Desktop thread

...

Bit of a nub, but I'll throw in my opinion for giggles n' shits.

Getting things set up with Arch is more time consuming. Even simple things such as setting up a printer over wifi is a task, where as mint already has that software ready to go. Arch was my first step into Linux, and it was a bit of a nuisance at times because of this. I've been using Arch on my work laptop for 8 months or so now though, and it's been running fine. The biggest hurdle is the install and the first week when getting everything up and running and fixing basic bugs here and there. Be prepared to get your hands a little more dirty, but once you have your basic software ecosystem installed and working, it's very nice to use.

Pacman and yaourt are nice and simple, and have pretty much everything you could ever need. The Arch wiki is incredible for any problems you run into as well. I haven't had any problems with updating causing bugs (as is the worry for using a distro that's "bleeding edge"), but only time will tell. So far Arch has ran a lot smoother with less bugs than other distros like elementary. Little bit easier to work with once you figure it out since you don't have to figure out how to reverse things that come pre-packaged in other distros.

muh games

smh hex.

go fuck yourself, you're not a 1337 hacker now assface.

nice

Never said I was a 1337 hacker. You're projecting a bit there, autist.

wut

smh tbh.

twitter speak

You must be new, one simply does not just choose one or the other. Arch and Mint are VERY different and are at two different levels of experience.

Mint is for beginners/casual computer users who don't know what they are doing so Mint does it for them.

Arch is for people who have experience with Gnu/Linux file system and can build the system with the packages they want (using the terminal and commands).

An example, when you want to install one or the other, Mint will casually do the installation process for you, where as Arch doesn't have an installer by itself.

It's not really a matter of which one is better, it is more a matter of which philosophy fits yours.

To me, Mint is less security because of how they prioritize root/su/user privileges and their shit repository and Arch is the exact opposite. Another example is Mint asks you if it can download non-free/proprietary software and again Arch seems to be the exact opposite. ;)

I would suggest if you're new, to use these distros for awhile:
Mint → Debian → Arch

Arch is for people who are this retarded:

...

Thanks, I wouldn't say I'm new, but I'm definitely not experienced enough to start using arch yet. I'm sure it's an great challange and I'll learn a lot. I'll follow your device!

:)

Anyone know a lightweight distro? I got this old eMachine and i recently installed mint but it struggles with it, so im looking for something lighter.

Which desktop environment did you use?

Well looking at what Mint offers right now, the lightest DE you could have tried is XFCE. So maybe try Lubuntu.

rate my 1337 Gentoo install

why couldn't you have posted this on 4/g/

don't believe him, it's a pasta about gnu/Linux/gentoo

Arch comes prepackaged with tons of stuff, most notably pacman, which installs things for you in a single command.

the main difference with mint is that you need to choose most components and install them using command lines

...

no bully

some of the icons i have wouldnt be legal to post here

final stop, /suicide/

back to a better day

go back to 1960 ph4gg0t

...

Fuck
its good, except that top bar is giving me hemorrhoids 6/10

DATAMINE THREAD

ebin meme dude, mind if i borrow xD

linux sucks pee pee, you losers

Fuck off back to 4chan with your shit thread.