Arch vs Debian

Go!

Arch is for ricer weeb faggots, Debian is for men.

>men use systemd

>implying performance matters for shitposting on Sup Forums and watching chinese cartoons

STOP USING ARCH YOU BUNCH OF MORON,
END OF THE FUCKING DEBATE.

They're all the same you retards. The only thing distros offer is binary compatibility.

Excuse me, in what world is the clusterfuck of randomly compiled packages with varying up-to-dateness in the AUR secure or performant?

nice jpg

>Arch Linux
>Low amount of packages
>Low amount of docs
What did they mean by this?

I think they mean default packages? Not sure, looks retarded

This is all wrong.
Debian's cutting edge-ness depends entirely on what branch you're on. Testing and Unstable I would say are very cutting edge.
Installation should be way better for Debian. it's basically a pointy-clicky installer now.
Hardware should be higher on Arch, as I think it has a blobbed kernel.
Also where's gentoo?

>Customise
All are equally customisable

>Fedora comes with SELinux configured by default
>Same security level as the distro that uses the AUR
lel

Arch has sytemd?

What does that mean?
Debian is the easiest OS to install in the world!

>Arch has sytemd?
yeah

debian has cutting edge, just use debian testing

mac os

Yes you idiot

>debian "installation" score is barely higher than Arch's which has no installer at all

That chart is objectively wrong on installation. I have had to help recover ten times as many fedora installs on UEFI machines as I have Ubuntu. The fedora installer is vague and often requires you to destroy a perfectly good EFI partition and create a whole new one just for it to install a bootloader, but it doesn't tell you that. It lets you continue with the install like everything is fine, installs the whole system, gets to the bootloader step and fails. It doesn't tell you why, or what to do, and I only figured it out by trial and error for a client. Ubuntu has no such problems, and the installer literally treats you like a babby and holds your hand through each step.

Given that such an important part of the process of installing and using an OS is given to fedora when it's probably one of the worst unless you just hand your drives over to the installer and trust it to partition your drives in a sane way for your use case, I can only imagine what other parts of these charts are given to bias. I'm not a distro hopper myself so unless I'm fixing someone else's fuck ups, the only distro I use is kubuntu on my laptop and Ubuntu server on my server machines, so I can't speak to the other sections of them without personal bias myself, but I certainly would trust a distro built towards getting normal people using GNU+Linux over a testbed for RHEL features, using the community as free QA/QC, any day of the week.

>ubuntu's is much higher despite being pretty much exactly the same installer

>OpenSuse less stable than Ubuntu
>Arch better performance than Fedora

kek

>muh sysvinit
>muh minimalism

>fedora
>less on desktop
What kind of retard did this guide?

devuan

>MUH SYSVINIT
>MUH MINIMALISM
>I DONT HAVE TIME TO WROTE PATCHES TO SUPPORT SYSVINIT ON DEBIAN BUT I HAVE TIME TO MANTAIN A DISTRO

>mint
>security

Debian is all you need.
/thread

Ubuntu Gnome with Steam

Debian maintainers actively reject sysvinit patches and integrate systemd as much as possible in everything

This chart is retarded, means nothing, and whoever made it is an idiot.

When you pretend your OS is security but all it takes is one MIM with good vector to push fake updates.

They are not even comparable to be honest. Debian is better for a server because of stability but arch is more bleeding edge

>arch
>low on packages when it has the largest repo, Aur
>low on community when it has one of the most active communities (barring ubuntu because 9/10 of the users are just there asking retarded google search tier questions) and wikis
>low on docs when see above, arch wiki is one of the best sources on linux documentation
>low on hardware when Aur has kernels to suit all the obscure x86 tier hardware and chipsets you'd ever need, moreso than any other distro
literally what
who the fuck made this even?

Why can't someone make a chart with uses.

I didn't see programming in the picture or gaming either.

>Debian
>Max on performance

>Fedora
>One tick lower

This is wrong.
Everything about this is wrong.

Arch linux is also whatever you want it to be. Just stick a question mark on it as you can tune it for any purpose.

Debian benefits from Ubuntu shit getting made for it, where Ubuntu makes money.

Theeee- end.

Use Artix

Debian stable sucks balls. The stability does not make up for the old ass packages.

Arch is better than Debian when it comes to cutting edge packages.

So Fedora is the most well rounded? Would you recommend it for a linux newbie?

I'd put Arch highest on community, even for the wiki alone, babbies from other distros use our wikis because they're the most comprehensive, and the arch forums have more support than any other distro.

Fedora is more server oriented. Mint is more Windows-like, from that list.

Is you have a powerhouse PC, you might want to check out Deepin too.

Use VirtualBox to try out all of the OSs you can get your hands on before a final decision.

Fedoras alright but then you'd have to tell people you use Fedora, and that to me, just isn't worth it. Use one of the Ubuntu forks like Xubuntu if you're new, if you're ready to grab hold of your cock then you should install Arch and learn on your feet.

>If
Fixed.

>moreso than any other distro
mips support is a a joke compared to debian and fedora
its literally one guy with a broken website

This image has been around forever. How accurate is it still?

No Windows 10 is for men. Only nerd virigns bother with mac, linux, and UNIX.
>inb4 angry replies from angry nerd virgins that will never know what it feels like to be inside a woman
Pathetic.

This. "Cutting edge" is synonymous with "getting the experience/features you want", which counts for nothing when it is customizable. Installation is moot as well since there are proper installers already. Debian is the all around best, Arch is a LARP OS.

>fedora is the most well rounded distro in the whole of dorkdom
brb installing rn

Devuan is a good time

They are the exact same fucking thing your down syndrome having nigger. The only fucking difference between the two is the package manager.

>Mint and ubuntu have different scores
>Mint is literally just Ubuntu with a different DE

I tried it this weekend. It's packages are too outdated. I opted to tear systemd out of Debian 9.2.1 instead.

Wasted my Saturday morning with it.

>noob on arch forums
>hello, i need help with this simple thing
>omg, just compile your own patched kernel and fix it, kiss

>noob on debian forums
>hello, i need help with simple thing
*no replies for 10,000 years*
>yes, it is fixed in this year's release

Why so much hate for systemd? yes, it's not the same but no matter what you're going for it's a win. Either you get proper context/cgroup limits by design, or if your system is minimalist it just starts instantly.
It's not perfect but holy shit nobody wants to go back to a miserable pile of interdependant shell scripts that only happens to work because ten thousand man hours were spent un-fucking them.

>all security is the same

i genuinely don't get all of the systemd hate

Laughs in linux mint

Actually mint becomes more and more diffrent than ubuntu

Debian is useful.

I installed Arch with Arch Anywhere installer on my Thinkpad and the touchpad didn't work right (it took steps forward instead of moving linearly) and the physical volume buttons didn't work. I installed Debian and both of those issues were fixed and everything else worked too. I shill Debian now, at least the nonfree ISO of it. It's the best hope for year of the Linux desktop.
>captcha: gratis galilei