Arch make users do what developers should have done

It is the impression I get when I see pages like this one : wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Steam/Troubleshooting
What is the point in making pages helping to solve problems when the developers could solve them at the source ?
I used to run arch and installing steam and getting games to work was really a painful experience compared to other distros such as Debian where installing the package from the repos is good enough.

Same for the installer, what is the point in running dozens of commands to install arch when arch developers could simply have created an installer or install script ?

This makes the distro subject to many bugs that must be fixed by the users

Seriously look at this : wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=/troubleshooting&go=Go

What does Sup Forums think about it ?
This "If we can do it, users can do it too" policy seems to be a proof that Arch GNU/Linux is garbage…

>using arch
>for steam
go fuck yourself

Yes, Arch is garbage.

You literally discovered that earth revolves around Sun.

SteamOS is Debian and nobody gives a fuck about Arch, why wouldn't it work better?

AUR is more convenient than manually installing packages not provided by repos.

What now?

Steam is in the official community library. I just installed it on Arch last night, playing Dota 2 with literally no setup required as we speak.

arch is for intellectual heavy hitters. stay jealous.

Are you dumb? I just installed steam from the arch repo and it just worked???

All my games work fine???

I think you might have other, more personal issues.

>works on my machine

Everyone thinks that Arch's KISS means keep it simple for the users but the dev team is very open about this, it means keeping it simple for them. Basically they can't give a rat's ass if it works or not as long as they don't have to do anything because cum gobbling arch fanatics will do it for them claiming it makes them smarter

hol up

...

At least there is almost always a way to fix things on arch. The fact that an entire community of people is busy fixing their machines means that you don't have to rely on a handfull of hobby devs to fix everything. You got to embrace the hive mind.

>Basically they can't give a rat's ass if it works or not
No, mongoloid. The point of using Arch is to define what gets installed by you (mostly). This isn't intended to be Ubuntu where a ton of shit gets installed for easy usage. It's meant to be flexible, not necessarily "simple" in the usual definition. It's simple to define what the end result is, not necessarily simple to use.

He knows that. He just can't use it, hence the memes.

I've been running Arch since 2012 and every year I've been more dissatisfied with it. In particular it adopted Lennart Bloattering's awful software just like everyone else did and since then Void has treated me a lot better

>every year I've been more dissatisfied with it.
Yeah, you'll have that when your opinion/knowledge on an operating system is limited to Sup Forums memes.

>uuh shouldn't the gentoo devs compile the programs for the users??
>what am i missing?

Exactly. The hypocrisy of people on this board is mind numbing.

>A distro of precompiled binaries should force users to compile it manually to use it.

install ubuntu minimal
problem solved

That's another solution, yes. Not everyone likes apt, though.

what issues does apt have that using pacman solves?

Creating a deb is pretty fucking easy, brainlet.

arch is a distro that is for people who are genuinely interested in figuring out how things work under the hood

the whole point is for it to be "batteries not included"

You can easily turn off package signature verification in pacman since it's lazily tacked on.

that's LFS, not arch.
arch does nothing 'under the hood' - arch is nothing but installing a set of base packages from a CLI. go check out LFS if you want something actually 'under the hood'

Apt has a bad habit of removing things it should not. Pacman is much faster, too. And before you start throwing insults and accusations, I use both.

fpbp

>you want packages from upstream without modifications
you run arch
>you want shit to run out of the box
you run ubuntu (or windows)

>that's LFS, not arch.
No, LFS is simply more granular in terms of control. It's more of an absolute, than a middle ground. Not arguing pro/con, simply the difference.

9/10 times AUR packages work out of the box. The occasional time it doesn't usually requires less than 5 minutes of intervention.

Who unironically gaymes on Linux anyway?

just use ubuntu net install and call it a day, its the supported distro after all
and >they can't give a rat's ass if it works or not
they do
>just saying your opinion is wrong on that one