Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence...

Upgrade to testing or unstable if you want new packages. What you describe is only a problem if you're using stable, which has no equivalent in Arch.

what's the point of using Debain stable if every package on there will require dependecies present only on 'unstable' repos

What do you mean? All the dependencies required by packages in Debian Stable are themselves in Debian Stable.
The point of Debian Stable is to have a system that changes very little. It means you don't have to update much and your system is predictable. I love it on servers and computers I rarely boot.

Designing your own OS is a measure of competence. Maintaining it is a measure of your dilligence. Creating your own kernel and compiler is a measure of your literacy.

Isn't he copied an existing project?

Also, writing your own compiler means you're a professional and not a nigger.

No. He did it almost all from scratch, although with inspiration from C, C++, the Commodore 64 and God.
The few parts written by other people are listed here:
templeos.org/Wb/Doc/Credits.html

Testing isn't really close to up to date. And for anything outside large/core packages they can be years out of date.

It's close enough for many purposes for which stable isn't. I only use stable and unstable myself but I thought testing was worth mentioning.

Install bsd.

b-but with bee-aess-dee i cant point out the difference between which one is the os and one the kernel

wtf? installers are cancer.
oh wow. i really need some shitty gui for that.
im a #debianmissile now

are you retarded? pacman has long options.

I can do that. I've gone through the process a few times. The thing is, why should I? It's more work and doesn't have any advantages. An installer is superior in almost all cases, and if it ever turns out not to be I can still use debootstrap to install Debian in The Arch Way™.
I think it's excusable in the case of Gentoo, which has an inane amount of install-time flexibility, but not for Arch.
Void Linux has an installer. FreeBSD has an installer. OpenBSD has an installer. Plan 9 has an installer. Fucking TempleOS has an installer. But Arch Linux makes you go through a set of easily automatable steps. Why?

Should I amend that statement to "Arch Linux does have an equivalent to stable, but it's hilariously insecure because it never gets patches"? Would you prefer that?

Good to see we do have an understanding.

Arch is amazing for autists with nothing better to do than play with the computer. You can pretend you're Mr Robot while pasting commands from the wiki.

That's it. Arch sucks for servers or workstations that need to be stable and secure. It's okay if all you do is waste time with anime and ricing.

lel

...

What did you just call me you little bitch? Go kill yourself with -9 you retarded sissy faggot, I actually use Arch this very instant. I have 10+ confirmed years of Linux programming and I was doing it when you were still in your mom's belly and she was blowing me under the desk. How about you kys you fucking nigger. Say that to me irl and see what happens.

Can you explain what makes the über leet installerless way any better?

you can do more stuff

Arch is the easiest distro to maintain. Pretty much everything is in the AUR and updating is easy. With other distros you always have a few packages that you must compile the hard way.

Can you give examples of stuff you have personally done that can't be done with an installer? In my experience the vast majority of installations don't benefit from being done the manual Arch way.

So what? The default installation (i.e. what 99 % of users are going to do) can easily be automated. For everything else you can still use the CLI. Every goddamn distro offers a CLI interface: Debian, OpenSUSE, Ubuntu, all of them.

The only one that removes features is Arch not because it's "more flexible" (no one with an IQ above 10 would try to use Arch in a sever anyway); but because it's more "pro". It's a rite of passage to use their shitty excuse for a distro.

Durr.

Even Arch's AUR is out of fucking date sometimes. I don't know why they haven't just made a linux package manager like npm that gets shit straight from github.

Damn son

This site used to run on Arch Linux

...

I remember from when I used Arch that there was always some weird breakage in certain programs that was always fixed by updating that I used as the cue for running an -Syu. I could never explain it other than Arch being Arch, but there would be unexplainable crashing and weird behavior in applications, and that's when I'd know it was time for an update.

So anecdotal evidence says otherwise.

So it breaks without even touching anything?

few years ago when i was shopping for a new office chair i came across multiple reviews along the lines of assembled with minimum effort and thought to myself that fucking guy uses arch. these people are like niggers proud they can read instead of being a another statistic.

It is not a problem of Arch users in their generality, it's a problem of OP sucking cocks as he always does.

It's a problem with a sufficiently large share of Arch users that the developers are actually convinced that adding an installer isn't worth the effort. It's a chronic problem in the Arch community.

I don't judge this distro for its lack of an installer, even though I agree it sucks, because the inconvenience it causes is largely exaggerated. That procedure is one-time, well documented and not that tedious tbh.

Judging it by its lack of installer is perfectly acceptable, as long as you don't let it overshadow everything. Minor inconveniences add up.
I don't think it's a large practical problem, but I it's symptomatic of deeper problems with Arch.

That's fine, to be honest I recognize myself in none of the problems which people say having with Arch, despite having switched to it from Slackware like 6 years ago.
It's probably because I'm a programmer with a simple use case, and not someone who spends time ricing or playing around with graphics drivers.
I enjoy the libertarian approach to package managing and the access to latest versions of compilers and scientific computing packages. And the simplicity to rebuild this or that for debugging, or keeping the system organized. That's it pretty much.

Because all an installer does is "unpack this software in the target location", and that's what pacstrap does. For configuration and such, sure, installers guide you through the most minimal configuration, but once installed you'll have to know how to edit that configuration manually anyway, and if you want to ever so slightly deviate from the most generic setup you'll end up ditching the installer most of the time.
Hell, all installing arch (and any other distro, for that matter) boils down to is:
1) Prepare/mount partitions
2) Install software
3) Configure kernel/bootloader
Steps 1 and 3 are not automatable unless you're installing on a clean disk, which is often enough not the case. Step 2 is as automated as it gets.
All the other shit an installer does is basically optional and could be done post-insallation as well, besides most things having pretty sane defaults anyway.

Memes. It doesn't. It has an inane amount of configuration options, yes, but any related to the actual installation process are also available on other distros such as arch. I'm talking about shit like custom kernel configs, bootloaders, FDE and other non-standard disk setups. The rest is USE flags, which aren't related to just getting the damn thing to boot.

Many distros' installers can automatically shrink existing partitions and set up a dual boot for you, actually. But even if you want more fine-grained control it's nice to just get a graphical partition manager at the appropriate point in the installation, with as little manual work outside the actual deciding of the layout as possible.
Can you give a concrete example of something you've done during the manual process that wouldn't have been possible or would have taken more effort with an installer?

Setting up a windows manager besides the default.
Installing a different init system.
And arguably setting up a swap partition if you can't live boot your pc.

2 of those can be done post installation, and most distros don't allow anything but systemd.

...

WHICHEVER OF YOU CHUCKLEFUCKS ACTUALLY TRY TO USE LINUX, DO NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM TRY ARCH LINUX OR A DERIVATIVE (ANTERGOS, MANJARO FOR INSTANCE). ARCH AND ARCHFAGS ARE THE NIGGERS OF THE LINUX WORLD

nobody wants to waste their time creating a installer for idiots that cant follow simple instructions from the wiki. if you want an installer dont use arch.

so i tried to install kubuntu on my laptop. i booted from usb, started the installer and got to the partioning part. i wanted encrypted root and encrypted swap on disk 0 and encrypted home on disk 1. i clicked onto advanced and had to figure this shitty gui clicky shit out. halfway through the installer crashed on me. after multiple tries and 2 non working installs (maybe im too stupid for kubuntus installer) i followed some guys instructions from the internet. it involved partitioning from the comnand line and starting the installer from the command line with an option telling it not to install the bootloader. after the installer finished, i had to edit fstab and crypttab and install the bootloader. i wasted half a day on this shit.

At least now you know more about GNU + Linux than 90% of Holla Forums.

What's so special about Arch to not have an installer? There are distros and operating systems that target more skilled users that do have one.
Is it just that Arch is a hobby distro, for people who don't value their time very much?

people who write installers dont value their time.

They value their users' time. They may not be writing it for free.

ebin

Arch is systemd infested. I think most infamously their file managers had inexplicable systemd dependencies at some stage. At least run Manjaro + OpenRC

Go back to >>>/g/

why

What's wrong with manjaro?

It's not 1337 enough for Arch fags.

Linux isn't a religion they said
Linux doesn't cause autism they said

I guess I'm incompetent then cuz I refuse to namefag

This shouldn't ever happen unless you manually make a partial update.

The kernel is BS, then you stick the os D in it

By the way, I'm using Arch Linux.
Just so you know, I thought it's important to mention.