For the people who can't install arch

It's a fair analogy though. I've installed Antergos before because I didn't feel like setting up arch. I've installed Arch many times, but sometimes you just don't feel like manually doing things...
And just to shut you up before you claim I cannot install Arch, it's only a few steps-
Check network
Format drive
Mount drive
pacstrap
chroot into the new install and set shit up

It's not exactly rocket science, but honestly why wouldn't you automate the process?

>no job
>no gf
God damn it, you got both right.

Attached: 1525409605261.png (645x772, 147K)

I can and have installed arch. Manjaro has everything I like about arch without any of the hassle. I don't have to check news whenever I updates. I also like their kde theme a lot. I think the default one sucks and the ones online are always missing things.

Installing arch isn't hard, configuring all the shit necessary to get a working desktop environment is

Manjaro is shit though, use Xubuntu instead

You know, I wouldn't have any problems with that, if they didn't change the name and claim it as a standalone distribution that is based on Arch, when it's just Arch with bloat.

How is manjaro like a car and arch like a horse? It should be arch is like a horse and manjaro a horse carrying a ton of shit.

Antergos is basically vanilla arch. Manjaro is a lot more polished. The updates are much slower though. Antergos is as bleeding edge as arch is. Manjaro gets updates every couple of weeks except for security issues which get immediate updates.

>How is manjaro like a car and arch like a horse?
In that Arch is a backwards pos?`

>configuring all the shit necessary to get a working desktop environment is
Exactly, I had no problem installing arch but getting gnome working was a complete pain. The biggest problem was making sure all the necessary services were running at boot.

Horses are for people that can't drive stick.

>if it wasn't x with bloat
Is it 2014?

how the fuck is Antergos less stable than Arch

Meh, manjaro is always messing with kernel modules, no matter which kernel version I use on the architect ISO.
I wish the AUR would be used with other package managers.

>gnome with Arch

Im a fag manjaro doesnt install on laptop

Attached: 1515572426242.png (912x570, 169K)

I switched to kde anyway. it was easier to set up. I couldn't get the Bluetooth to load on gnome.

Antergos is a buggy piece of shit that lags like KDE on a 1990s thinkpad.

>for the people who can't install gentoo

Attached: Archlinux-icon-crystal-64.png (2000x2000, 137K)

For people who have better shit to do than install arch.

I've had both, and you are better off without them. You have to do something with your life, though.

>more DEs and WMs out of the box
For people too retarded to install a DE or WM.

Gentoo and Arch are totally different.

Yeah gentoo is actual worth all the effort. Arch is the same bloated shit is the other distros it just takes longer to install.

Switched from Arch to Manjaro.
On Arch you manually have to search how to do every single thing and occasionally I forget about the 10 steps I need to follow to have very basic functionality working on my computer that should definitely work out of the box.
It's a cool distro to learn more about how a linux based OS works, but that's it. Massive waste of time for anything else. Manjaro is also more stable. On arch it was pretty common for me to have an important package having certain bugs.

Is Gentoo faster than Arch?

It can be pretty snappy if you know what you're doing when you install it.

>for the people who can't build LFS

Attached: 2000px-Gentoo-logo-peach.svg.png (2000x2105, 366K)

Arch dev community is literally retarded as well

"Hurr Idgaf if we break your shit here's an update that we never tested"

"Oh it broke all your stuff? Just go back to the old version"

>for the people who can't build Gentoo

Attached: Funtoo.png (203x82, 16K)

youtube.com/watch?v=BtgDRrh4_3c

Attached: -.jpg (800x600, 21K)

it's better and more stable
also I can use antergos for easy arch install :)

>for the people who actually need to get things done

Attached: serveimage.png (600x600, 27K)

/thread

funny how gentoo faggots in last days when they realized gentoo's vision of compiling shit from source is deprecated pushed back to one solid argument ""le you can't install it le xD". I see arch faggots do the same, but what is worse, I can't tell which of those two distros are more useless if gentoo or arch.

It takes less than 10 minutes to install Arch.

Why do you think Xfce4 is the best for productivity?

had to be said

Yeah whatever dude. It's still a complete and total waste of time. It's just as bloated as every other distro. It still uses pulseaudio and systemd and the same utilities. When you install gentoo you can get any configuration you want. It's worth the effort involved. Arch is just an ego trip. it's users a bunch of cunts anyway. Gentoo and Slackware users are much better to deal with.

Keep crying, bitchtits.

Manjaro is for people who want shit to work. I did run pure Arch, it's not hard but it's annoying.
I use computer for you know, actual work?

What was your issue? Is it that hard to identify your hardware?

What are you talking about? I'm just saying arch is annoying as fuck. Why would I spend time to manually change things just so my OS could work?
I have enough of this at work

>light on resources
>highly customizable
>xfce4 panel is a blessing
>whisker menu
>fast

No matter how powerful or shit my next desktop will be, Xubuntu will be my primary choice as daily-driver OS.

>can't drive stick
>gets a license anyways
fucking muricunts.

>needing to know how to use an obsolete piece of machinery like a manual transmission

> t. dumbass arch user
Stop wasting your time.

Attached: 1526449921587.jpg (646x960, 264K)

dumb frogposter
good double number

Ubuntu spies on you. Why use an inferior fork rather than the original?

Antergos is pure arch, so whatever happens in arch happens in antergos. If that's what you want then it's very good, I've not had any problems with it.

Manjaro's team audits stuff, so updates might come a little late. This adds stability, but it also makes it less secure since you have to wait for patches.
Manjaro also has more default de's and wms preconfigures.

Becase xfce is better than Gnome

So? Ubuntu still sucks. Why are you using it?

I'm using it because it's noob-friendly, it's well supported and it's easy to find solutions to fix problems. What distro do you recommend?

If you want something easy use Arch. If you want something good use Void.

>arch
>void
To begin with, I want something that doesn't break

You're basing your opinion on memes.

I use LMDE2 Mate with xfce4. It's a bit bloated but pretty stable and requires less setup than Xubuntu.

Maybe, but arch doesn't look like an easy-to-use distro to me.

Shit, forgot to mention that it's got a great community too, which I think you will appreciate.

What looks difficult to you about it?

Installing Ubuntu is a piece of cake: copy the .iso on a USB drive, boot, open installation program, follow the instructions, it works.
Everything else is considered difficult by me, I'm not an advanced Linux user at all. What concerns me about Arch is that I need to configure it all by myself and the installer interface is minimal. I can't say that I'm not interested in Arch, though, since my goal is to work on a light environment on my next laptop.

Except bare bones arch is less bloated than manjaro

Less setup than 2-3 clicks in Xubuntu, lol.

There's a beginners guide on the Arch wiki that walks you through every step. Once you install a DE/WM it's just as easy to configure as any distro. It's even easier because Arch is better documented than most distros.

In theory you can get a 10% performance boost from compiling everything. In practice you probably won't notice.

I haven't noticed Gentoo being too much faster than Arch on my T430.

I've been reading Arch Wiki, it looks like it's really well made. What I want to know is how faster is Arch than Xubuntu or Lubuntu. Does it boot faster too? Also can I install just i3 as both WM and DE on Arch?

Thank you, but I'd rather stay with Xubuntu, since I'm used to it.

It isn't ignore that dumbass. I mean it's fine once you actual install it but you're going to be lost if you aren't familiar with the terminal. If Ubuntu works for you keep using Ubuntu there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It has lots of software and great security.

Wiki is a meme. It's useless without a video guide.

Yeah, I know it's not that easy. I'm not the kind of guy that uses the terminal for every operation, so a simple UI is important to me. I've never had problems with Xubuntu to be honest, even though I'd like to run a minimal installation of it in the future: I'd like to install only the few programs and utilities I need.

You can try debian then. Ubuntu is based off it so everything should be familiar. It's a lot lighter and minimal then Ubuntu. I wouldn't advise it though. Ubuntu is fine for your needs there is no reason to waste your time distro hopping.

>for the people who think following 15 steps from a wiki makes them smart

Attached: file.png (400x400, 126K)

What about Xubuntu Core?

Manjaro or xubuntu for a newfag?

Yes, it's slightly faster than Ubuntu, but the difference is negligible. The DE is pretty irrelevant. Yeah, just install i3 and put it in your Xinit file.

for the people who dont want their system to break every 2 weeks
fuck arch

Does gentoo have preocompiled large binaries like firefox, for example?

yes

reporting in.

Attached: 3.jpg (229x220, 10K)