ARCH or DEBIAN

Every time I've used Arch there is some problem with drivers or package managers.

Debian just seems to work out of the box.

I used to want the riced i3 setup, but it just doesn't ever seem to work. So, I went back to what did which was Gnome and Debian.

Is this an Allende tux?

>some problem with drivers or package managers.
Impossible. It's well documented, you can check the wiki before you install a new driver or run into an issue.
There's only one package manager. It doesn't have issues by itself but it is possible to break the system by -Rdd'ing things or doing other unsupported stuff.

>impossible
I always have problems with bluetooth, wifi or sound. Whenever I use Debian, everything is detected from the installer whereas with arch I have to screw around to now avail.

It's not like I'm using strange hardware either, I'm using an older ASUS laptop.

>only one
Unless you need things from yaourt.

Even with some pre-configured setup like LARBS, there are issues with i3 and so on.

Don't get me wrong, it's cool stuff but it just doesn't seem to work for me.

networkmanager should deal with wifi. If it doesn't work, which happened to me once, netctl and wifi-menu is a great alternative.
Yaourt and pacaur are deprecated. Most people switched to trizen by now. But the rule of thumb is that aur is unsupported and it's better to replace aur packages with official ones.
I haven't tried larbs. I think it's a meme. But you can get luke's rice after the install simply by cloning the repo.

Like whats a purpose of faster package manager? U use it maybe once per week or month

Attached: 1457980125745.png (1024x768, 166K)

I run pacman -Syu every day to get more updates.

Your picture is super outdated and made by a person who hasn't used Arch. Arch doesn't have rc.conf anymore. In fact arch switched to systemd several years ago. It also says something about compiling packages but arch is a binary distro.

i3 is a retarded meme. awesomewm is much better, but it isn't shilled by ricers. awesomewm supports gaps natively (no need to install extra packages like i3-gaps).

>Arch
>Most stable
>More packages with AUR
>Easiest to keep running, though harder to setup
>Mostly just works

>Debian
>Known for bugs and shills
>Older packages and known for security holes
>Installer a bit dodgy, but tends to be easy
>May not have your drivers for wifi or video, or may not support newer hardware kernel

I'd recommend you use Ubuntu for server, and Lubuntu for reviving an old PC.

>- Misc. server
Debian
>>Debian
>>Known for bugs and shills
>>Older packages and known for security holes
>>Installer a bit dodgy, but tends to be easy
>>May not have your drivers for wifi or video, or may not support newer hardware kernel
>I'd recommend you use Ubuntu for server, and Lubuntu for reviving an old PC.
Are you literally retarded?

Do you even know what Ubuntu is? Or how Debian works??

Just use Ubuntu Minimal and install i3 you twat.

Manjaro is not Arch, rofl
>>>/sqt/

Debian

you don't put a window manager on a server.

He's right. Debian is ridiculously bad and used only because of shills or by newfags. I'd recommend you not to use any apt-based distro.

This. Also why would you use i3? I'd use Manjaro KDE (which I call ManDE) instead.

Attached: Bottle of olive oil.jpg (1600x1600, 141K)

>Debian is ridiculously bad and used only because of shills or by newfags.
That is why people should use Ubuntu? Because that is what the guy claimed.

Aside from that Debian is the best distro I have ever used nothing comes even close.

i3 saves you mouse movements and keystrokes. Of course it only makes sense if all your workflow is keyboard-driven, you won't gain much productivity otherwise. Terminal applications are great with i3.

Ubuntu still has apt. If ubuntu used pacman it would be the best distro though. But manjaro pretty much accomplishes it. It's the most popular distribution on distrowatch now.

>Ubuntu still has apt.
And is based on Debian, zero of the issues the guy mentioned are fixed from moving to Ubuntu from Debian.

>If ubuntu used pacman it would be the best distro though.
Apt does what it is supposed to, that is enough for me.

>It's the most popular distribution on distrowatch now.
I couldn't care less, Majaro is a complete mess I had multiple programs break and it refused to install on my laptop.
You shouldn't use it if you actually need a reliable system. It is arch for dummies.

Install Crux

Attached: crux.jpg (189x267, 9K)

Of course the issues remain. They might be fixed by moving to a pacman-based distro.
Have you seen those bizarre speed differences between pacman and apt? There's a comparison video on youtube.
Manjaro is good enough for daily use I guess.

>Have you seen those bizarre speed differences between pacman and apt?
No and to be honest I don't really care.

>They might be fixed by moving to a pacman-based distro.
No.

>No.
Don't be so pessimistic. Your problems can be solved. Imagine no more database corruptions, slow speeds, broke dependencies, recursive system uninstalls by accident, black screens after an update, etc. Pacman is great and powerful.

>Have you seen those bizarre speed differences between pacman and apt?
No and to be honest I don't really care.

>They might be fixed by moving to a pacman-based distro.
No.
>Imagine no more database corruptions, slow speeds, broke dependencies, recursive system uninstalls by accident, black screens after an update, etc.
I don't need to. It is the reality using Debian.

distribution does not matter in i3

Actually, the founder of the debian project killed himself after realizing how shitty the distro had become. This is still a great danger for those who use it since the debian project is not closed. More and more people realize what have they done with their lives and hang themselves.

Try Manjaro.

Everything worked out of the box for me.
I've tried Linux Mint, I had to install wireless driver.

You are a dumb faggot with nothing but questions instead of answers. I gave answers. Ubuntu is not Debian. "muh it's based upon it" is not an argument. There's binary differences.

apt isn't so bad.

Manjaro sucks. Anarchy Linux does what it wanted to do way better.

I use centos on my server

and debian on my pc

WDYT?

>Ubuntu is not Debian
Yes, that is true.
>. "muh it's based upon it" is not an argument. There's binary differences.
Yes, but so what.
You still don't know what Debian is since half your points are just wrong.
Even complaining that debians packages are old is sure way to detect a clueless retard.

>arch is a binary distro.
It kinda is, yeah. The main repos are binary-based while the AUR is source-based. Now, one can certainly use Arch without ever using the AUR, but I think the AUR is one of Arch's best features. (Mind you, I switched from Arch to Gentoo because I wanted to go full source-based.)

Attached: 1531796198910.jpg (1600x1200, 107K)

Using Manjaro I wanted to kill myself.
Debian made that stop.

>If you try to upgrade to the testing release it starts crashing
you are not meant to change repositories if you install stable

Attached: 1525097459253.png (211x239, 6K)

makes sense. But I always end up changing to testing when I have to run debian. I also install pacapt because it makes debian less painful.

you install testing from the testing installer, never change from stable