I honestly don't understand why people think Arch is unstable. Screenfetch tells me my daily machine has been up for 26 days and counting. That is like mac level stability. I have only had two problems ever. When I first installed Arch I didn't realize I had to get ncurses in the livecd to use wifi-menu within Arch. I also once got some corrupted keys with Pacman. So I updated them and all was fine. Has anyone actually had the problems people report to have had with Arch or is it just winshill meme propagander?
>>53319730
Only problems I've ever had were due to user error. Arch was my first distro and the only issue I had was installing Mesa first and then wanting proprietary drivers which broke my system further than what I could fix. Other than that no issues.
Things don't fall apart entirely if you're not retarded but the bleeding edge occasionally lets noticeably buggy packages slip through. Fixes/workarounds are usually announced. But it's only a huge problem if you really depend on everything working all the time.
>>53319730
Please do not post that image. It triggers me.
>>53319730
>mac level stability
No it's fucking better. My friend stopped using his 2012 macbook after el capitan fucked his shit up.
>>53319976
debian is nice in that you can install multiple OpenGL implementations side-by-side and switch between them with update-alternatives
>>53319730
Wait, is that second flatter logo official?
I actually kind of want to install arch but I can't unsee the fat guy under the rounded logo
>>53319730
>I honestly don't understand why people think Arch is unstable
Because they didn't install it properly. A few friends of mine run arch on their daily use machine and it's been working for years.
>>53319730
My Lubuntu install in my laptop breaks wayyy more often than my Arch in my desktop.
And both are my fault so whatever.
>>53322078
my lubuntu shit crashes everytime i do a little change to x config files
>>53319730
>Program "Hello World!" in ASM#################################################
# MIPS ASM "Hello_World!.asm" #
#################################################
.data #
hello .asciiz "Hello World!" #
#################################################
.text #
main: #
li $v0, 4 #
la $a0, prompt1 #
syscall #
#################################################
end: #
#################################################
Don't know if its poking fun at people that think ASM is Autism tier difficulty, but its really not.
>>53322196#################################################
# MIPS ASM "Hello_World!.asm" #
#################################################
.data #
hello: .asciiz "Hello World!" #
#################################################
.text #
main: #
li $v0, 4 #
la $a0, hello #
syscall #
#################################################
end: #
#################################################[\code]
woops, there we go.
>>53319730
The only problems I've really had are when I first tried installing it and didn't read the manual hardly at all. Once I actually knew what I was doing and installed it properly, I've had zero trouble. I've been running it for a year now, no problems.
>>53322238
Yeah, but the joke is that actually writing any large program these days in ASM is autism tier stuff.
>>53319730
Honestly, I don't know.
The only issues I had with Arch, I bought upon myself.
It took me a while to figure out that instead of using wifi-menu at every boot, I should use NetworkManager instead.
Just little things like this, that I realised at the time were me being stupid but I wasn't bright enough to correct.
I think the people who hate Arch are just dumb. It's like building something fucked with legos, and then complaining because it's legos fault you can't design for shit.
Anyway, now that I understand systemd and stuff Arch has never broken, it's just that initial gap of knowledge you have to make up for from being babied by things like Ubuntu.
>>53322334
True that. Makes you appreciate high level languages though.
>>53322347
Because when you update, things tend to break more often than other distros.
If you don't update, and stay on a stable snapshot, then you're good.
And once you update and fix any breakages, good again.
But upgrading has a much higher potential to break shit.
Also, when I tried arch, I always just had little things not work, or break at times.
For example, I had an issue where plugging a certain wireless mouse in failed to have it recognized until a reboot.
Or Mpv sometimes crashes when fullscreened.
Maybe I'm just using a more bleeding edge mpv.
Little stuff like that.
Then again, it's far, far more stable/working than fedora.
When people say "Arch is unstable", I'm pretty sure they mostly mean things break, not just outright crashing."
B
>>53322388
That said, I don't think arch is a bad distro, and the AUR is great.
I just gets a bad rep from a lot of fans, and because you're encouraged to install it by hand, rather than using an installer, which really causes things to be fucked up/missing/not set up out of the box.
>>53319730
I haven't, but this is mostly because I've never seen any reason to try Arch when Kubuntu and Debian serve my needs perfectly fine.
>>53322455
>Haven't had problems with Arch because hasn't tried arch
I run debian on my home server. Why on earth would I benefit from switching to arch? Can anyone explain this to me? Is it really just >muh newest package versions?
>>53322515
You wouldn't, no need to bother.
>>53319730
It's more like "They're using latest versions of everything without waiting, they have to be trading off stability." Because as far as I know complaints are usually about updates breaking things instead of Arch breaking itself so you need to reboot.
While it is true that the problems occur from time to time with updates, I don't agree with the view that you should not use latest versions of everything for stability. It's not logical, the developers test it and if no one is using it for the sake of stability nothing can progress at all.
In short Arch users workout the problems before other distros so that's why you see responses to every single problem in their forums.
In my experience, updating once broke my bumblebee setup because packager forgot to add something to the updated package and that's pretty much it. I updated kernel like two days ago and it worked without an issue at all.
>>53322515
Pacman is better than apt-get. Arch is also just generally more fun to customize. But if you don't care about any of that and you're just using a server, there's literally no reason to use anything other than Debian.
>>53322536
Why is pacman better than apt? What does it do that apt won't?
>>53322564
A lot prettier, a lot better status views.
>>53322571
>prettier
really..?
>>53322576
Yes, really.
Nice progress bar for each package going across, with a numbering of how many packages are needed, rather than a percentage bar in a corner, and a mass of text running down.
It's a minor thing, but it's prettier, and functionally prettier.
A lot easier to see how far a long an upgrade/install is.
It's not something earth shaking, worth changing distros over, but pacman is nicer.
And this is from someone who went back to ubuntu after a while with arch, pacman and the AUR is the main thing I miss.
>>53322564
It's faster. Much faster.
Also, little things like sudo pacman -Syu
rather than
sudo apt-get update && install
>>53322598
Meh, that last half is just aliasable pretty easily, not a fair point I'd say.
First point is valid though.
I'd love to see some concrete benchmarks, not sure how'd you even do the comparison.
>>53319730
Working and socializing is one hell of a timesink, and meaningful hobbies is one hell of a rationalization to do what you want to do and pretend you're better than someone else with a different hobby.
I wouldn't use Arch, though.
>>53320302
>But it's only a huge problem if you really depend on everything working all the time.
Isn't this the primary requirement for every single operating system?
>>53322604
>Not sure how you'd even do the comparison
By running apt-get update && upgrade alongside pacman -Syu
>>53322589
Doesn't sound like it offers anything really compared to aptitude, unless this "seeing how far along an upgrade/install is" consists of something like 'now unpacking/configuring package X of Y, Z minutes estimated remaining' in that phase of things.
>>53322618
Yeah, but they'll be doing different package, on different systems.
Setting up the same packages, and as similar system as possible would be quite tricky.
>>53322619
It has the X of Y part.
Has the minutes remaining per package download, but so does everything else.
It's a lot nicer looking, you can just play with arch in a vm for an hour or so and try it.
>>53322598
You can just write a simple shell script if typing two commands instead of one really bothers you that much.
>>53319730
it's just a meme
>>53322638
Or alias.
>>53322637
And I mean functionally nicer looking, not just prettier.
A lot easier to glance at it and see what's going on, and how far along shit is.
The people debating apt-get vs pacman just made me reinstall Debian, and delete Arch which I installed 4 months ago with a shit meme config file I got from the desktop thread.
meh..
>>53322638
Well, I don't really care that much, it's just nice to have simple one-letter commands. That's why I said "little things". It's the little things like that that make me giggle like a little fagman
>>53322650
For example
It has the x out of y steps in the side.
Kubuntu
>for actual working programmers who use linux because of its usable development environment
Arch
>for fags on /g/ who think using fluxbox w/ green on black terminal makes them any less of a faggot
Prove me wrong.
>>53322617
Was more referring to work and server purposes where some downtime can be a big problem. Spending some time on quick fixes is a sacrifice to keeping that far up to date, and it's one more commonly made.
>>53322669
Not really much of a debate, desu
>>53322689
joke's on you
i run arch with kde, dont code, pure shitposting, reading and youtube machine
>>53322689
>fluxbox with green on black
>Prove me wrong
I submit to you my shitty desktop, with no fluxbox or green on black background.
Yes it sucks, but still proves you wrong.
>>53322690
In which case I imagine they would use CentOS or Redhat.
>>53322744
my friend does the same
>>53322672
In which case, I see no advantages over using a curses interface such as aptitude. But hey, to each their own, I guess.
>>53322758
i'm not your friend, guy
>>53319730
Being stable and being bug free are *not* the same.
Stable means that updates will not change the interfaces for programs in unexpected ways.
Debian is stable, Arch is not stable.
Bug free means that updates will not have bugs.
Debian has more bugs than Arch.
>>53322794
i'm not your guy, buddy!
>>53319730
frequent updates tend to have regressions and break shit. Honestly they need to test their packages more, it's pretty common to have a -2 or -3 package revision, on top of 0.0.0.1 updates.
>>53322402
>I just gets a bad rep from a lot of fans, and because you're encouraged to install it by hand, rather than using an installer, which really causes things to be fucked up/missing/not set up out of the box.
This is actually the best thing about arch. I'm running full-disk encryption with lvm volumes on top and it was a giant pain to try to get it to work with other distros.
>>53322689
>implying there's something wrong with a green-on-black terminal
Good luck with your anal retentive aggressions..
I'm a Winbabby and from my experience, Arch is the least annoying distro to actually get up and running. If you're too lazy for manual install, just get something like Architect or whatever. No default preinstalled bullshit shoved down your throat, Pacman is the fastest package manager out there, and making from source is also possibly the simplest amongst distros.
