So, I have distanced myself from Linux for a few years, mostly out of laziness and fucking games, but I don't play so often anymore and I don't want to use an outdated version of Windows but also I don't want to use the post-7 bloatware.
I'm not extremely skilled and could not depend only on the console, though I like to use it, not ready for Arch or Gentoo yet, I hate *ubuntu since 11.xx, I'm not too fond of Mint (I use Mint at work though).
I was about to go for Debian, I used Debian 5 and 6 in the past, I like it, but was thinking of Manjaro as it is based on Arch but accesible until I get really skilled with Linux, is it nice or is it on the Ubuntu tier? (as in bloated as fuck)
I just want something that allows me to learn but if I want to make normal use of the computer it just works.
How are Fedora and OpenSuse this days? I'm so outdated.
bump because curious to find out too
Ubuntu is literally no more bloated than Arch. In fact it's probably LESS bloated because they separate the header files for each package into separate packages.
Arch and Ubuntu both compile support for everything within reason to all their binaries. This isn't even a bad thing, but I don't expect wanna be leetfags to understand that.
Manjaro is made by BRs, and you need look no further than the typeface in that logo you posted to see who its audience is.
>>55625551
>Manjaro is made by BRs, and you need look no further than the typeface in that logo you posted to see who its audience is.
Honestly, I didn't understand this line, can you explain?
>>55625636
>>55625494
It's supposed to be an easier to install and use arch linux, when it come time to stop using windows 7 I'll install qubes os.
>>55625551
Ubuntu comes with 1900-1800 preinstalled packages. I had 900 with Arch, full setup.
>>55625808
>Ubuntu comes with 1900-1800 preinstalled packages
ok so if you don't want that, use a minimal install and set it up the same way you did Arch.
You're comparing apples to oranges
>>55625839
Yeah but Ubuntu's packages are outdated. 16.04 shouldn't be called LTS, it's trash.
>>55625708
>qubes os
Seems interesting, its unix like, but can run Windows applications, I suppose it uses Wine? Or it supports Windows applications natively?
Is it even a Linux? I'm really intrigued, the whole VM thing does sound very interesting, now I don't want to ask dumb things, but this multiple VMs thing doesn't have a negative impact on performance?
>>55625866
>Yeah but Ubuntu's packages are outdated
You can get on an unstable/testing branch if you really care that much, but that also has nothing to do with bloatedness. Please don't put words in my mouth, faggot.
>>55625708
Qubes OS is downright unusable due to how buggy it is, even if you disregard the fact that it keeps sabotaging itself by making ridiculous decision like being based on fedora and using systemd. There has already been a fuckton of systemd bugs in qubes and yet they refuse to change. Just look at their tracker, it's not "oh no the color of my icons is wrong!"-tier.
>>55625898
No, it doesn't ``support'' Windows programs. It's Linux with the Xen hypervisor. The base idea is that your dom0 (the VM host) does NOT have internet access so it's very hard to attack. You pass your network card into a trusted network VM and all its traffic passes through a trusted firewall vm that allows/disallows your VMs to have a network connection.
You make AppVMs based on trust/purpose and they're generally based on some trusted base (Fedora and Debian bases are included iirc0
Windows support in Qubes (the tools that allow you to copy/paste from one VM to another and copy files from one VM to another) are currently (as of last time I used Qubes) not supported but that's not very well represented on Joanna's blog/site anywhere so it can be confusing when you try to install the windows tools and it fails.
Regarding performance, you can pass a GPU into a Windows VM (but can't really fullscreen it as that's considered harmful since you could be fooled into thinking you're on another VM - so you get dom0's window border)
PCI passthrough gets you pretty good performance, about 95% of native. If you have a shit computer, you won't like Qubes but if you're rig is pretty good it can be a fun OS to use.
>>55625494
Manjaro is arch and all that entails, except with a stable repo and previous package versions, i.e. everything you'll ever want out of GNU.
Arch-based distros explained:
Parabola: Arch for freetards
Antergos: Arch for babies
Manjaro: Arch for babies who like the color green
Arch: Arch for manbabies
Install Slack, Gentoo, Debian minimal, or potentially Void, fgt.
>>55626234
Slack, gentoo, debian and void explained:
Slack: Manjaro for manchildren
Gentoo: Manjaro for people who like broken and unmaintained packages
Debain: Manjaro for masochists who detest customizability
Void: Manjaro for people who detest software
>>55625963
So is Xen easy to use on gentoo can I run the windows office apps with it.
>>55626509
>none of the four of those is in any way remotely true
>implying slack is similar to manjaro at all or tries to be
>implying there is a single broken or unmaintained gentoo package and implying gentoo is similar to manjaro at all or tries to be
>implying Debian can't be "customised" or is similar to manjaro at all or tries to be
>the point about void is literally incoherent but void is again completely unrelated to manjaro
quality shitpost, I fell for the bait. here's your (You) anyway.
>>55626542
The easiest solution in general is kvm/qemu using something like virt-manager to manage
kvm is the native solution and should work ootb on basically every kernel on most distros. Since you're using gentoo, choosing xen should be fairly easy too.
Honestly though vmware provides the best 2D graphics without needing any passthrough so programs like MS Office suite ``feel'' best on vmware.
>>55626580
You're hilarious kiddo, but that doesn't mean you get to disrespect this site's rules. You have to be 18 or older to post here.
>>55626621
(You)
>not installing Fedora MATE.
>Not using glorious dnf
Not gonna make it
>I used Debian 5 and 6 in the past
keep it that way
Fedora is all right if you configure the living shit out of it. I honestly was gonna install manjaro today but chose fedora instead because im used to it. openSuse? no thanks goy
You can always convert Manjaro to Arch senpai.
I leik Xubuntu
t. User for one week
Beginner here
As far as i can tell people recommend Arch mostlx because Software is brand new and "bleeding edge". In how far would this affect my usage?
Currently using Ubuntu and all i do is browsing, some programming for collge, libreoffice, music and download music and games when i play on my Windows distro
>>55625494
>durrhurr which linux distro should I use
Whatever the fuck you want and are comfortable with. In the end, it's all the same fucking shit anyways.
I just want to try a pacman based distro and Arch is too autistic, ok, I have no choice but to just try Manjaro I guess, what is VMWare for after all?
And if I don't like it, Debian it will be I guess, or a minimal of Xubuntu.. idk.
Thanks foe the insight anyway.
>>55625494
actually I had the same case as you, after a bit of wondering around i installed manjaro - no issues after several days of use whatsoever, pretty solid so far imo
>>55625494
openSUSE is overhyped and in reality quite buggy, honestly. Everybody just wants it to succeed so they talk about it without actually using it.
> Yeah, openSuse is awesome. I've had a few problems with it and that's why I don't use it atm but it's great!
I installed openSUSE Leap 42.1 on a PC and I've only had problems so far. I won't install it anywhere again.
>>55625494
>OpenSuse
Sucks nowadays, unfortunately. Stability went out the windows. Manjaro is the new OpenSuse.
>Debian
In my experience, ten times the headache to manage than anything Arch-based, because Apt is fucking shit. It just werks... until you want to compile something manually, at which point the entire distro basically shits itself. Debian is "stick it on an ancient PC and don't mess with it ever again".
Arch isn't even hard to install, that's a dumb meme. Just try it out. If you're piss scared then just use Architect or Archbang or some other equivalent, but even then you'll probably be sick of the presets and just redo the install manually.
I personally use Manjaro however, because kernel management is simpler on it and I was lazy to switch to Arch once I found the configs that worked on my laptop. The differences are minimal anyway. IMO Manjaro is the perfect balance between being a "handholding" GUI tool heavy distro and yet giving you enough freedom to really do things the way you want to instead of getting in your way on every possible occasion (coughlikedebiancough).
i have used ubuntu debian in the past , i had many problems with them, i am now using fedora , in my one year experience i have found it to ge super stable and i have encountered 0 problems with it whatsoever , i tottaly recomend it , plus fedora 24 is just around the corner
>>55625494
Manjaro isn't for you.
While it's arch OOTB, in the end it still arch.
Look into Elementary OS.
I hear Manjaro is better off for games than arch because the drivers are confirmed stable and you don't need to hunt for them. Don't quote me on it though.
I use arch on my laptop and Windows on my desktop, although I'm wondering what i will do when Windows 10 becomes standard. Guess I could always plug my second monitor into my mobo and use GPU pass through....
Anyways Manjaro is fine but if you're just being butt mad at Ubuntu either go Ubuntu MATE or Debian testing.
Manjaro is OK but I don't think it's worth it over Debian for someone new to Linux.
Arch isn't hard to get going at all though to me. It's really just all about learning what goes into your Linux install from DE to smaller packages you never realized you NEEDED like gnome keyring.
Best way to learn anything is to fuck up anon.
>>55625839
>Ubuntu minimal install
Any new ubuntufag noob will get Ubuntu to default bloat in under a week. Why even bother? Ubuntu is shit as is Canonical.
What about Fedora?
>>55626542
You should use Kingsoft office instead, it's made in QT.
>>55630347
There are 2 major things about arch packages. First is as you noted Arch packages are generally speaking much newer than some distros. That means you get newest functionality and bugfixes all the time. It's especially apparent for stuff like linux kernel itself.
For me more important however is that Arch packages are vanilla, meaning unchanged. For instance packages on Ubuntu are generally vanilla packages repackaged by Ubuntu devs, meaning those packages are maintained by original devs AND Ubuntu devs. That's why at the moment 16.04 Ubuntu is full of bugs that were fixed in Arch literally months ago, because original package devs released fixes long time ago while Ubuntu maintainers didn't even get around to fixing anything. This is main reason why I personally switched to Arch and I'm mostly happy with it, much less trouble than I ever had with *buntus, Fedora and Debian. It doesn't appeal to everyone though.
