I don't really understand all the hate Arch gets. I only started using GNU/Linux about 6 months ago and my first distro was Arch. There was so much documentation and pacman + aur made it easy as shit to install anything. Sure it was a bit of a pain to set up initially but other than that it's been a walk in the park. Yesterday I decided to try out Debian and I actually found it a lot more difficult to get everything working the way I wanted. The documentation was terrible so it took me a while to work out how to add the non-free repositories to get wifi working and then I was trying to figure out how to get my trackpoint to scroll. I felt lost without the Arch Wiki spoon feeding me the answers.
There's an entire thread right now that lies out why people hate arch in the catalog right now. Also, the Arch user base is infamous for being insufferable faggots.
I think what contributes to this is that Arch is KISS - you may need to read things but *if* you are willing to read, it's much easier to understand. I tried to get into Debian packaging and there were about a 100 different documentations, every single one had a notice "this guide is unofficial and/or outdated". After a while I gave up on making a Debian repo. An Arch repo is super straight forward though.
Arch really does have a fabulous wiki, and it's not so bad if you really have a good internal model of what's going on under the hood, whatever it's 'aight.
Some people prefer a different feel, and that's ok too. It's a great distro for what it's for.
I'm not saying it's what I would prefer for most tasks, but I am saying it'll do some types of jobs very well. I mean, fuck rolling release voodoo, but beyond that, I could maybe see myself using it for some scenarios.
Personally, if I was going to go that route I'd probably just go for slackware or gentoo, but I can't say that no one should ever use arch for any reason.
What distributions do people use if they don't like systemd because all the ones without it seem seem pretty obscure. I wouldn't mind trying out an alternative but I feel like there would be no documentation to help me when something goes wrong.
Gentoo has a great wiki and a community that's used to things breaking.
Documentation applies to pretty much any distribution. I use the Arch wiki when I don't know how to configure something in Gentoo. You just need to know how they're different.
i've basically gotten sick of debians shit and i'm pretty sure devuan is full of SJWs as well i've started to look into making my own, only it won't be released on the net unless i get better internet and work out a few other issues
Every distro has its use. Anyone who can swear by any distro without mentioning its flaws isn't doing enough with it.
The five main pillars that have useful applications or excel above any distro in their area or Debian, Mint, Arch, Ubuntu server, Cent OS. Each of them has short commings.
Arch is very annoying if you are trying to set up some server software. It has a very limited package manager and the aur has a lot of potencial to be broken and will not be useful if you want security updates. It is meant to be used as a server based on its packages yet is not available on most vps systems. Also because of the way X is installed on it, it is much more likely for you to not fully configure for your hardware and that can hurt performance. It today's highly involved technology correctness yields better performance gains than "light weight" very often. Also compiling on it is sometime a pain because of limited libraries in the pacman and less consistent labeling of those libraries.
Mint. Mint as well as debian have packages that are severely out of date which can make it literally impossible to compile some thing. Arch as I mentioned before makes compiling somethings impossible. There is no system on which you can compile all things and so there is no system any person can rightly fan boy.
Debian, see out of date but worse. Running testing distribution breaks eventually if you apt-get upgrade too often. It's best to go stable then then switch to testing for things you need to be up to date. Every dependency where stable isn't sufficient will upgrade as needed. This is the best way to get around its limits but still, nodejs is 7 versions behind and that include some rediculously crucial security updates. If you put packaged node from debian on the open net you are retarded. Arch will get you much newer software than debian testing yet updates don't break the machine so if you need debian testing switch to arch.
CentOS, I don't know enough about it to shit talk it but I'm sure there is plenty. But that's where you are going to get prebuilt corporate goodies like OpenPBX.
Ubuntu Server. That's the best system for if you want a quick server that's correct and is going to be run the same way as every one else. Still out of date like any debian and sometimes in ways where you can't even compile your way out of it.
They are all good systems but they are all going to give you hassels here and there that really shouldn't be issues in the first place. You will save yourself loads of time by not trying to solve a problem on one system that is plug and play on another.
Forgive spelling errors. On Arch, no spell-check.
Slackware, Salix, Vector, Porteus or Puppy Slacko
Salix is small Slackware with package management. Vector is small Salix with extra tools, made for old PCs. Porteus is small Slackware for live USB sticks, but works fine as a clean OS. Puppy is for old PCs, same live USB stuff but more user friendly.
get the fuck out you normie faggot three of those are the same distro
Is that pic real?
If it is, I'm gonna move to Trisquel.
It's like fedora but more unstable debian is best distro
I've noticed arch to be unstable, but aur is a nice feature. Fedora is good but can be difficult to get non-libre software running on compared to other distros. Debian has been great for me. Centos is fedora but OLD + stable. I say OLD because don't bother trying on a laptop since old kernels (3.x.x) support fewer wifi devices than new ones. How does ubuntu server compare to debian?
Lol okay kid
Actually try Gentoo and come back to me later
But don't you know our distros packages are always 100% infallible and no one ever fucks with the configuration of their Linux box, or has a non standard set up in any way, so everything can be fixed and everything can be answered with apt-get install. :^)
-t Every "easy" normies distros documentation ever.
redhat/fedora is just shit dog shit
cent is basically ubuntu server (tm redhat)
Arch's wiki is excellent but it's a pointless distro like gentoo where you can't expect to actually use it for anything without it constantly falling apart and needing babied. Even if you're just using it for tinkering, having everything you aren't currently working on also be a moving target does not help.
Spoken like someone who has never maintained Debian.
Protip: you can upgrade year old installations of Debian motherfucking Sid and have it not break in the process (some input required in case the package manager fucks up, but it usually amounts to running a single command apt gives you in the same error report or running apt update again). Same goes for updating every day.
What are Debian Security Patches?
Debian Sid and Arch are about as bleeding edge. The main difference is that Debian is actually automated (to the point of being annoying, depending on your usecase) and has way more packages in its official repo, while Arch is way too manual.
Used it for awhile. I don't care about faggots, but damn it's unstable! After every update something brakes.
It's funny how pretty much all the Arch users would get nowhere without the wiki. I'm thinking that fedora wearing faggots are the only people that like Arch, because they know how to set everything "themselves" which makes them feel like the superior gents - with the wiki basically telling them exactly what to do.
I hear about how the community are big meanies, but the thing is, I've never interacted with them because the documentation is so damn good there's no reason to.
People are still afraid of gays instead of shaming and beating them?
Fortunately you're not limited to using plain vanilla Gentoo.
but I'm not afraid of fags. I just want to gas them.
The only problem with Sabayon is that the GUI installer doesn't have any option to encrypt the system partition / disk.
I have read that thread and all it basically said was "i don't like the arch philosophy" and beyond that said nothing relating to the operating system as the reviewer had clearly never used it (and even said this was the case)
mint is the best distro mint is
linux mint is
Back to >>>/windows/ with you
Whats wrong with using useful resources to learn?
Slackware and derivatives are great with for this. Because it's so old, there's a ton of documentation for it as well. If you want something with a larger community, AntiX and MX are Debian based but without systemd. AntiX has several WM's to choose from, and MX has a very decent XFCE. The other big contender is Manjaro's openrc version, which runs a great XFCE desktop (the other desktops just have the normal systemdicks version). These are the ones I tend to recommend if you want to keep things a bit easier.
The Arch guys are fucking assholes. I found a bug in their packaging system and they gave me shit for not already knowing about a workaround on the wiki. How about you fix your PoS software so I don't have to read a fucking wiki article to install a package.
I switched to gentoo and everyone was more knowledgeable and much nicer.
I used to use Arch. Arch has good wiki. I still use that wiki but I run Debian now because Arch gets tiring when you want to setup many (usually server) systems and don't want to sink time in babysitting them. Debian can do everything Arch can and more such as stable branch, many architectures and thought out updates where I don't have to deal with breakages, configs, etc. as much. Also I guess since Arch package manager is minimalist bullshit, in my experience system degrades in time, I guess because of configs/cleanups not being dealt with properly. AUR is kinda a meme. I have no idea how it's being taken seriously. Also it's funny watching Arch slowly adding features that already exist in distros like Debian as it get's more mature. Like Debian's maintainer says, they're just reinventing the wheel. Wasted effort. arch: can't do everything i need (server, can't have low maintenance) debian: can do everything i need (from stable branch low maintenance / server to testing branch desktop/laptop) install gentoo, read arch wiki, use debian
SIMPLIFIED The reason it gets so much hate is because archfags scream and yell at EVERYONE to use an unstable distro. Many like the repo setup arch has but hate how unstable it is. If bleeding edge is an issue Debian sid and Opensuse Tumbleweed offer reasonable stability as well as being rolling.
Stability is a issue with many linux distros and many don't have the time to waste diagnosing system crashes after a update. I use Xubuntu on my laptop because I need an very stable system that can run years without any major issues.
What really grinds my gears is archfags recommending rolling distros to complete linux novices. It completely boggles my mind to put that much frustration on a newcomer. My first experience with linux was after googling free operating system. Ubuntu 5.10 was such a joy and new contrary to windows I kept coming back from windows to transition to this new system. After 3 years I fell in deep love with linux.
It all starts with little bits of joy to entice newcomers, not spurging out whan newbies say xyz suck and banning people offering recommendations.
Bottom line this /g/ gentoo thing was a meme that became a living meme that morphed into a way of life adopted by early adopters.
Void is very stable. [Insert GNU/Linux pasta]
what does sticking your dick into other mens excrement holes have to do with OS?
oh just like how C plus equality claims code oppresses women.
He's calling Archfags faggots, fag.
Arch isn't even that unstable though. I found Xubuntu to be more unstable than arch
This is honestly the worst part of Arch Linux
True. I've been using Arch regularly on my machine for a little over a year. Other than KDE 5 breaking some stuff, nothing major has failed me.
The Arch community is the most autistic collection of Linux faggots rn. I stick with it because I like the rolling release model, no background systems/services mucking my shit up, and how simple it is to manage.