I assume this is pretty accurate.
Ubuntu
Pros: Tons of support and user friendly
Cons: Fork everything, used to be spyware
Debian
Pros: Stable and everybody loves it
Cons: Can be a hassle for new people and nonfree drivers are kind of a pain
OpenSUSE
Pros: Yast, cool mascot and works great with KDE
Cons: Yast and the support can be hard to find.
Fedora
Pros: Bleeding edge and has great GNOME support. Red Hat testbed.
Cons: Can be unstable and lacking in packages. Red Hat testbed.
Arch
Pros: Pretty damn fast, tons of customization.
Cons: Can be difficult for new people and some might dislike the package manager
Gentoo:
Pros: Gentoo
Cons: Gentoo
>>54180410
>Cons: Fork everything, used to be spyware
?
I've been using Arch for so long but I still don't know how to install software outside of official repos and aur help please
>>54180420
The move to Unity, Mir and such. They have a habit of taking what they like and forking it to their own stuff.
Spyware stuff with the older versions because it used to phone your search's home to Amazon. Now you can opt into that, but its not enabled by default.
>>54180456
>They have a habit of taking what they like and forking it to their own stuff.
What's wrong with this?
>>54180450
you need the base-devel group installed (pacman -S base-devel)
Go to the AUR (aur.archlinux.org) get a package.
Extract the package with either "tar xzf tarfile.tar.gz". cd into the directory created by the extraction.
run
> makepkg -si
to build the package and install it. (-s == pulls needed dependencies, -i == installs after build completion)
delete folder and tar.
package is installed.
>>54180479
Splits up devs around tons of similar projects that all are basically doing the same thing.
>>54180480
I'm saying Linux software outside of the official AND aur. It's usually just running some .sh script but if it doesn't work I have no clue what to do
>>54180480
But thank you for the well written and clear explanation (and not calling me mean words)
Arch:
Pros - Kills autists
Cons - Exists
I like OpenSUSE
>>54180639
I do too. I either use it or Ubuntu.
>>54180410
Ubuntu
>Used to be spyware
Implying it isn't still
Maybe this question is for /sqt/.
If you run a binary based system like debian, how are you sure there is no spyware botnet inside that package delivered to you?
Do you just trust them?
>>54181499
Check the source code
>>54181513
Yeah, check this source code A. But ill send you A+Botnet when you do apt-get install A
>>54181499
>Do you just trust them?
That's what it goes back to, since even if you'd compile it yourself it's still not practical to try to read and understand each and every line of code.
>>54180410
>used to be spyware
Not true. If you refer to the Amazon searches, these were done through Ubuntu servers.
>>54181499
>Maybe this question is for /sqt/.
>If you run a binary based system like debian, how are you sure there is no spyware botnet inside that package delivered to you?
>Do you just trust them?
Yes you have to trust them.
I'm not curious, careful or knowledgeable enough to be able to look over EVERY SINGLE line of code and confirm it's non malicious. Especially when it can be a 1 line backdoor in thousands of lines of code
>>54183379
Just because it's Canonical who gets the data instead of Amazon doesn't change that personal data gets send to someone else.
>>54183434
You're sending your data every day when you update your packages, retard.
>>54183525
Which isn't the same thing as sending each and very search term genius
>>54180410
>Gentoo:
>Pros: Gentoo
>Cons: Gentoo
>>54183587
kek, you're really retarded
>>54184019
That's disabled by default.
>>54184019
Epik!
>>54184019
disable that shit
>>54180532
you mean compiling from source?
./configure
make
sudo make install
> dependency errors
>other errors
then give up and forget about what you wanted to do
>>54184903
Yeah. The thing I was trying to install gave me compiler errors on the make script so that's more their fault not mine
>>54185615
Chances are high you were doing it wrong
>>54185910
Make it executable, run configure, it says configure successful.
Run the make script, GCC says implicit declaration on a function
>>54185994
Sounds like it could be caused by using a different version of gcc. Or you might overwrite compiler flags.
>>54180410
>yast and the support can be hard to find
>yast hard to find
what did he mean by this?
>>54183587
Research: Akamai Technologies.Canonical is the absolute least of your worries in terms of privacy invasion.
>>54180410
How can anyone dislike pacman?
>>54186335
People who don't want to update their whole system all the time. (And they shouldn't use Arch then)
>>54183525
? what do you mean by this
apt-get update = downloading some packages.gz from servers, not a big deal
>>54180456
>They have a habit of taking what they like and forking it to their own stuff.
That's kind of the point of open source development and GNU licenses.
> it used to phone your search's home to Amazon.
I'm concerned but I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.
>>54183434
Not personal data, searches in the activities panel. It's a stupid feature but if you think that's a way of.spying on you, the problem isn't with Ubuntu. Spyway ain't what it used to be in the 90s thanks to our resident tinfoil hats.
>>54187606
Searches in the activities panel may include personal data.
Though the main problem for me is that apparently someone at Canonical not only thought that such a feature was acceptable, but even desirable.
I have no idea why anyone would want this feature.
>>54180410
This is fair.
>>54187844
Like what? That you're looking to run LibreOffice Calc?
>>54188075
Filenames including your name or whatever other personal shit you could put in a filename.
How's Manjaro?
Linux in a nutshell:
You have to be fucking nuts to use that shit on anything but a cheap throwaway server.
> Fedora
> lacking in packages
Is this a real problem?
Arch
Pros: The distro.
Cons: Its users.
>>54180410
Using OpenSUSE Tumbleweed for a while now, and that's pretty accurate. The lacking of support/documentation for some areas is the only con I see.
>>54186335
People that enjoy deb or rpm packages.
Pacman is the least dislikeable package manager except perhaps Portage
>>54191336
Yeah this is fair I guess.
#NOTALLUSERS
But the loud ones though.
>>54191336
Are Arch users really as bad as the meemes claim?
>>54193881
They're annoying, elitist, and shill Arch more than any other userbase I've ever seen. They're the reason people have low, preformed opinions on Linux and its users. Gentoo or Slackware users don't even compare.
>>54180410
Antergos
Pros: It's arch but you don't have to tell people you use arch
Cons: Haven't found any yet desu
>>54193396
Portage is the best package manager out there if you have a good CPU. Although some things may fail to build occasionally, it never breaks your system. Need to cross compile for a specific platform, or want an application without an assload of dependencies? Gentoo has you covered.
>>54188075
loliPrn.jpg
>>54180410
>I assume
that's where it got downhill
fuck off
>>54193881
If you're sane and only interact with them when you need to find some obscure fix it's a really nice experience. They're very knowledgeable.
>>54189109
It's totally fine to have a partition with Tails to use for anonymous browsing when you need it...
>>54186276
goddamn i hate finding Akamai servers in noscript.
