Why do you use Arch, anon? Isn't it prone to breaking? How does it compare to Debian in regards to stability and software availability? Why should GNU/Linux users install it over Ubuntu?
Repost background image only?
But yes arch is love arch is life
>>54478925
There is literally no reason.
it's better unless you're running a server
>>54478925
arch is only prone to breaking if you configure it wrong
due to the high chance of configuring it wrong, its not super worth it
>>54478925
Keep it simple, stupid.
I have less breakage on Arch than I did in the years I used Debian. The AUR and just having newer packages is also very nice, and Pacman is fast and pleasant to use.
>Ubuntu
You should avoid derivatives in general.
>>54478925
wallpaper sauce is needed
>>54478925
With enough work you can convert any distro into any other distro, so it doesn't really matter.
>>54479181
>>54479478
Since your not op I assume you know the source does it come in different colours?
Arch isnt prone to breaking if you set it up right and dont do dumb shit
Arch is pretty neat. Have been using it with KDE Plasma on casual mode, but I made quite a few tweaks. Really liking it.
But yes, what this >>54479426 guys said is pretty much true. Arch just gives you a clean slate from where to start -- it's easy to turn it into variants or exact copies of the most popular pre-configured GNU/Linux desktop variants or mix/make your own.
>>54478925
Arch is shit, rolling distros are shit.
>>54479759
You should feel at home then? What's the issue?
>>54479478
You got that from me didn't you
I know because you didn't change the filename
>>54479855
are there more than one
>>54479899
Naw, I haven't seen any others
>>54479944
I saw just wondering cause there is a 1 at the end and it seems like something the original artist may have done in like 10 colors
I used Manjaro for two or three months, but the lack of a good package manager made me go back to Debian.
>Why do you use Arch, anon?
Because it is easier
Isn't it prone to breaking?
This has nothing to do with the distro.
It is a rolling release distro, which means different parts will be updated at different times.
If a package changes drastically from version to version, it might mean a package will use a broken configuration.
This is what people mean, when they say something is broken.
With arch you have to fix things as you go on.
>How does it compare to Debian in regards to stability and software availability?
Debian unstable sort of follows the same update strategy although a little slower than arch as packages include a setup script and thus more work is done with each package.
They also do testing which means they might catch the errors and then provide a migration script.
Debian also have stable versions where the packages only will get security updates, which means nothing will change as long as you stay on the same version.
Things often break when you go from version to version though, but people usually just reinstall at that point.
>Why should GNU/Linux users install it over Ubuntu?
Ubuntu is a completely different distro.
It takes a snapshot every 6 months and provides security updates to the packages.
Every two years the snapshot will get updates for 5 years.
The versions in between should be reinstalled as a new one comes out or you will miss the chance to update.
It is possible to update from version to version of ubuntu, but then almost all packages break at the same time and it is easier (and definitely faster) to just reinstall the whole system.
>Why do you use Arch, anon?
The AUR is like a goldmine and a godsent gift to me for one precise reason: I work with very specific tools for voice synthesis, and lots of libraries and software I have to use are only distributed as source file. Doesn’t seems that complicated, you’d tell me. Well, the fact is that when I tried to do everything manually, I spent hours and hours trying to install everything, without any way of checking updates (not that the packages are often updated though).
When I tried Arch for the first time, and yaourt, I could find literally everything, except one software that could be easily compiled if I had the dependencies installed.
Same goes for a couple of software that can be found only as source code or in the AUR.
>Isn't it prone to breaking?
I broke twice Arch: one time, I fucked up the grub and some part of Arch, and when reinstalling it I broke it again because I didn’t format correctly my drives, so I had conflicts between my old arch installation, and my new one. Both are completely my fault and a regular user wouldn’t have done that.
Otherwise, as said above, it is a rolling release, which means everything is updated independently of the other packages. The advantage of other distros such as Ubuntu is that what makes the OS aren’t updated if you don’t upgrade your distro itself (like going from Ubuntu 14.04 to 16.idontrememberwhat). It implies that times to times, there can be some compatibility issues between packages, but I personally never experienced it.
>How does it compare to Debian in regards to stability and software availability?
I cannot compare to Debian directly, but compared to Ubuntu, it’s about the same, except that you often get updates.
>Why should GNU/Linux users install it over Ubuntu?
If you’re comfy enough with Ubuntu and don’t _NEED_ the AUR, there’s no reason to do so.
But if you need it, or you want the latest packages or just for fun, well, go for it.
Also this>>54480352
Debian is better, because it has more official packages compare to Arch.
There are no reason to trust AUR and you're more likely breaking with your system doing stupid shit.
Nobody ever got laid because they use debian.
I like Arch's package management and it's a rolling release. That's it. The devs are pricks though, you're probably read "The Arch Way" on their site and the devs have said that is just shit written by the community, they don't believe it. They don't care about the users. But the arch wiki is very good. But it's a community thing, not a devolvement thing.
People should really stop referring to Debian as just 'Debian'. stable, testing and unstable have major differences. As you can tell from the names. Stable is old, but stable, doesn't work with new hardware. It has outdated packages (more so than Ubuntu). And then unstable is a rolling release. That's a major difference. A lot more different than Ubuntu + DE which people like pointing out.
I swear if Arch had an official graphical installer, the user base would be no different had Ubuntu or Fedora. And this could be easily proven considering the popularity of Antergos and Manjaro.
>>54479478
>>54484575
Don’t forget Apricity too. That’s what I’m using now, instead of pure Arch, I was too lazy to install pure Arch on my new computer. But yeah, just add a graphic manager for packages, like Ubuntu has, as well as the installer, and I really think Arch could reach the fame of Ubuntu.
Debian is superior.
>>54484575
>"The Arch Way" on their site and the devs have said that is just shit written by the community, they don't believe it.
good
"The Arch Way" is cringe-worthy af
>>54484661
depends on your needs, really. See >>54480659, debian-based distros might suit my needs, but Arch does it better.
>>54478925
Install FreeBSD.
>>54485235
Why would you install FreeBSD over a linux distro? This is an actual question, I only know FreeBSD is another Unix-based OS, but I don’t really know anything else beside it.
>>544789
>Why do you use Arch, anon?
Because I like it
>Isn't it prone to breaking?
Not really, unless you have no idea of what you're doing
>How does it compare to Debian in regards to stability and software availability?
I'd say debian is more stable, unless you're talking about the testing branches
In terms of software availability, if a program works on any distro it should work on any other
>Why should GNU/Linux users install it over Ubuntu?
Because they like it more than Ubuntu
>>54485339
>>54485235
I too wish to know this.
Linus disgusts me.
rms may be an uncharismatic and ineloquent manic-obsessive, but damn it, he's still right about freedom
>>54484661
>3d
No thanks
>>54485339
>>54485648
Almost standard (POSIX etc.)
Stable (really stable ABI don't changed between one version).
Free of pseudo-freedom (use what you want from BSD, Apache, CDDL, MPL to proprietary blob and you don't need downgrade kernel for it).
Academic style of programming.
99% of system well documented.
Good system modularity.
Lightweight.
Respect old hardware.
Free of dictatorship(BDFL).
Almost free of dramas.
+1000 reasons I just don't want describe them all.
>>54484642
I just installed the Cinnamon edition of Apricity on my desktop. Not bad, so far.
>>54484626
>1131x707
Too bad mint is deprecated with incompetent devs
>>54480017
>lack of a good package manager
>what is pacman
>>54485884
Real men use Debian. NEETs use Arch.
>>54487698
Uh, total shit.
Sorry that I don't consider chaining cryptic and non-selfexplanatory CLI parameters to be well-designed software. Also, it's dependency/conflict handling is shit. Can't hold a candle to aptitude.
And it doesn't even directly support the AUR, which is the main selling point of Arch and its derivates. Too bad yaourt is no better.
Does anyone here have experience with Parabola?
