Arch Linux hate thread

>he thinks he knows Linux because he copy and pasted commands from a wiki

Discuss why Arch users are the biggest hipter-douchebags.

Other urls found in this thread:

packages.debian.org/source/stable/mesa
packages.debian.org/source/sid/mesa
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

He hates Arch because he fails at copy pasting commands from a wiki.

>distrocucks
everyone knows that the most important variance within linux is what filesystem you use

/thread

Because they think It's rolling release and stuff like Debian isn't.
Arch may be rolling release, but Debian can be that too if you switch to sid.
Fedora has rawhide
OpenPepe has tumbleweed
Jewbuntu probably has some other thing

In short, you can make anything bleeding-edge. You don't need Arch for that.

Also, when I installed it, unprivileged users could shutdown and reboot. While I'm sure there's a way to fix this, other distros default to requiring superuser access to do this.

So what fs should I use to be a patrician?

thats good for me m8, no other users on my machines but me, and i dont like typing my password every time i want to shutdown or reboot

zfs

>no other users on my machines but me
Are you sure, user?

Ubuntu doesn't

I've never really seen these tfw to intelligent arch elitists that everyone is sperging out about
what I do see on a daily basis is "FUCK ARCH SUBHUMANS REEEEEE" faggots like you though
no shit it's easy to install, that's just a dumb rebbit meme

So what step did you fail on op?
What did arch do to hurt you so much?

New topic-
What grade level can OP read on, and how is it not higher than 2nd grade?

why would i want to install a distro that the devs made with a specific user experience in mind, just to change that experience
because int he end you can make almost anything out of any distro

It's a systemd default. Other distros are the same way.

Debian, Void, and I think Centos/Redhat do.

By the way, did you try shutting down from the command line? as in "shutdown -h now"? Or did you just use the clickybutton?

Perhaps it is, but distros such as Debian, Void, and as far as I recall, RHEL, seem to change this default.

poweroff in commandline works since the switch to 16.04, it didn't before. Probably related to systemd. (But in that case, other distros shoud have the same behavior)

Void doesn't use systemd. I would expect debian and RHEL to change that default given the target audience. But yes, this behavior is due to systemd and I agree it's not ideal.

It'd be pretty weird if Ubuntu went the extra mile to change something back Debian changed.

Arch user, but I'm beginning to hate it nowadays because it's so fucking mainstream.

Meanwhile Gentoo is dead so I can't move there, maybe NixOS/GuixSD...

And according to Debians Wiki an unpriviliged user can shutdown the system with systemctl as expected.

I would highly recommend GuixSD. It seems to be a very good distro, up to date, and is actually made by GNU, which as a result leads to it being stallman-approved. If you care about that.

>disliking something because it's mainstream
now thats some autistic point of view considering GNU/linux itself isn't even anything near "mainstream"

ah, I did not know that. I was referring to the standard "shutdown" command when I mentioned that.

Migrate to Artix and have arch without systemd.

On systemd shutdown is just a symlink to systemctl.
Which means it will work if someone uses shutdown in the commandline.

Wait. So shutdown isn't shutdown? it's systemctl whatever?

wtf I hate systemd now (well I always kinda did, but holy fuck!)

Symlinking different commands to the same binary isn't new and has been done before systemd.

Well I knew about /bin/sh being a symlink, but that happens literally everywhere as far as I know.

That's far from the only point where this happens.
A program knows how it was called so it can behave differently depending on how you called it.

Thanks, I'll give it a try!

systemctl --help | less
end button (ur powerdown/suspend options are at the bottom)

Another ubiquitous one is gzip/gunzip/zcat.

>when you install your distro from scratch and configure it for weeks to end up with a less stable ubuntu

Truely the choice of the most technologically advanced of men. And I deliberately said men, because puny low iq femanoids wouldn't even be able to use it.

if you can install arch linux you can do anything. R-right guys?

f2fs on flash, xfs on spinning rust.

but you need arch for the AUR and pacman

Exactly. At least with other minimal, rolling-release systems, you get some benefit out of doing this.
Debian is Free as in Freedom (just don't enable that nonfree repo)
Fedora is upstream of Redhat. Very enterprise, Good thing to learn in that regard.
OpenSuse I think is also fairly big in the enterprise, at least in europe afaik

Only big fat retards use Arch. That is why the arch in the Arch logo has a big fat retard sitting under it

Hello, young GNUser!

Different distros use different package managers. You may be familiar with pacman, as an arch user, but there are actually many different kinds of package management systems, such as yum, dnf, apt, et cetera. While it's true that these distros do not have an AUR, they often have plenty of packages in their main repos that can handle just about any task.

This. It's gotten to the point where I don't even mention what distro I'm running because of all the sperging. I don't think I'm smarter or better than anyone else just because I decided on a distro that reminds me a lot of my first love (slackware) without all of the headaches, and at the end of the day what the fuck does it matter what distro someone is running? If it works, and they're happy, then who the fuck cares?

>just about any task.
for u

aur is objectively the largest repo in any distributon

Nice banepost

Debian Sid tends to have somewhat outdated packages compared to Arch.
Rawhide is not meant for daily use.
OpenSUSE has shitty defaults.
Ubuntu doesn't have an official rolling channel.
Aside from Gentoo, Arch is the distro best suited to bleeding edge fags, the others can't compete and often don't even want to.

your actual argument was that everybody should just stop using arch because they couldn't possibly have a reason for using it.

Interesting.
Can you provide references to some applications that are outdated in Debian?
Can you provide examples of OpenSUSE defaults that are shitty, compared to the ones used for Arch?

GNU Screen

as usual, fpbp

I must clarify. If you have a task that can legitimately only be handled by Arch GNU/Linux, then you should absolutely 100% use it. I was merely explaining that for most cases, it really doesn't matter, and all common packages are available everywhere.

It appears that both Sid and Arch use the 4.6.1-1 release of GNU Screen. According to the web-based package searches for both distributions.

Mesa

copy pasting commands from a wiki works pretty well though, it gets your problem solved and teaches you what to do

From the search again, "mesa" doesn't appear to be an exact package on Debian, but split into several. Arch has a "mesa" package at 17.2.2-1. The various debian packages all mostly seem to be around this version, although versions for very obscure install types, such as kfreebsd or hurd, are out of date.

>and teaches you what to do
No, it doesn't. To actually learn something you'd have to understand what you type/paste to solve your problem. If you just copy and paste you'll only learn that you once found a solution to that problem, but you'd need to find it again.

Why are you wasting your time?

not everyone is brain dead and just mindlessly copy/pastes commands without understanding what it does first

They are still on 13, m8

Because I feel like it, and I actually wanted to see if he had a logical point with his claim of outdated packages.
It appears he does not.

But enough people do it that I wouldn't claim that copy/pasting commands will teach you what to do.

You can be smug all you want for the next 6 months, until everything moves on except Debian, which will take another 3 years to get anything new.

link?

He doesn't know the difference between unstable and stable

I use Arch because the AUR makes it piss easy to find cool weird shit I'd never think of installing until I discover it, and because pacman is fast as fuck. It makes the distro, dar I say... fun?

Ah. You're talking about Stable! I was referring to Sid, which I am using in this comparison due to it being, in effect, a rolling release, and therefore a good thing to compare arch to.

packages.debian.org/source/stable/mesa

I'm well aware of it.
I just enjoy timely security updates, something Sid dosent have.

packages.debian.org/source/sid/mesa

Try that

Except it does?

desu Gentoo is the same, you just follow the handbook and the OS makes itself for you LOL!

>Does sid have security updates?

Not in the same sense that stable does. If the maintainer of a package fixes a security bug and uploads the package, it'll go into sid by the normal means. If the maintainer doesn't do that, then it won't. The security team only covers stable (and possibly testing... there's a pending issue for that case).

Fuck off Jordan

Spot the butthurt tryhard who is upset that his OS is easy to install

Your one achievement in life worth bragging about is pathetic.

And where do you think the security team gets those patches from? Usually upstream. So, if you update to the newest version from upstream you also get all those security fixes which were already included by upstream. Just because they aren't called security updates doesn't mean you don't get them.

Which achievement is that? Not sure of any I've gotten.

Nice damage control, but Sid will only get security updates if the devs feel like it, which may be weeks.

>Sid users are strongly urged to subscribe to the Debian security announce mailing list. And while you're at it, you should also be on the Debian devel announce list and Debian devel list.

Basically DIY security fixes for Sid

Arch Linux provides the best balance between speed, power, and ease of use. Like it or not, this is what peak performance looks like.

>will only get security updates if the devs feel like it
Just like any distro?

>DIY security fixes
No, you just run a regular update. You know, like on any distro.

No, sugerbun, Sid is for testing and bug fixes, not intended for desktop or daily use, as clearly stated in the security section. They don't give a fuck about security, it's not the point of Sid.

And? The point of Sid is to integrate new verisons from upstream. It's the same as any other distro that stays close to upstream in this regard, including on how to get security fixes.

Avatarfagging also never was the point of Sup Forums, and you still dared to start it anyway.

>Different distros use different package managers
I started with Debian and Ubuntu based distros so I am very familiar with apt-get, aptitude, and apt. I do not find them to be anywhere near as good as pacman. I tried to use openSUSE for awhile, but ended up going back to Kubuntu at the time specifically because yum was such a piece of shit.

>While it's true that these distros do not have an AUR, they often have plenty of packages in their main repos that can handle just about any task
Just because there may be one or more applications which can do a particular task, that does not mean I am satisfied using those applications for that task. I prefer to use the application which suits my needs best rather than settling for something less just because it happens to be in the official repos. I don't enjoy hunting around on the internet looking for PPAs to make up for deficiencies in the official repos either. This is why the AUR is absolutely essential for me.

Is that performance wroth installation? Like does it saves you enought time?

You don't have a 1.2Gib folder full of the 3rd best President? Not sure why I expected a Debian user to not be a pinko homosexual, but here we are.

I use Arch because I liked installing it. And the fact that I set up every program that I use. Plus I like the AUR and the documentation

What's with all the arch hate? Arch users mostly keep to themselves and don't attention whore or anything

I use Arch Linux

...

systemctl poweroff

So do I, but not because I want to look superior or anything, but because I love the pacman and AUR system. I have installed all the packages I need, and solely those, so my system is very lightweight

>Gentoo is dead
lies

ntfs on linux. make it work with NTFS-3G

...

>not running best girl

>>he thinks he knows Linux because he copy and pasted commands from a wiki
Only a Linux Master can get copy and paste to work in Linux.

ext4 unless you are using bsd, then use zfs.

This discussion brought to memory the time when a bug in ffmpeg's thumbnail generation had a code execution exploit in it for a while.
Arch was the first distro to do anything, by disabling the thumbnail generation by default. For the few days it took ffmpeg developers to fix the issue, Debian Sid would've been vulnerable while Arch was safe.
That sort of thing.

What do you think of NixOS unstable?

Hope you read the source for everything you install