What's so special about arch linux?

How the fuck do you use 293 MB of RAM on idle with no graphical environment at all?
I can run ~330 MB on idle in fucking Mint MATE for gods sake.

too much systemd

Look at the color, look at the cursor, he's running a DE that is not recognized.

My Xfce PC is even worse and my KDE desktop i always above 500MB when idle. it's just pitiful.

It's pretty good for Linux newfags who want to learn how shit works. You'll never learn anything fucking around in mint when all you have to do is hurr durr press install lol

If the wiki wasn't good it would be pretty disadvantaged though.

You don't need to purposely gimp yourself to learn something. Besides LFS is arguably better for that task.

My i3 WM idles at 40MB ram.

check those repeating digits

I use it on laptops only because:
1) Alpine is not ready enough.
2) Gentoo on Core 2 Duo isn't fun.

This.
I used ubuntu for about a year or so and was stumped both when it came to troubleshooting and when it came to configuring stuff.
I ended up trying to install arch linux and I ended up with a much better understanding of how to configure and troubleshoot a linux system but not necessarily understanding of how it all works.
Still, I would recommend it for anyone who is willing to learn more about how to keep a linux system running.

Dank memes.

Get redpilled: lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2015-July/039443.html

I know the 2nd image is supposed to h have the illusion of rotating, but at that aspect ratio it fails miserably.

Its really triggering my autism

There is no advantage. Gentoo Portage kicks AUR up and down the field.

It just werks

Turns out I'm the highest tier already.

Really though, isn't Gentoo and BSD (isn't the fish NetBSD?) much harder than Arch?

fuckin gimp

Gentoo and the BSDs are not harder than Arch since things don't break after you sneeze on it

It's funny that Arch sells itself as simple and lightweight, but it's actually the opposite.

Except it doesn't.

Run python -m SimpleHTTPServer 8080

I'm an arch user for nearly two years now.

It's got its share of stupidity and its users are usually pure unfiltered autism, but there's a few things I like about it more than other distros.

- No monolithic updates
sure this could be a pretty stupid reason, but having to do full distro updates on several debian systems wore my patience thin

- Packages are usually really fresh and updated frequently
This is pretty nice to have. If I see some useful package I want to try out, 99% of the time its already packaged

- It's pretty light
I'm running KDE5, which kind of defeats this advantage, but as long as I don't run firefox the memory usage is really low

- It doesn't do weird shit behind your back
One of the biggest reasons I had. I started using linux when I got much more privacy conscious, and nearly every other distro was making sustained connections to all sorts of servers the entire system uptime. For a while I would manually disable these, but doing that after every package update was tedious. On Arch, if you monitor connections (with all internet-connected application closed) there is literally fucking nothing talking to the internet at all.

Nice meme. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I call bullshit. 330 mb with MATE pffff
kys
screenshot or gtfo

Use xfce4 or i3 both only use 200mb idle on my arch system.

I could downgrade packages if dev made a shitty update on their packages. :^)

I use 2 methods to understand how stuff work in unix systems:
1) Learn like a language: For example search "systemd+conference" on Youtube if I want to learn about systemd. Watch 2-3 talks. Don't worry if the language sounds gibberish. It will make more and more sense when I hear it later in another video, in another context.
2) Use Microsoft Technet site and read how it works in Windows. Then try to fit that in the Linux world.

I never used arch, but I often use their up-to-date documentation before searching anywhere else.

Rolling release.

Most software packages are using the latest release. (Give me ALL the updates!)

There are very few software packages that you will not be able to find on either the Arch standard repos or the AUR.

It also hits that perfect sweet spot in the spectrum for me between a complete DIY distro like LFS.

It gives me a package manager, and it's binary packages so I don't have to worry about compiling like Gentoo.

But it's also hands off enough that I can customize what I want much more freely without breaking something outside the bubble like in experience-crafted distros like Ubuntu, Mint, etc.

Just specify the Python version.
python2 -m SimpleHTTPServer 8080python3 -m http.server 8080
Not doing that and blaming the system for misunderstanding is dumb. I'm not a fan of Arch but don't blame it for this.

The only good thing you arch meme faggots created is a useful wiki.

not really.

Name one thing Debian does better and why

Running on non-x86 (because it can do it at all), not needing updates all the time (I don't like rolling release on my server), support for alternative init systems (sysvinit+openrc has official support and doesn't require uninstalling your file manager), support for freetard autism, easy fast guide-less installation, optional dependencies (--no-install-recommends makes package dependencies leaner than Arch's).

I'm sure I can think of some more if you want.

Well if we're talking about servers of course Debian is superior.

I prefer a rolling release for non-critical machines though. Most of the other things you listed while true, aren't really big selling points for me.

That's basically Manjaro

Is that really that big of an issue with modern tube speeds?

Debian sid is rolling release.

Doesn't Manjaro use different repositories? I wouldn't call it Arch.

Disk storage matters too. It's occasionally very convenient to leave out 200 MB or so of a large package collection.

Not him, but you are moving goalposts. We are talking about Arch vs Debian Sid, so "Not needing updates all the time" doesn't apply.

Really doubt you're going to save more than a few 100 kbs at most

It has its own repos that are basically held to make sure there aren't any critical bugs. I don't understand why you'd choose a rolling release distro and then try to take away the point of rolling release, but that's what they do. You still have access to AUR though. Manjaro is to Arch as Ubuntu is to Debian; they're called forks user.

Does antegros do that too?

Actually supporting free software by making Devs adhere to a social contract.
Actually supporting free software by standing up to Mozilla corporation's bullshit.
Doesn't have terrible security AND NON-FREE BINARY BLOBS. (See EFF documents and basically any security group and how they pretty much all don't support Arch)
Doesn't try to censor people who bring up the fact that they have terrible security. (See Arch forum)
Don't have developers who say "fix it yourself" when you tell them their software is buggy. (See Arch forum)
Supports multiple release models acknowledging the need for more than bleeding-edge desktop ricing.
Supports more than two architectures acknowledging the need for more than two architectures.
Did I mention the fact that ARCH ISN'T FREE SOFTWARE due to binary blobs?

Also, anecdotally everyone I know who uses it in real life is an autistic cringe-tier caricature of reddit.

`>>686469

What is this alluding towards?

What is this alluding towards?

No, antergos is literally just arch with a GUI installer.

It's convenient to be able to run the same distro on your laptop and server without having to make both rolling release or both stable.

You can save hundreds of megabytes when installing GNOME, TeX or KDE. I'm speaking from experience, not guessing.

Mozilla's trademark policy made distributing modified versions of Firefox potentially illegal or something. Debian rebranded Firefox to Iceweasel for years until Mozilla changed it to something acceptable.

The kernel comes with proprietary drivers. In Debian you have to explicitly install them as different packages to get them.

Mozilla's trademark over Firefox hasn't changed since it existed. What did change was their policy of what they considered a derived work of Firefox. You're not supposed to modify Firefox and brand the result as Firefox. Debian did exactly this by backporting security updates to older versions of Firefox. This is a completely sensible policy on Mozilla's part. What changed over time is their interpretation of what constitutes a "modified Firefox", they decided that “Mozilla recognizes that patches applied to Iceweasel/Firefox don’t impact the quality of the product”.

The issue of trademarks are totally orthogonal to the issue of free software. Free software relates to the distribution of software binaries and source code while trademarks relate to the branding of the software.

I've been using it for a good year now, and while there's been a few quirks that drove me up the wall, I like it as a tinkering system. It's also lightweight enough, with enough unofficial flavors that I can install it on damn near anything, given I can hook up a screen and a keyboard.

Used to be a very minimal binary distro for powerusers. Not sure what is the new one. Maybe Void.

I used Arch for a few years. It was my first non-Ubuntu distribution for home use. I've been on Gentoo for the past 4 years or so now.

honestly, nothing is /special/, its just another linux os.

I use it cause its what i started with cause i wanted to be a leet haxxor and it just became my default, its nice, it works, its got the AUR, i wouldnt say its better than other distros but its certainly a solid one.

postan

Alpine is a very good candidate, it's musl and busybox by default. Gotta purge that GNU of your system, and have an actual non GNU/Linux distro.

The arch wiki is the most informative wiki I've ever read, PBUH.

the slackware wiki is much better imho