Arch fags

>gets on reddit and sees le super smart arch
>quickly sucks a dick
>uses retard arch installer
>gets i3 for muh workflow
>spends more time fixing bugs and breaking their computer than getting anything done
get fucking ubuntu and actually get work done you fucking mongrals

Other urls found in this thread:

theregister.co.uk/2013/11/27/google_mac_support/
cio.com/article/3133945/hardware/ibm-says-macs-save-up-to-543-per-user.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

It's literally the same shit at it's core, retard. It really only comes down to default packages and package manager preferences. Nice ancient memes , though.

ran into one of these guys on cs:go. I wanted to make fun of him for falling for memes but he sounded like a Chad alpha.

What is with this irrational hatred towards Arch?

It's the Australia of distros

10/10 top metaphore

It got really popular and has just one too many fans be elitist about the tedious install process, especially after the Arch devs decided to dump the perfectly fine curses installer it used to have. Memes aside, it’s a fucking amazing distro.

this. sorry you're too fucking retarded to troubleshoot simple issues. I daily drive arch and it's comfy as fuck, and their wiki has had some documentation for pretty much any issue I've ever had.
install windows if youre retarded enough to need shit to
>just werk

the install guide details every step of the process. the wiki states explicitly that it is a distro that encourages technical competence. people misunderstand this as eliteism, and get assmad when they can't manage to read the wiki after something breaks, or doesnt just werk for them. usually transpires into something like OP's post, where he just spews nonsense and memes about it being bad to help him feel less dumb

The elitism is from losers on Sup Forums deriding users of “easy” distros. Imagine taking unwarranted pride in the fact that your distro doesn’t have an installer.

>Imagine taking unwarranted pride in the fact that your distro doesn’t have an installer

nigger what? you do understand arch does have an installer right? it's just not gui based

but that's beside the point, could you not say that getting ass blasted and posting these threads is "elitism" in the sense that an easier distro is more "elite" because it's easier to use? /gee/ needs to stop being so fucked in the head and just accept that by and large the only differences across their loonix systems are fucking init systems, package managers and desktop environments

>you do understand arch does have an installer right? it's just not gui based
No, it doesn’t. Stop pretending to be retarded boy.

>daily drive

Dear OP,

Image attached.

Sincerely,
Pro Arch user.

...

10/10 chuckled

>implying an installation image isn't an installer

what are you trying to get at faggot? explain how you install the system?

>not ashamed at all

>use ubuntu
>still not getting anything done
check mate atheist

Manually putting everything in place via chroot isnt an installer

Haven't you heard? It's only installation if it's formatting the drives automatically.

That's why it's called a package manager, not package installer.

>doesnt understand the install process
>Manually putting everything in place via chroot isnt an installer
you're right, but that's not how the base system is installed you mongoloid, do you even know what pacstrap is?

>Arch user calling himself alpha by larping
You tried

Haven't you heard? It's only installation if it's formatting the drives automatically

what are you even trying to say?

>use chroot to install packages
>it's not installation
"Manually" putting everything in place automatically with pacstrap and pacman.
>unironically archfagging

>Whereas many GNU/Linux distributions attempt to be more user-friendly, Arch Linux has always been, and shall always remain user-centric. The distribution is intended to fill the needs of those contributing to it, rather than trying to appeal to as many users as possible. It is targeted at the proficient GNU/Linux user, or anyone with a do-it-yourself attitude who is willing to read the documentation, and solve their own problems.


straight from the wiki, gtfo brainlets

A little script that creates directories and uses pacman to install files you call that an installer?

You have to partition and format the drives manually in cli, hence it's not an installer.
I've actually heard that argument.

install ubuntu 17.10 and brick your laptop

I didn’t say thats not an installation, I said its not an installer. Calling pacstrap an installer is like using a razor scooter to get to work and saying you drove

jesus fuck FINE, we'll call it the installation MEDIUM faggot, you still are yet to make a point about it though...

>Haven't you heard? It's only installation if it's formatting the drives automatically.
looool because everyone wants an installer to break all of their data. good thinking. So do installers also set up RAID, alternative mounting locations, and filesystem choices automatically? no. shit requires you to tell it how you want it.

Why would anyone who isn’t a neet get this OS?

I’m a (high earning) full time employee and when I get home I just want a computer that works, not something that creates problems for Arch NEETs to solve in their free time for fun.

That’s where Macs shine.

Archwiki mods were stupid nigger monkeys when they decided to delete the old "beginner's guide". It was one of the best installation guides, but they deleted it just because it was """too easy""".

People hate arch because it claims to be lightweight (when it's not!) and its users are often elitist fedora tippers (more accurately they just LARP and use an installer. then they pretend to be """elite hackers""")

Comparing arch to Ubuntu is not fair, however. Ubuntu repos are horribly organized and maintained. Ubuntu is more unstable than debian testing and all versions of ubuntu break after release-upgrade.

Arch is actually a fine distro but there are better options, like debian, gentoo or void.

>That’s where Macs shine.
kek. If you wanted to get any work done, you would use an OS that's actually usable, like windows or (better) linux. ofc using """Bleeding edge""" distro (like arch) for werk is dumb, but at least arch doesn't get in your way all the time. MacOS doesn't have a proper package manager or essential development tools (however, if you want to develop for MacOS or ios, you are forced to use MacOS & xcode. This is injustice imo, because software development tools shouldn't be locked to any OS (even ms has started to open-source dotnet. it really makes you think). Why use an OS that restricts your freedom to develop, tinker and learn? (i know that windows has this problem too, but at least windows has other benefits, unlike applel MacOS)). Also, I want to have computer that is actually well engineered and hasn't been designed to be replaced right away with the next model.

if macs are so bad why does google only deploy macbooks for their employees?

wrong

>theregister.co.uk/2013/11/27/google_mac_support/

>"There was a time when Macs were a small part of the Google fleet, but as of now if you start at Google and want to use a platform other than Mac you have to make a business case," says Clay.

also IBM: cio.com/article/3133945/hardware/ibm-says-macs-save-up-to-543-per-user.html

>Every Mac IBM purchases for its workforce saves the company between $273 and $543, depending on the model, versus the total cost of ownership of comparable PCs during a four-year lifespan, according to IBM. The upfront cost per Mac is typically higher than a PC, but the residual value for Macs is higher in the long term, the company says.

i am mistaken

despite this I wouldn't want to use a MacBook as a laptop, the keyboards in Macs are fucking awful. I could live using it as a docked laptop though

Back to noobuntu

Translation:
> user hears about Arch
> user thinks he's hotshit, and he doesn't need adult diapers today
> user tries to install Arch
> user realizes he's too illiterate to read the detailed guides
> salty user weeps and goes back to Ubuntu and proceeds to post bait