Which distro baits users into thinking it is something that is not?

Which distro baits users into thinking it is something that is not?

Arch. Reposting:

Arch has never been a minimalist distribution. Splitting packages is rare compared to other distributions, and dependencies aren't made optional whenever possible. Arch has *never* been minimalist... a Linux kernel with every module available and every feature enabled at least when there's no non-bloat related cost, feature-packed/complex GNU tools, nearly all optional features enabled across all the packages, etc.


>pacman is fast but not safe, it tends to break shit and config protection is implemented in a terrible way
>there is no official process to verify that a package is stable within the distro, in other distros a lot of packages are in a testing repo despite that specific package's developer claiming it to be stable on its own, because it might not be stable within the environment of a specific distro
>a lot of AUR packages pull from upstream, which means they could be very unstable
>(arch vs gentoo related) arch users complain about muh compile time when it comes to gentoo, while in fact they compile a lot of AUR packages themselves, namely the *-git packages that pull the source from a git repo
>but it gets even better: they only compile a handful of packages, and those not being libraries mostly, the self-compiled packages get linked against precompiled libraries from a different setup (e.g. different optimization levels), which can then cause even more instability because it's a clusterfuck of unequal shit
>arch uses (((systemd))) and switching to something else is hard
>apparently the vim package on arch pulls in X, so if you want to have a fancy terminal text editor on a headless server, you to install a shit ton of GUI stuff you'll never need nor use
>maintainer told the guy who complained to just symlink vi to vim (vi is inferior)

if you ask me guys, ubuntu. it may be easy, but it is not the distro for complete newbies to linux( there is mint for that ). To begin with, The DE should be totally alien to them and the software store in ubu is totally buggy-shit, so it is more useful with apt-get in console, which is something that a windows user would probably hate to use.

I guess elementary tricks users that it's not just Ubuntu LTS with Pantheon on top. Still like it though

What I must do now? Install gentoo? if it have something like yaourt, maybe.
t. Arch user who doesn't want to compile at hand, but want a minimal set and a do-it-yourself system

>Yaourt
yikes

Redpill me, why not yaourt? It's pretty comfy

in case of my machine, yaourt manages space poorly with big packages and it can cause bugs. If you want a trusty pack manager for the AUR, pacaur should be your best pal.

>>pacman is fast but not safe, it tends to break shit and config protection is implemented in a terrible way
you'll have to elaborate on what you're attempting to say there
>>there is no official process to verify that a package is stable within the distro, in other distros a lot of packages are in a testing repo despite that specific package's developer claiming it to be stable on its own, because it might not be stable within the environment of a specific distro
thats the point of the standard repo, pulling form the AUR is inherently dangerous
>>a lot of AUR packages pull from upstream, which means they could be very unstable
again, this is just the nature of the AUR
>>(arch vs gentoo related) arch users complain about muh compile time when it comes to gentoo, while in fact they compile a lot of AUR packages themselves, namely the *-git packages that pull the source from a git repo
k?
>>but it gets even better: they only compile a handful of packages, and those not being libraries mostly, the self-compiled packages get linked against precompiled libraries from a different setup (e.g. different optimization levels), which can then cause even more instability because it's a clusterfuck of unequal shit
if the developers are retarded (unequal shit? the fuck are you even trying to say) unless the developers have no fucking clue what theyre doing, they might be able to trigger some kind of bug this way, but compilation optimization shouldn't affect runtime behavior apparent to the user unless the programmers have introduced a bug in their code that would cause an issue with code or libraries optimized differently
>>arch uses (((systemd))) and switching to something else is hard
this is a retarded discussion,
>>apparently the vim package on arch pulls in X, so if you want to have a fancy terminal text editor on a headless server, you to install a shit ton of GUI stuff you'll never need nor use
uninstall the packages you don't use you chode

yaourt installs shit from the AUR without forcing the user to inspect the pkgbuild, this is dangerous as someone could put something malicious in the pkgbuild.

use the makepkg utility

Thanks! Will try it

its not like there are not good arch alternatives

at least not any that people can seem to ever name

i wouldnt inspect the package build anyway cause i dont have time

Ubuntu.
It's worse than Arch
:^)

ok, then you have to understand that when you install something malicious, or break your system installing something, that is explicitly your fault, not the distribution you are using

this

arch users on Sup Forums are mostly anime ricers that complain about compile time in gentoo but waste hundreds of hours selecting colors for their terminals, and that says a lot about the distribution

i mean i do understand this i run arch on one of my hard drives

you know the AUR has a rate and comment system.

honestly i have no problem with compile time on gentoo i just wish there was a script or something that would do most of the pre compile time busy work for me

>Pretending you don't rice your gentoo

if you want the sad truth is that arch users are also low-end thinkpad users, and they can't functionally use gentoo because of it, so they pretend that arch is the "barebones" distro.

anyone pretending arch is "barebones" is retarded and hasn't read the wiki, I just find binary distros easier to work with when I'm trying to get work done (software dev) , and is part of the reason I avoid the AUR unless I really need something. build from source distros are not well suited if you're actively trying to develop software and not spend time building packages you need to write code with. I love the gentoo philosophy, it's just that the time required to build and maintain a stable gentoo build isn't practical for a work machine I use as much as I do.

ecery distro there is tricks users into thinking linux is convenient or works well for desktop usage

>Install gentoo? if it have something like yaourt, maybe.
Well, Gentoo is a source-based distro. Its package manager, Portage, is all about handling the compilation of your packages. Just configure it, tell it what package you want, and it'll compile and install everything that's required. Its configuration has quite a few options that you can use, but to get started, you only need to configure a couple settings.
>minimal set and a do-it-yourself system
Gentoo is great for this. Some distros enable the vast majority of compiling options for most packages, resulting in pretty bloated packages, as well as huge dependency trees; many others aren't much better, but at least split off some options into extra packages.
Gentoo only enables some sane options by default and also makes it easy to enable any others you want - whether globally or by package.