing here? It is quite literally a meme OS, there is nothing of value in Arch. Use a real distribution and get a job.

Other urls found in this thread:

lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2015-July/039443.html
wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenRC
twitter.com/AnonBabble

To gain the approval of Sup Forums in desktop threads

because typing "nano sudoers" and typing some shit makes you smarter than using a distro that has an installer amirite

The logo is cool.

AUR
U
R

Worthless meme.

It makes installing a lot of unofficially maintained software a breeze, rather than having to manually compile a whole bunch of programs by hand.

Especially for programs that are pulled from their git source and need to be recompliled frequently

It's true of Linux, as well. Windows and macOS are the only worthwhile operating systems. Why would you want to waste your time with something like Linux when it does nothing special and everything it does Windows and macOS does more efficiently? Is there just something I'm missing here? It is quite literally a meme OS, there is nothing of value in Linux. Use a real operating system and get a job.

Why come to Sup Forums when Sup Forums is the best?

/ t h r e a d
t
h
r
e
a
d

Linux is free - if you are semi-competent you take it - use the kernel with bare minimum and run your servers cheaper, less power consumption and more efficient.

For everyday use - it's odd to use Linux but totally possible.

A U T I S M O
U
T
I
S
M
O

I mean, the devs themselves already explained that the design decisions (no installer, just throwing the latest version without testing into the repos, etc.) are only made to make work easier for them, not the end user. It's literally a quick and dirty hack job with the lowest maintenance possible just so they can put in their resume that they mantain a Linux distro.

But turboautismos had to ruin it and get the wrong message out of it with
>MUH ELITIST DISTRO NORMIES GET OUT AND LEARN TO USE LOONIX

Debian: need the latest version of something integral to fix a bug? I hope you like manually compiling from scratch and not necessarily having it work. You want to use community packages? Hope you like poor support.
Gentoo: you need any version of anything? Hope you like compiling for 16 hours.
Arch: you need a new version? Let me just check it's safe... okay, you can have it. You need to roll it back? Also no problem. Community support? Check. Compiled version so you can get that flag you need? You got it.
Arch is right in that sweet spot that makes development easy.

...

Three reasons:
1. Rolling release.
2. AUR.
3. Complete controll and choice.

>be OP
>spend one hour of your life in Ubuntu/Mint
>install distro meant for experienced users which want a high degree of customization
>don't spend ten minutes watching a tutorial on how to install the OS
>"Guys, Arch is so shit, why does anyone use this shit, distro ? Fuck you weeaboo manbaby autists. You only want the street cred, now tell me how i can play Nier:Automata on my VirtualBox Windows !"

it's more stable than debian unstable

Not OP here, but I think Manjaro hits the sweet spot. It has all the pros of Arch, it's more stable and it's easier and faster to install without high level autism

>nothing special
It has the aur AND you can show everyone that you are a hardcore hacker.

Because shit is actually somewhat documented, but if you actually want to know what's going on without making Linux your career, you'd probably go with BSD.

As an old manjaro user i can say that arch is better if you have special needs. For example in manjaro a lot of things are installed by default bur you're not using all of them. With arch you have more control on what you're doin

that is true, if you want to have Arch with sane installer there is Antergos

>special needs

Ubuntu was comfy but unity is waste of space, same with Gnome 3.

Currently using Antergos KDE and I'm happy with it. Great DE, access to Arch wiki and AUR.

>complete control and choice
>systemd
Pick one

>use a real distrubution and get a job.
did you accidentally fell for the rhel meme?
OS depends on your job
If your job is D&D you'd most likely fall under macs and windows.
If your job is R&D then you'd fall under unix/not unix systems

I don't see Arch as a 'real distribution' but as a gateway to FOSS programs and complete customization (owning the system the hacker way) while doing my hobbies because you can't do that on a workstation.

For me Arch is the sweet spot.
I've used several independent distributions but only arch just werks.

Why I chose arch?
>proper wacom git support that only exists on Arch and KaOS (fedora is broken with 100% idle cpu on kde, before)
>latest qt
>latest krita (no qt dependency breakage like ubuntu)
>comfy KDE plasma (rolling. one of few KDE plasma distributor that doesn't go with 2000 packages by default including kdepim/games bloat)
>official binaries and AUR which allows me to build from git source or unofficial binaries at my own disposal
>installed 4x or even more on different laptops so what could go wrong?
>unofficial OpenRC support

like what? most of those software come with precomplied binaries

Everything you know about Arch is a meme.

"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. There are very few cases where there are multiple packages offering different configurations of the same project. There's no equivalent to update-alternatives or the comparable uses of USE flags. Changing /bin/sh from Bash will be broken, as will changing the python symlink to point to python2 instead of python3 even though this works on some other distributions. It doesn't strive to offer choices like this, and never has."

"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. Technical decisions are made based on merit via consensus among the developers, not popularity."

"Arch has never been minimalist... a Linux kernel with every module available and every feature enabled at least when there's no non-bloat related cost, feature-packed/complex GNU tools, nearly all optional features enabled across all the packages, etc."

"It has always used significantly more disk space and a measurable amount of additional memory than Debian and especially Gentoo as a consequence of keeping things simple (again, from a development perspective)."

"Memes about minimalism and user freedom != actual distribution policy / principles / history."

t. arch wiki admin
lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2015-July/039443.html

So which distro do you use?

>hurrdurr systemd suuuuux :D

If you really want to get rid of systemd (why would one though? It's awesome.) you are of course able to do so.
wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenRC

So Antergos is basically Arch with an installer. And Manjaro is also Arch with an installer, except they also hold back packages a little.

Is that right?

There's only 2 kinds of people who use arch
>Muh beard e-cred
and
>iwannabe a beard e-cred but im underage

The wiki is good, so if you're not actually retarded it's legitimately the best starter distro

What exactly do other distros do better?
pacman is the best package manager
pacman > apt > portage > yum
You get up to date packages unlike other distros (unless you use Debian Unstable or OpenSUSE Tumbleweed)

>I've never used either Debian or Gentoo and I'm making this up. Arch is the only Linux distro I've ever used and I'm only pretending I know what I'm talking about.

kek literally this

Windows

Because I'm more familiar with it than any other flavour of Linux, none of which I've really used in years, or Windows anymore. My install works, doesn't break, because I know which programs have worked consistently for me in the past, so I use them. It's my daily OS (laptop), I have no others. That's only changing if it has to.

>pretending to be asking a question as a pretext for dumping your shitty reddit tier opinions
>parroting stale Sup Forums memes in order to fit in
promptly kill yourself

the installation process is basically LFS- it forces you to learn a thing or two about how your system is built...

after installation, it's seriously easier to use (imo) than just about anything else, smiply because it's not laden with "user-friendly" bullshit.

finally, the fact that it's got a reputation for being difficult keeps low-quality idiots out of the community. see itt for examples.

I find arch really stable on a daily basis. Had a lot more problems with Ubuntu meme.

I bet you haven't used debian.

The only selling point debian has is it's stability for servers. Completely ignoring the fact that all of your server software will be several years outdated, some important dependencies to common applications have been replaced with less functional ones for security reasons, while years old bugs still live on in the system.
You'll also have to deal with manually managing your package manager, adding a new repository for practically every package you wish to install. Somehow, the documentation available for a stable system can also go out of date. If you install something for a feature you need, you'll likely learn that the version you get doesn't yet have the feature in it.
You can also choose to build your software yourself, you'll get what you need and nothing more. At which point you might as well run Gentoo.
Or you can choose to update to an unstable version. At which point you could just use arch or Fedora.

Some issues I've had with debian's default packages:
>no ffmpeg. Required by a lot of stuff I want to do.
>no http/2 for nginx.
>jre 1.8 only available via backports. Dependencies fail to install properly. Guides on how to install are out of date.
>zsh. Would you switch your server to unstable over a shell? I didn't.
>Nodejs. Read their installing from a package guide, compare to arch. You're legitimately curling a script from the internet. And all the npm packages are broken as well.
>transmission. Web ui is broken. Systemd unit file is broken.
And that's everything I've tried to do with that box. Everything is just too out of date or broken on the only version of debian worth anyone's time.

Captcha: werk rider

...

This

Linux is quite common in science and engineering and there are a lot of applications in this field that are easier and more effective on linux. For the average user (webbrowsing, text processing, some media) I can't see why Linux should be less effective than macOS or Windows. Even the installation of a distro (e.g. openSuse) isn't really harder than windows.
Also you could reverse this question. Why you want to pay money for Windows or an expensive Macbook when you can do nothing special with it?

Because they wanted to install gentoo but the wiki didn't tell them what commands to copy into the terminal

why not use Manjaro then?

Everyone suggesting Manjaro while Antergos exists. Kek.

I prefer Manjaro over Antergos. It could be because Antergos sounds like something a doctor finds after you have your colonoscopy.

>Why you want to pay money for Windows
Everyone pirates Windows. What, are you moral or something? K3K

Windows is free nowadays. You are the product.

Use arch-everywhere if you're so worried about installing arch, better yet, antergos

At the risk of sounding like a parrot myself, THIS! Let's repeat the same gay shit over and over again like retards, in the hopes that our "meme magic" will stick.
Filter any thread that opens with:
>he doesn't.....
>what is the best _ and why is it _?

But it did, though.

>Hope you like compiling for 16 hours.
objectively false except in a few very special situations, which binaries usually exist for

install gentoo

Can someone tell me what's so bad about systemd? What can you do in another initsystem that systemd can't do?

It is quite literally just autistic freetard cucks crying about change even though that change is only a positive for everyone involved and is pushing Linux towards being seen as a legitimate operating system for regular users and not some Asperger hobbyist toy

They aren't self important retards who want to patch and split everything just because they can like they know better than upstream and it just works. I've tried just about all of them and Arch is the easiest to use and has fewer issues than even Ubuntu or Debian in my experience.

'systemd' isn't just an init system and it never claimed to be. As of now it is a suite of tools consisting of 69 individual binaries.

systemd is pretty great
my favorites are the journal, systemd-nspawn, and the simplicity of service unit files

>Arch is the easiest to use and has fewer issues than even Ubuntu or Debian
meme

No it's my real life experience

I guess the only real value of Arch is that DIY feeling
I'm more a "getting shit done" type of guy, so I just use Manjaro

Autists point out that it goes against the Unix philosophy. Which, to be fair, it does.

Also lots of old sysadmins at my job don't like learning it.

But the only practical consequence for the end user is that it probably speeds up boot time, but as a cost eventually minor updates may require system reboots.

And I'm making 300k starting at Google.

>Autists point out that it goes against the Unix philosophy. Which, to be fair, it does.
Fake news. It's a suite of tools that all do their own thing. 69 individual binaries doing their own thing creating something bigger than themselves, that's pretty much the core of the unix philosophy

It's the damn truth.