JUST
- Home
- Board: /g/ - Technology
- Reading: JUST
Which one is better?
Arch is more fun and more customization friendly.
Debian is more no-nonsense and easy to set up.
>only real linux users can use it
>blazing fast package manager
>no bloat
>glorious abs
>glorious aur
Arch is supperior in every concievable way.
And I take offense that plebian is stapled on top of Arch Linux in that image.
debian is old and terrible for desktop
centos for server makes debian irrelevant
debian testing is unstable playground for developers
debian should die out and only be remembered as grandfather of ubuntu distros
which brings us to the question, why ancient debian, or unstable debian when you got xubuntu, lubuntu, ubuntu-mate, kubuntu,.. with LTS versions as well
and I think most people do agree that they are pretty damn stable, while having packages from this century, unlike debian
Anyway, that was just a thought in the same weight category, Arch is the best destkop linux bar none
Neither because the moment you edit something you can't log in anymore and wasted 10 hours of ricing and setting up
>>51885591
This is what ubuntubabbies actually believe.
>>51885591
> Not using a Live-USB to chroot into the install and fix the shit you broke
>>51885576
What's the difference between lubuntu. Xubuntu. And kbuntu?
>>51885707
The desktop manager. (the GUI)
But the system is the same
>>51885492
That's as this human said
>>51885576
Because in a mission critical setting you need ALL THE STABILITY.
>>51886430
While that's true, CentOS and Red Hat exist and are stable as all hell. Debians good if you're not into RHEL or their products.
If we truly cared about stability being of utmost fucking paramount importance, Hurd might actually be useful, since microkernels are more stable.
>>51885450
considering even arch's website runs debian...
Arch.
>>51885591
I mean I guess if you try to run startx as root or something lol
>>51885839
Do they have botnet like Ubuntu?
It's the same shit with a few different commands.
>>51885450
well they're both minimalist distros that seek to bring more power to the user, except debian is one of the last distros to get a new feature, and arch is one of the first. and debian comes pre-installed with a bunch of shit whereas arch lets you install everything as you want.
debian's only really useful for servers, but you can still put arch on there, just wait before you update anything.
debian is depreciated.
>>51885576
>debian testing is unstable
no it's testing
debain unstable is unstable
Debian is better if you don't feel like redownloading every package in your system every week
>>51885450
arch for rice
debian for work
pick the best tool for what you want to do
>>51885576
If debian died, where would ubuntu devs get their packages from?
>>51888808
>debian comes pre-installed with a bunch of shit
what is netinstall arch kiddie?
>>51888890
What if I want to a bit of both?
>>51889666
Antergos.
>>51889717
I've already used it and it was gay and has a gay logo.
