Arch Linux is the best OS, prove me wrong

Works fine for me.

I'm a GNOME user that used Fedora and got tired of slow release schedules, never has broken, update my network maybe once a month or if LWN tells me something serious has been released.

Actually the only problems I have had were with the "stable" kernel, it started shitting the bed on my workstation due to Intel faggotry, I believe. Didn't want to debug it, so installed LTS kernel. Now I have both, switched back to stable a month or so ago and the problems seem to have been fixed.
If problems crop up again it's as easy as selecting the LTS option during boot and it saves my kernel selection until I change it.

Although I do wish they'd hurry up and enable secflags, they've been dragging their feet on it for years. I don't really worry about it though, it's a nice thing to have but better than Fedora by miles in every other respect for a lazy power user. I can get my hands dirty I just don't want to.

Packaging for Red Hat is also a pain in the ass. Mocktool is an improvement but it sucks ass. Thankfully I don't have to maintain anything other than ffmpeg for my in-house CentOS packages.

Is Debian cucked? I was thinking of using that as my first linux distro.

If it fits your use case, then sure it's the best OS for you. It's definitely not my favorite though, and the user base is terrible.

Debian is alright. If it's your first distro though I'd recommend not using stock Debian. MX might be a better choice.

It's okay, won't be as beginner friendly as ubuntu as your first distro, but you will get the hang of it if you're willing to read wikis, whats Holla Forums's opinion on OpenSUSE?

Debian is good. It's good as a first Linux distro if you're willing to read a manual or at least use a search engine to find out how to do basic things. You can't find out everything you need to know just by using it. That said, learning how to use it is not hard. The things you need to look up are easy, just not obvious. If you have the right mindset it's easy.

So basically, if you're interested in learning how a system works under the hood, Debian is good. If you want something that's as simple as possible to use and don't plan to get into the technical stuff, Linux Mint is better.

Its impossible to install.

Ive used linux for about a year and never had to partition anything in a fucking terminal besides shit like mkfs and dd. Im not gonna spend an entire day learning how to use pointless cli tools just because the arch devs are such pretentious faggots they removed their installer...

Yes, they used to have one. They removed it. Because they like the sekrit 1337 club feel.

Didn't the guy who made kill himself?

I don't think they're particularly cucked. I like using Debian for installs where I just want the most regular thing I can get with the least hassle. It's a great choice for a first distro, actually.

Use GParted first, it simplifies Arch installation by a lot. If you can't install it after using GParted you aren't reading the wiki hard enough. It's by no means "impossible to install", there are only those incapable of installing it.

I think he meant parted

I meant GParted (Live CD). You can use either but I prefer the graphical version.

pacman -Rns $(pacman -Qtdq)

That's a slightly different obscure procedure that invokes pacman twice. What are you trying to prove?

I don't have any trouble with the installation except for the partitioning. I know about the underlying workings and all that, the problem is simply that I don't know how to use the cli partitioning tools. I know exactly the kind of setup I want, with LVM/crypto, and how it works, it's just the actual tools I can't use. And I'm not inclined to spend hours learning something that I'll never have to use again just to install a distro that forces its users to do everything manually for literally no reason.

I might try Gentoo some time, as a challenge. That distro actually makes sense despite being near impossible to install. There's a very good reason they don't have an installer; and in that case I'm cool with it and might try it. Arch is not a meta-distro. An installer would not interfere with the goal of Arch. There is no reason to not have an installer for Arch. It's just an unnecessary time-sink.

m8, I'm not him, but it's literally what the Wiki says to do
wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman/Tips_and_tricks#Removing_unused_packages_.28orphans.29

Use cfdisk for MBR, cgdisk for everything else. They were the first command line utilities I've ever used and it was easy to figure out.

I know. The other slightly different command I posted is somewhere else on the wiki. I think that something you need to look up on a wiki because it isn't easily available in the man page counts as obscure.

...

you have under one hour to setup an OS

I can, but I want to pipe commands for unusual operations that have to involve multiple programs, not for something I might run every time I remove a package. With apt I can even run it at the same time I remove a package, with "apt-get autoremove ".

I'm just leaving this here.
archwomen.org/