Why do you use Arch?

Why do you use Arch?

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

i like it

but i don't
arch is for niggers

i don't answer to frogs.

i'm using it until i can get a stable rice going, then i'm switching to void linux

no racism in the arch thread pls

I use antergos

What advantage does void have over arch?

Isn't that just an installer for arch?

for the AUR and the documentation

yeah, i know the documentation generally applies to most other distros, but there's certain Arch kinks that i'm just very used to

>What advantage does void have over arch?
more sane defaults
better package splitting
libressl

it's a pretty good distro, but i switched back to Arch anyway because the latter just has more support atm

>better package splitting
Most distros do this in the most annoying way possible. Having split "-dev" packages is stupid and just wastes everybody's time.

I guess, but still

because it works since 2014 without issues

Cause I can't install gentoo

don't forget runit instead of cancerd

Attached: ARG_LINUGS_DDDDDDDDDDDDD.png (512x512, 51K)

Why do I use Arch? For me, it's pacman, the best package manager in the GNU/world, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU+world.

it werks

no that's ubuntu

i enjoy updating every few hours

no that's for pajeets

i went over their handbook and it's basically one tar command after you wget it first
the rest is configuration

the only reason I use it is because it's the only distro whose package manager hasn't destroyed something while trying to uninstall software I've just installed
rocking it on my desktop since 2013, probably never going to leave

I don't.
Ubuntu and Debian at home, CentOS for any sort of server shit and freenas aka BSD for my animu storage shit.

Use Artix. It's Arch without the systemd cancer.

I've used it for ~10 years

pros:

packages keeping pace with upstream, including core, still very stable due to the work of volunteers running the 'testing' repo and hitting the bugs instead of the rest of us.

relatively bare bones, meaning you don't have to remove a ton of stuff before setting up your own ideal system.

a wide range of packages available across the official repos, with a user repo (AUR) providing practically anything else you need.

great community and wiki.


cons:

since it distributes binaries, you typically end up with tons of dependencies for features you're not interested in, making your system unecessarily large, also potentially more vulnerable.

packagers typically use conservative optimization flags which is fine for most stuff, but leads to serious loss of performance in very cpu intensive stuff.

Is there a way to install arch without systemd?

Nigger you were just told how

Artix Linux base iso my friend

I run pacman -Syu ever morning when i boot up my computer. Never takes more than a minute or two. Not a problem whatsoever.

I like to break my OS so I can hit my head on the desk trying to fix something that requires going through shady forums like Jow Forums.
niggers

no memes answer
>fresh packages
>minimalistic (in a sense it doesn't come with shit I don't want)
>AUR is a quick and easy way to install any software ever written for Linux
but
>AUR packages tend to break, I can't count the times when mpv-git would break and I had to recompile it against newest libs
>sometimes an AUR package would outright refuse to compile because the maintainer is straight up retarded

Basically AUR is one of the biggest advantages of Arch but also it's worst flaws.
From time to time I'm distrohopping to KDE neon, Manjaro, openPEPE or Fedora but I'm always coming back to arch after a while.

Attached: aqua__konosuba____render_by_iga1ahad-dbz4foo.png (730x1080, 278K)

it's the only decent bleeding edge distro

what do you think of manjaro so far, is it better than arch as everyone says?

It's basically Arch but already set-up, plus some extra software like the kernel manager, octopi and bunch of other stuff. Everything is nicely integrated into system settings (on Plasma at least), makes it easy to recommend to normies. I can see why it's #1 on Distrowatch.
I think some packages are older than in Arch though. I didn't spend enough time on Manjaro to really research that.

Better than Ubuntu. Don't have the time to move to Gentoo or Fedora.

I'm using gentoo.

Attached: file.png (1034x643, 231K)

Attached: trapped in the closet part IV.png (734x1232, 96K)

Because the command line is awesome.

But i don't
arch is full of malware

>year 256+1762 not using the universal operating system

Attached: gnudebian.jpg (371x323, 49K)

I don't, I use Gentoo.

Attached: gentoo.png (512x512, 104K)

It just werks.

and it feels good

I switched to debian but I'm starting to regret it. It has more sane defaults and no need to twinker the drivers on first installation but arch has better upstream for desktops. It may not be parched for security or stability but it's where is at for 64bit x86 desktops, just don't do partial updates. They are released with the mindset that you will update all dependencies, so it can break if you fug that. But still debian or ubuntu is more safe if you don't care about staying up to date for new features.
spurdo bagman -Syu :DDDD

Has anyone experience with Artix and can compare it to Arch?

Autism is the only reason why people use arch. People who have regular jobs use stable distros like Debian not some hipster shit

Install gentoo

Nah, arch should be fine for a desktop. Is faster to install but a bit slow to set up properly. I can get into arch faster than on debian. But once installed the difference is Debian has more official packages, and Arch has less but newer packages. So I always go for Debian. Arch is for people that are developing for Linux (lol) I guess since they have to try on newer versions or something. I just use my linux shitbox for school so no problems here with debian.

>Arch is for people that are developing for Linux
No, that's just what Archfags tell themselves.

I sort of use Arch, sure it's called Manjaro but it's just preconfigured Arch. Why would you go through the hassle of the Arch install process when you can just get a preconfigured desktop that Just Werks™

Why do I use an Arch derivative? Latest vanilla packages, rolling release, access to a vast array of software in the AUR (even makes installing git versions fairly straightforward).

Attached: arch5.png (381x399, 29K)

>arch should be fine for a desktop
>should be fine

>Why would you go through the hassle of the Arch install process
too stupid to even partition disks

I fucking don't. I'm not autistic. I use Xubuntu and puppy.

last time i tried the Arch install I was doing it on EFI but I had no understanding of EFI partitions

Every distro is a lot easier now that I have an EFI partition on my Linux SSD and know to mount it under /boot/efi


Arch install isn't hard if you follow instructions, it's just a hassle to go through the steps of setting your timezone by hand when you can get an installer that does it (and tons of other stuff) for you.

Attached: arch1.jpg (1000x922, 60K)

Because I like the AUR more than layers.

It’s sexy

Also join Kik group #tori2p

lol have fun with your broken repositories retard

I am white with blue eyes just like the arch logo. I love arch for its simplicity. Ubuntu is a nigger name for linux tho

yeah man i went down to the south to visit my aunt to deliver her some formula for her foster kid, let me tell ya man, the amount of niggers i seen at the ol starbucks usin dem arch machines woooo eee!! mm-hmm

Attached: 0cc[1].jpg (633x640, 47K)

this image has been through the compression wringer, my god.