Please explain
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
Dear /g/,
Please explain to me why Gentoo is a better distro than Arch Linux.
it starts with the letter g therefore /g/entoo
>>51974871
there both garbage with little to no benefit over something like lubuntu or xubuntu for being lightweight. They are both just time sinks to make people think there hackers and special because they can't do anything complex thats actually beneficial like working a fucking a job.
>>51974871
/g/ comes before /a/
fuck off
>>51974926
>what are rolling releases
>what is effective resource management
it's not. it's just different.
>>51974926
there's obvious benefits compared to *buntu, imho the package managers are a big enough reason.
>>51974926
I fully installed arch and configured it in under 1 hour, iz does not need further tweaking, since I got it right at the first time.
Some people are just not that incompetent and don't want to suck amazon's digglet.
>>51974926
Less bloat than Ubuntus, better package management, Canonical = ruining Linux etc etc
>>51974926
>there both garbage with little to no benefit over something like lubuntu or xubuntu for being lightweight.
I love ubuntu, but this is false. Arch is probably not wise to use as a server, but it is great as a home distro. It IS a time sink, but very fun and highly educational
>>51974871
Who makes Gentoo? What is the team like?
Any love for Fedora?
>>51974871$ uname -a
Linux anon 4.2.5-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Oct 27 08:13:28 CET 2015 x86_64 GNU/Linux
arch user here, no idea why i use this shit distro.
>>51974976
>Less bloat than Ubuntus
citation needed. pretty sure this "bloat" is all in your head
>better package management
are you seriously implying that pacman is better than rpm or apt?
look, i personally prefer pacman because i roughly understand how it works and can predict its behavior, but technical superiority is a totally different thing.
the package managers in other distros are complex for a reason.
>Canonical = ruining Linux
now i totally agree with this. fuck canonical and their nonconstructive NIH horseshit. upstart, unity, mir, bazaar: they're all shit and horrible to use.
>>51974992
>highly educational
sorry, but solving masturbatory problems doesn't "educate" you.
amusing example: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/46614
arch packagers include a broken and experimental feature in the _official_ libreoffice package and get upset when you file bugs about it. (literally, pressing save crashes libreoffice completely)
>user: libreoffice crash[es] after pressing CTRL+S
>dev: Pacman told you about this on install/upgrade, pay more attention.
afaik, the bug is still in the package today. that's right: because the packager included a feature against upstream's wishes, libreoffice on arch segfaults when you try to save your work. "fun," huh?
>>51974926
hate to admit it but this guy is right
>>51975032
>>51974963
>package managers are a big enough reason.
found the neet
>>51975797
>are you seriously implying that pacman is better than rpm or apt?
How the fuck is it not? Aptitude is a far, far worse package manager and handles dependencies like shit.
Not to mention how terrible the PPA system and Ubuntu repos are compared to Arch and the AUR.
Go be shit at this on Ubuntu, clearly that's the right distro for you lmao
>>51975890
>Aptitude is a far, far worse package manager and handles dependencies like shit.
sweet jesus buddy, gonna need a gigantic citation on this.
do you think people use apt for fun? you realize it has actual benefits, right?
>Not to mention how terrible the PPA system and Ubuntu repos are
if you use debian, you won't need a ppa 95% of the time because debian probably already has the package you want.
but i agree that ppas are shit. gigantic security issue that frequently leads to frankendebian.
>compared to Arch and the AUR.
...huh? any reason that the PPA system is "shit" applies equally well to the AUR.
1. security? joke for both PPA and AUR.
2. reliability? even worse for AUR than PPAs. who's going to check and rebuild every package update manually?
3. overall awkwardness? compared to installing the debian package that probably already exists, you can bet building an AUR package is a pain in the ass. much worse than adding a PPA, at least.
>Go be shit at this on Ubuntu
literally incomprehensible
and other than canonical's shitty attitudes toward users' freedom, there's nothing wrong with ubuntu. sorry.
>>51976007
>gigantic security issue that frequently leads to frankendebian.
PPAs are just unofficial repos and debian supports them as well, there's nothing inherently bad about them, if someone chooses to add some random asshole's PPA over reputable ones that's their fault
>>51974871
Arch is a grownups distro.
Gentoo is for autists with too much time on their hands.
>>51976666
Seriously?
>>51976666
>arch
>distro for grownups
You cant have both, buddy.
>>51974926
>little to no benefit
yea right
try to install vanilla lxde on any buntu
>>51976007
Gentoo had binary packages for over a year now
http://gentoo.no-ip.org
It also can be installed and configured in under an hour on shit hardware.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkKElaYBNFY
>>51974871
>Please explain to me why Gentoo is a better distro than Arch Linux.
It isnt.
They are basically the same. Arch is a simple, elegant, pre-optimized for amd64 distribution and has fast and convenient binary package management in pacman.
>>51979342
>Arch user saying Gentoo is the same
yet another predictable incorrect opinion
>>51974871
All linux distros are shit please use a BSD distro.
>>51974926
>comparing arch to gentoo
You've never installed Arch, have you?
>>51979420
Get the fuck out, BSD is not meant for desktops
>>51974871
>>51979161
Xorg is compiling multiple hours for me right now what am I doing wrong?
>>51979544
By shit hardware, I meant like a quad core Atom or a Q6600.
