Arch Linux?

good for you

Attached: comment_6AJYR2rk3XQ9tbAupyhJUybYQGac5n2Q,w400-fourchan-g-64337972.jpg (400x364, 17K)

How? Mint is literally clicking "next" until it's done.

It's bait

I could expect an arch user to be that retarded though: spending more time configuring the os than using it. Trying to unbreak the broken

Poor people, too much time in their hands

what do u mean how long would it take you

go read up on linux directories, and spend a couple of hours in the terminal and that's about it

>wanting to switch to Arch Linux
>(no prior knowledge)
I wouldn't. It's not a very beginner friendly distro unless you're ready to solve stuff for yourself and face some frustration.

It’s easy as long as you have former Linux experience, hard if you don’t. The wiki expects that you know how to use the tools it instructs you to use.

If it's your first linux you might want to distrohop for a bit, try different desktop environments and stuff before you go balls deep into Arch. It's a nice distro and contrary to popular opinion it can be quite stable, it just requires some basic linux knowledge to not be a pain to use.
i use Arch btw

>Trying to unbreak the broken
everything works, you just need to set it up. Besides, the hardware manufacturers are the ones who break everything and make everything non-standard.

nice spacing you have going on there

He's full of shit. It definitely takes longer than an hour to install a fully featured Arch desktop. I'm convinced 99% of these so-called "Arch shills" are users of other distros trying to piss people off. Arch is fine, but it will be stressful your first time installing it.

You don't have to be elite tier but you have to be patient and follow the guide closely if you want to set it up in an usable stage. Installing the base level stuff is easy but configuring a full desktop is much more time consuming. Prior knowledge of terminal stuff is highly recommended. If you just copy and paste shit without knowing what you're doing mind not give you an optimal result.

Don't switch, stick to windows, leave my sekret klub alone!
You're not worthy!

Arch requires you to actually read and troubleshoot things. The upside is that you run into fewer distro-specific problems; it should be noted that "distro-specific" problems can occur at any point: installation, maintenance, basic package upgrading, etc. It's one of the reasons why I think a post like is 100% sincere: if you run into a problem with, say, UEFI or encryption or something else, your only hope with another distro is their forums.

Installing Arch is the most difficult part of the experience by far, mostly because it presents a shitton of new ideas to a user who never had to install an OS by hand. Even if you use a crapton of distros, you're never going to learn the exact things you're doing when you install an OS, so it might be worth skipping the distrohopping and diving straight into Arch. Everything else (installing video drivers, setting up options for newly installed programs, etc.) is just following three-line guides on the wiki and paying attention to things that pacman spits out.

In any case, I'd recommend installing Arch in a VM before doing it for real. It's going to be quite different than the real thing, but at least you'll know the "rhythm" of how installation goes.

Thing is, every distribution does more or less the same. Your choice in software is much more important than your distro. The only advantage a distro like Arch gives you is bleeding edge software, which is not a good thing for beginners since you have to deal with unavoidable regressions. Stick to a good beginners distro like Ubuntu, Mint or OpenSUSE Leap. Be sure to get comfy with the terminal though. It's a lot less daunting than it looks and you have just as much control over your OS once you mastered it as as an Arch user.

What made you specifically lean towards Arch? Is it because of the meme? So you can boast about you use Arch? I am not much of a Linux user, I've used Linux by live booting only a couple of times for data recovery. But why not any other distro? Why pure Arch? I think Antergos and ArchLabs is easier to install.

first time it took me a whole afternoon (I made a lot of mistakes so that's maybe the worst scenario). Now it would be like 15 mins for me.

The best Windows to date

yeah, figured
most people on here agree that it's hard af so I'll stick with something more my level

based on what the poster below you said, I think I'll just stick with another distro
no real point in having that level of complexity,
at least not this soon into using Linux

>Thing is, every distribution does more or less the same
ok, thanks
I thought Arch somehow allowed more freedom with
from what the wiki said, i got the impression other distros were more locked down
>Arch Linux is an... that leaves all software choices up to the user
>Arch Linux provides the freedom to make any choice about the system.

yeah I guess it was the meme
honestly, I also just really like the logo
a lot of the other distro logos look really memey

this

This
Someone could probably write a script that automatically copies the wiki and runs the commands

>from what the wiki said, i got the impression other distros were more locked down

They aren't. The Arch wiki talks about the initial installation, i.e what software you want from the start. You might get some software in other distributions you don't really need, but you aren't limited in your choice.

Why not Manjaro as user friendly Arch?

My Arch boots up in 5 seconds. Not one ubuntu distro can do that. Also, it is harder so troubleshoot and install Antergos or Manjaro than plain Arch. When you finally have it up and running, it is the best thing ever. (also I have to admit it is p fun to install it)

linux.wikia.com/wiki/Arch_Linux
>Arch Linux is an... that leaves all software choices up to the user
>Arch Linux provides the freedom to make any choice about the system.
this isn't referencing installation

what's the benefit over using other user friendly distros?

>My Arch boots up in 5 seconds
what kind of boot-up time is standard for other distros?
and what other benefits does Arch provide that other distros dont?

>what's the benefit over using other user friendly distros?
Rolling release, and because OP wanted Arch for some reason.

>this isn't referencing installation

That's exactly what it means, though. It talks about less, not more. The difference between Arch and, for example, Antergos is the software it ships on the installation. With Arch you can go as minimalist as you want and don't even install a graphical desktop environment.

>Arch
>minimalist
How can anyone believe this when Arch doesn't even split packages