From someone who has never used linux would arch be bad choice to start with?

from someone who has never used linux would arch be bad choice to start with?

Other urls found in this thread:

arch-anywhere.org/
wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman/Pacnew_and_Pacsave#Managing_.pacnew_files
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

No, in fact it would be extremely useful. Installing it is a trial by fire and after doing so, you will much better understand how your computer works.

Linux is a bad choice to start with

sure if you want to waste your time with annoying errors and pacman

Arch installation is super easy for anyone used to POSIX.

Wouldn't recommend it to a Windows user, but it automates so many things compared to FreeBSD or even Gentoo.

like config protection
oh wait

pacman is easily one of the best package managers out there. Use it for a short time and you'll never be able to go back to the trainwreck that is apt or rpm

I dont get what you mean by installation because isn't there just a in-depth guide to set everything up?

>config protection
Never had pacman wipe config. You must have never used Arch if you think it's hard.

FreeBSD and Gentoo are for more involved than Arch who's only even mildly 'challenging' aspect is the lack of a front-end installer.

I don't think so, but make sure that you do it with some amount of free time otherwise it might get a little bit frustrating.

...

There is a guide, but if your from Windows and don't know how disks are represented in POSIX (dev/sda, /dev/hda, etc) then maybe you might want something easier.

If you aren't a brainlet and don't mind learning, it's a great choice to start with.

Why don't they make these for the harder distros? Do they hit a wall with Arch, give up, and sour grapes?

arch-anywhere.org/

yeah, just use ubuntu for a bit to understand the basics like filesystems n shit, then try arch (or whatever fits your needs best)

But xorg.conf auto-regenerates if it gets fucked up.

This shit is for fucking lusers.

DELET

it would be a great choice if you like weird errors.

It's gotten to the point where I can do it a lot faster on my own with a couple of commands than using some long-winded installer.

Wouldn't mind one for Gentoo though, their emerge shit is retarded bloated and I miss arch-chroot instead of manual chroot.

>it would be a great choice if you like weird errors.
t. Somebody with a fucked up locale because they couldn't follow basic install instructions.

So far I've read about 2 config file protection systems, the default policy is to put the file into the required directory and append .pacnew to the filename. The other way is NoUpgrade, which leaves everything as is without even giving a warning. None of these compare to the usefulness of dispatch-conf. But if there are better ways, please do enlighten me.

If you like tinkering give it a shot. The guide and the wiki have enough information to assist you. Pacman is really good. If you just want a working system give Manjaro a go ( aka prericed Arch with gui instalator ).

start with Ubuntu or Mint or maybe Fedora

don't listen to trolls

Can you follow simple instructions? Do you know what software you would like to use, it would you rather the decision be made for you? Do you like to try new things?

For arch, yes, I want to choose on my own, I am willing to choose, I like new shit.

The installation is easy enough to copy paste, if you don't want to stray from the beaten path. A monkey could install arch with the defaults. The part I had the most trouble with us the incredible variety of software. I had 10 great browsers to choose from, and the option of 200 shitty browsers for porn. A long list of torrent clients, helpful daemons, tools, functions, everything. There's so much to choose from it can be paralyzing. That's the only hiccup with arch.

Have you ever used a computer before? if no, then yeah Arch could be good to start with. Otherwise no.

Arch starts with a CLI. It has no programs installed and many things do not work out of the box. If you read the manual that explains how linux works then perhaps you'll enjoy learning how you can make Arch into your desired system. But if you come from Mac or Windows directly and without reading the manual then I doubt you'll enjoy it. It'll just be frustrating.

Instead if you install something easy like Ubuntu and then spend some time with it, learn how it and linux works, get used to it, then switch to Arch, you'll have an easier time. If you want to use linux long term then I suggest start with ubuntu.

>None of these compare to the usefulness of dispatch-conf.
Jesus, and you call Arch users autistic. Literally no distribution does this by default.

>Arch starts with a CLI. It has no programs installed and many things do not work out of the box.
Gentoo, Void, CentOS, and every BSD are the same shit. Arch comes with a streamlined (for CLI) install process and even comes with d-bus per-configured. You don't even need to manually raise your network cards.

Arch is not as hard as the funny brainlet comics imply.

hey fuck you, dnf is brilliant.

This is for you

I'm not calling Arch users autistic, I'm calling their way of handling configuration files retarded. Even fucking apt has something like this for some packages.

Do you have a brain? If the answer to that is yes, then go ahead and use Arch.
If you don't have a brain, then use Ubuntu or stick with Windows.

Serious question. Look deep and consider if you have a brain or not. A lot of people think they do, but they don't.

>you will much better understand how your computer works
>implying he still won't google every issue

Real useful skill.

I installed it myself like a week ago and I'm not that experienced with Linux as well

Installation was pretty easy and straight forward and I have a nice set up OS by now without much hastle / time spent

Arch is annoying.
Updates - hunt for dependencies - updates - bleeding edge bugs - updates ...
Never understood the appeal of this shit. So many people from other distros are trying to test packages (even invent automated testing) and make their systems as usable as possible and then come Arch babies and say fuck all this we want the latest systemd bugs in our distro right now!
I mean different strokes for different folks but I just don't understand why anyone would "arch". It's not tlike running it can give some knowledge that you can sell later.

Yes

If you don't know how your computer works you won't even know wtf to google.

rpm is great, a lot better than apt. Much faster but pacman's atomized commands are a lot better than any other package manager out there for me be it RPM, emerge, or pkg.

wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman/Pacnew_and_Pacsave#Managing_.pacnew_files

>trial by fire
>reading instructions is hard

>I mean different strokes for different folks but I just don't understand why anyone would "arch".
It's a no-nonsense distro. It's only flaw, other than the dev community, is systemd.

>implying the quality of Sup Forums wouldn't rise if half of you fuckers learned how to google shit

usually "harder" distros are more stable (e.g. gentoo, nix, or even lfs) than arch.

>reading instructions is hard
>reading instructions
good goy

>2017
>using xorg.conf

Depends on what your goals are. If you want something that just works, then no. If you want to learn something along the way, them maybe, because it still depends how far you're willing to go.

From the least to most automated installs:
>Linux from Scratch
literally do everything yourself, you are essentially just following a specification and reading about how things work
>Gentoo
compiling your own programs from source, everything is already packaged nicely by the community.
>Arch
binary disto with a CLI install. probably helps you learn about how some of the lower level userspace stuff works, but only if you actually read the wiki and other resources instead of using a variant with an "easy" arch installer.

As someone who started with Arch, installing from cli is a great way to get comfortable with it and learn a bit about shell commands. I had to start over a few times (Ok, didn't actually have to, but I thought I did) but I feel like if I ever change distros, there's going to be some counterpart to what comes in Arch. The whole 'break your system' memes are probably overexagerated; I imagine it happens to any rolling distro.

Again, if you don't really care about lower level userspace stuff, don't bother. The only differences in distros aside from the installation processes is the package manager, repositories, community and defaults. If you just want stuff to work, or want to rice stuff, just install something close to what you want to achieve and change whatever you don't like.

You never used the "harder" distros. You're insane if you think something like Gentoo is more server-worthy than Arch as far as stability.

>what is debian

yes. Arch is literally made for children who think they're smart. You'll have no problems besides timesink OP.

>Gentoo
>not autismus maximus

I'm an arch user, long time, studying for professional systems administrator job, I don't bite the meme that arch makes you understand your computer more. It doesn't. That shit is for templeos and LFS. Moreover, that's for sperglords.

I'll tell you what arch is actually good for. You don't need to know HOW a computer works. Arch is easy, you need to know 10 commands for anything you want to do. Everything else is choice. Arch Linux is the bread of computers. It's simple, it's easy, you can put whatever you want on top. "Learning more about your computer" is like homemade sourdough with wild yeast. You may find it better, if you're into that, but it doesn't change the fact that you'll use it to make a sandwich anyway.

With arch (store bought sandwich bread), Gentoo (home baked bread with instant yeast), or Linux from scratch (I left flour and water in a cup in a cabinet until penicillin formed, and I used that to make the bread), the toppings are what matter. Other Linux distros are premade deli sandwiches. Blt is Debian, tried and true. Ubuntu is a Reuben, zesty, orange, polarizing, and has appeal to a younger audience. Windows is playing spaghetti with a slice of American cheese on it. If you'll excuse me, I need to go to lunch now.

keep projecting, Archkiddie. I'll enjoy the world's most versatile package manager.

It would be a bit painful, but it's certainly possible.

>versatile package manager.
>has a mailing list, a timezone setter, and package manager in one
Systemd of package managers. It's alright but Source Mage's Grimwoire is better.

gentoo stable branch is pretty much debian-tier stable software, and with hardened it is a okayish choice for servers (not like anyone would use it over rhel/centos/debian or bsds, but it's certainly better than arch). but that's beyond the point, as i didn't even mean server usage, but normal daily usage stability.
the unstable branch is, well, unstable, but it still didn't give me a lot of trouble when i used gentoo. used it for a little over than an year on ~amd64, the only (major) issue was when a udev update made the system unbootable, and i needed to chroot from a livecd to downgrade. usually when updates failed it was on compilation.
nix is certainly better due to atomic upgrades, and lfs is as stable as you want it to be.

>harder
>debian

>harder
>debian
my point exactly

>need to update system
>load avg hits 50
It's okay if you have a separate Gentoo emerge build machine on your network. Otherwise, i don't think it's practical for servers.

Arch isn't either really for anything mildly professional or public facing.

only dumb ricer babbys use arch

Literally any debian derivative with a DE is a good start. Try mint or Ubuntu and get a feel for that first.

This

Not this

But Gentoo actually has a role in servers. A minor one, yes, but it's definitely being used, unlike Arch.

eselect is just a symlink manager with a variety of different modules, not at all comparable to the monolith called systemd.

>Debian
If you're new, sure. If your PC is old or for grandma. Otherwise, you want at least something with RPM. Fedora for example.

Clearly, you have never used anything like Arch if you think it's for ricers. I use it stock.

can I opt to install binaries on Source Mage? I can on Gentoo.

lol no

>when your package manager reads news, sets timezones, sets locale, op top of installing packages
Kek

Source Mage is a fork of Gentoo.

This. You won't learn fuck by going to the install guide and copying commands, just read a book if you want to learn unix. then you can use whatever you want.

is you make it past the installation and then you chose to install KDE, Gnome or some other DE that comes with all features then you fine.

BUT if you decide to go for a meme DE like for example i3 then you are finished and no one will be able to rescue you.

My bets are that you wont make it past installation

you're overestimating how often gentoo stable updates, usually there's only about 10-20 packages a week on a normal desktop, and i imagine even less on servers. also, only huge software takes this long to compile (even the linux kernel only takes about 5 minutes, if you're not a retard that used genkernel --all),
you don't need to dedicate all cores for compilation, and a separate build machine isn't that farfetched either, depending on the application.
but, as you said, it's hardly the best option for servers.

Don't listen to anyone in this thread. They're all dumb poorfags and don't even have Sup Forums passes.

Do not install arch as your first distro. I would strongly recommend installing Debian first, and then after spending at least a month becoming comfortable with it you can give arch a shot.

>Debian
>If you're new, sure.

That's literally the point of why I mentioned it. Did you not read "someone who has never used linux" in the OP?

>Clearly, you have never used anything like Arch if you think it's for ricers. I use it stock.

No I haven't, and I don't plan on it. The distro is run by literal manchildren; not used for anything remotely serious.

>Source Mage is a fork of Gentoo.
but it doesn't use portage?
doubt.jpg

>No I haven't, and I don't plan on it. The distro is run by literal manchildren; not used for anything remotely serious.
What kind of autist are you that you think you use "the best" software and everyone else is just retarded?

Different people have different use-cases. Distros like Mint are objectively shit because they are just worse versions of other software.

1. Compile code... its fine.
2. Compile same code, tell compiler to optimize. Find out code no longer works, bug!
3. Ask someone where to turn to report the bug.
4. Being told it was my fault.
5. Proving that it isn't.
6. Being told they would have done it differently.
7. Arguing that's irrelevant and there is still this bug.
8. Being told GNU is free and expect no warranty.
9. Arguing yah I know, and now I contribute by reporting this bug!
10. Being told I'm rude.
11. Arguing "I'm sorry, I only try to help!"
12. Being told "Fine we will take a look at it" after a year and the latest release of BCC: bug is still there.

eselect is not the package manager, it's a tool shipped with it. The news reader is for news about changes in packages that may require manual user intervention, and thus is very relevant to the package management system. Setting the locale without eselect would just involve editing a few files, so this tool is just a nice-to-have. The timezone thing, the only one out of your list actually involving the emerge command, is part of configuring the package "sys-libs/timezone-data". Explain to me how configuring a package from the package manager is wrong.

And Source Mage is not a fork of Gentoo. It's a re-release of Sorcerer, which is not related to Gentoo either.

fat faggot

>What kind of autist are you that you think you use "the best" software and everyone else is just retarded?

I don't think that. People have different use cases and if you like and use arch on your desktop, that's fine. Does it meet the use case for OP? Nope.

I'll tell you right now though, I can count the number of servers I know that run arch on one hand. It's not used for anything server related, the gotos are usually debian-stable, ubuntu-server, fedora, cent-os, or occasionally gentoo. It's never used for anything that requires stability because the devs care more about bleeding edge rather than making sure the packages actually work.

>Distros like Mint are objectively shit because they are just worse versions of other software.

Mint is fine if you're new to linux. Lots of community support, includes full suite of out-of-the-box software, easy to use. That or Ubuntu is good way to get into linux for a desktop user that doesn't have experience with the terminal.

>A minor one, yes, but it's definitely being used, unlike Arch.
Arch with LTS Kernel is stable as literally anything else. It's fucking great if you don't care about bleeding edge and wanna use pacman and AUR. It nullifies the existence of Manjaro, too.

yes, start with Debian.

how Arch works*

yes, arch is "debloated" to the point where it's useless on first install. use manjaro or antergos (my choice) instead, or learn to add the AUR to another distro of your choice. Distro doesn't matter as much as filesystem does

Antergos.

Nah, but try to move away from systemd when you can.

>brainlet

It's the best starting choice IMO. It won't teach you as much as Gentoo but it also won't burn you as much as Gentoo.

>ricer babby

>i3
>images are all dynamic window managers
what did he mean by this

pretty sure a few there are i3-gaps.

i3 is a dynamic WM

Nice rebuttal. I'll be sure to consider that next time.