Arch (or similar distros like manjaro) is supposed to be better for customisation...

Arch (or similar distros like manjaro) is supposed to be better for customisation, but I've been running debian for a while now and I dont see how arch is really any better than any other distro for customisation. Is there actually any advantage or is it just a meme for muh superiority?

Bleeding edge shit is what everyone is after that runs Arch. Plus, the AUR is full of tons of stuff.

this. Arch is months if not years head.
Example: python is python3 and python2 is python2.7
this will hit normie setups earliest 2020
Although you can argue that such changes can be made manually, few people will get out of their way to enforce this so you get a headstart and adjust to changes coming to the GNU/Loonix ecosystem without autistic gentoo compile times.

Arch is a trap. Once you install it there's no going back.

See
>60888432

Shit see

Debian testing and unstable have super up to date packages.
I know why Debian gets the wrap about being out of date, but that's just stable. Stable is meant for enterprise that needs to work for years straight without breaking. It's the same reason why tons of companies are still running XP: they don't need and can't afford any downtime because of a bug.

I've said it before: stable is for enterprise, testing and unstable is for regular desktops.

But RHEL runs some relatively futuristic shit and has pretty good market share

Try modifying a package in Debian (like adding a build flag) and see.

install cloveros

If you are asking this question chances are you probably spend 95% of your time in a browser anyway so who gives a shit.

Just because you have to read a manual doesn't mean it's hard. Arch is for illiterates confirmed.

I don't see any point of using Makefile over shell script to just do ./configure && make && make install
SlackBuild masterrace

RHEL and SUSE SLES are major players in server. You don't just get software, you also get support. Most companies don't want to have downtime since it would damage both profits and image so they use company grade distros for servers and cloud infras. just visit their sites and you will understand the marketshare

install fucking windows and ditch your irrelevant useless pile of dogshit

>Windows
>relevant

>90% of the desktop market share
>Irrelevant

Keep crying with your 1-2% market share loonixfag

Debian ain't stable.

Keep ignoring your built in spyware, wincuck.

arch philosophy sucks

it's basically "hey lets be lazy" - devs

you can get bleeding edge elsewhere like Gentoo or even NixOS.

been using Linux (Mint, Ubuntu, Kubuntu) for over half a year and installed Arch recently. Am I cool for Sup Forums now?

Not until you install gentoo

Testing isn't completely up to date and unstable is far different in that it's not treated like an average user branch, where the main branch of arch is treated as something the average user is going to use and has much more support.

- always up to date
- no need to deal with shitty ppas; it's always on the AUR
- best package manager
- no bloat

It's better for customisation because the documentation is so good. That's what they mean.

oh
and the best Linux wiki on the planet

>Sup Forumstier shitty greentext
Please fuck off

Did Microsoft up your pay or something faggot

>(((Windows)))
fuck off shill, we don't want your botnet

Arch is a barebones distro which install by hand
Therefore you can select what to install and where to stop
This why it's so customizable. That's it

Also manjaro is ubuntu but worse just steer clear of manjaro no matter what

This. Really doesn't matter what distro you're running arch wiki is best

If you want bleeding edge, just use Fedora.

You could probably strip down ubuntu and add customise it however you want similar to arch except with a different package manager.
My previous setup was running Xubuntu+i3wm, was fine with it for a good while until I wanted wayland figured I might as well give arch a shot.
Only started setting up arch recently, not worried about stuffing up since I have a good deal of rsync snapshots for my previous Xubuntu setup which I can easily revert to.
I like how it starts you from a bare bones base that you can expand upon quickly with the package manager. I am starting to get a better idea of what is going on in the OS by following the arch wiki which is pretty damn good.
I tried installing KDE plasma, it was so god damn broken its not even funny. Couldn't be bothered fixing that hot mess so right now I've got sway wm running with a few place holder applications I'll worry about the rest later, the font looks like ass so I have to fix that right now and get sound working.

Anyone tried other wayland based tiling window mangers with Hi DPI support? tempted to try out way-cooler for the lua scripting while retaining binary tree tiling similar to i3 but that is AUR only I want to stick to pacman for now.

I used mint for a while, then started reading the arch wiki and eventually installed arch. Good shit.

Anyone who says this doesn't know what they're talking about. The big advantages of Arch ( in my opinion ) are the AUR and the bare userspace.

Any distro can customize.

Which one would run better on my old laptop, Arch or Gentoo?

how future python is now python3 woag its not like I can just do python3 or anything

if you can't figure this out on your own then neither would be better for you

Arch is a piece of cake to install if you used Linux for a year or two. If you're a poweruser and have a good handle on how the system works, you'll be fine. If not, it's worth a shot to at least learn. The comics with everything broken are true, but it's only skids who skim the tutorials without knowing what's going on. An arch system is just a slikely to break as a Debian system once it's up and running.

Gentoo is good for OS devs.

Without a doubt, Xubuntu.

RYZEN WAS A MISTAKE

Do either. Given your asking the question, do Arch.

I wanted to experiment with one of these.

Ok, user. Thanks.

Arch it is, then.

The screenfetch looks cooler. That's the main advantage of Arch.

every distro is basically the same just with a few differences like package managers etc

arch users think they're superior? no way user! you need an iq of 180 to read a wiki

I'd use Arch if it came with an easy option for MAC like AppArmor or SELinux...alas it does not and Fedora is bleeding edge enough for my purposes anyways...

i gave in and tried arch in a vm about a month ago, sudo pacman -Syu, grub 2.02 update a few days later rendered the installation unbootable ("root device not found")

whilst not always seeded in truth, stereotypes exist for a reason

i'll stick with trusty debian thank you very much

Rolling for

>is supposed to be better for customisation
Only ricer faggots are on record as having said that. I use Arch because I like rolling releases and the AUR, and I suspect the multitudes of everyday Arch users are like minded. Meme fags can all die in a fire.