Should I use Arch Linux

Arch isn’t a bad distribution by any means but if you want to switch just go use Debian it’s the best distribution ever.

Don’t forget Alpine

Today commons Linux distribution are OK for everybody, autism for couple megabytes RAM in 8 or more GB or 3-5% single core performance of 4core processor,don’t reward spend time in autism distros.

well meme'd my friend

Stay on Ubuntu man.

Manjaro

Attached: wp1947761.png (1920x1080, 42K)

needs AUR installed for it to be good.

Manjaro is the easy way.

Manjaro's pretty good and comes with a default riced out i3 spin. Takes little fernagling to set up, but once it is holy fack.

My boot time with OSX was 3.5minutes, 2 for Ubuntu, 12s with Arch (with autologin)

>Debian it’s the best distribution ever.
Why? Doesn't Arch have newer packages?

Yeah but you sacrifice stability for it, good chance a -Syu can lead to fixing your system for a bit or waiting for other packages to be pushed. That and you lose the mindshare of having PPAs for fucking everything

Yes, although initial experience will be very painful it will rapidly increase your linux knowledge and skills. Like jumping down the middle of the river from boat to learn how to swim instead of going to pool.

Yes if you wish to understand advanced reddit memes.

Arch Linux is like a BBC. Scary and extremely painful when you try it the first time. But once you go black, you never come back.

>you never come back
until an update breaks your OS

... which you fix in literally 1 minute... yeah, pretty much

>CTRL+F "Slack"
>0 results
If you want to learn Red Hat, you install RHEL. If you want to learn Linux, you install Slackware.

Arch is only for people who like to test stuff and run cutting edge new shit.

No sane person would run Arch as a server for example. In fact there was a story about some guy a while back on the Arch forums who got into serious shit for recommending Arch for his company.

So Arch is good for enough for testing, personal use (if you have the time to upkeep) and especially if you like ricing your OS. Otherwise you are far better off with Ubuntu or Debian.

I wouldn't bother. Ubuntu or Debian is the most usable distro. Arch is more for neckbeards that need to fill their time with problems to solve to stave off the thoughts of suicide

Attached: 1457458503703.png (498x497, 377K)

You try it out, stupid. Everybody will tell you if it's for them but nobody will tell if it's for you.

no. use Ubuntu get work done. arch is a meme distro. If you absolutely need it's features like aur use Antergos or manjaro.

Yes it can be used. The golden rule for all servers is: Do Not Update.

Then you will eventually have vulnerable servers. This is not a golden rule. This is a retard cop out.

There is no reason to switch from ubuntu to Arch

Gentoo is botnet.

USE WHATEVER WORKS FOR YOU
ffs these people...

Arch is good for learning stuff though

Why do people still worry about botnet in 2018. Can't you basement dwelling knobs accept the fact you cant escape it.

no reason to use arch linux unless you like tinkering
just use ubuntu

Kek. Have you tried updating a server, brave soul?

Literally install Gentoo

>Gentoo
>botnet
Only if you make it a botnet
You glow too much

what is this? a picture for ANTS?!?!?!?! XDDDDDD

Attached: epic style.png (380x349, 70K)

Try Manjaro, it's basically Arch but easier to install, if you like it switch to Arch.

Yes. I work for a mechanics company. We update our servers every 2-3 years.

Attached: arch broken xorg.png (1349x695, 13K)

>beginner/noob
Ubuntu, Mint, Manjaro

>lifeless wageslave
Debian, RedHat, SLES, CentOS

>top tier hacker and serious devops
Arch, Gentoo

>beginner/noob
*buntu

>lifeless wageslave at work
Debian, RedHat, SLES, CentOS

>smart neckbeards
Debian, Slackware, Gentoo

>embedded/special systems
LFS, Gentoo, Debian

>redditor """""hackers""""" who install an unstable distro but can't fix their shit or even realize that they are using a meme
Arch, Manjaro.

Attached: Arch redditors.png (851x942, 184K)

What is the greater meme? Gentoo or Arch?
In fact if anyone wants to explain the pros/contras of each distro?

With gentoo, you have lots of choice. By default it's using stable packages. It's far less inconvenient to set up than almost any other distro. You have to compile all the packages and updates you install, but this is easier than it sounds since gentoo provides a great package manager to automate the compilation.

Arch is an OS that is designed to be simple. What this actually means is that the developers are really lazy and usually go with the solutions that are quick and dirty, but are very inconvenient for the user:
- It has very fresh packages, but these usually have bugs that haven't been fixed yet. Since Arch's package manager only supports upgrading all packages when you're doing an update, you're usually guaranteed to end up with broken, unusable packages that you can't downgrade
- It's official repository is tiny compared to most other distributions (because the devs are lazy). Some people have developed the Arch user repository to fix this issue. The AUR basically works like gentoo's package manager because you have to compile the software contained in it yourself. The big difference is that the AUR is completely maintained by random (lazy) users who often don't maintain their scripts. It also makes it easy to inject malware into the build scripts because literally anyone can upload them.
- While Gentoo allows for lots of choices between what programs you can use, Arch is the opposite. Only a very specific configuration is officially supported, everyone using different core components (e.g. no systemd) will end up with broken packages

Not true you don't get broken packages because you don't use systemd. Stop poettering posting

Arch is more of a meme, Gentoo actually sees a surprising amount of real use in embedded systems and similar types of systems while arch is literally a hobby OS as its creators intended

Arch has never been a minimalist distribution. Splitting packages is rare compared to other distributions, and dependencies aren't made optional whenever possible. Arch has never been minimalist... a Linux kernel with every module available and every feature enabled at least when there's no non-bloat related cost, feature-packed/complex GNU tools, nearly all optional features enabled across all the packages, etc. Additionally;
>pacman is fast but not safe, it tends to break shit and config protection is implemented in a terrible way
>there is no official process to verify that a package is stable within the distro, in other distros a lot of packages are in a testing repo despite that specific package's developer claiming it to be stable on its own, because it might not be stable within the environment of a specific distro
>(arch v gentoo related) arch users complain about 'muh compile time' when it comes to gentoo, while in fact they compile a lot of AUR packages themselves, namely the *- git packages that pull the source from a git repo
>but it gets even better: they only compile a handful of packages, and those not being libraries mostly, the self-compiled packages get linked against precompiled libraries from a different setup (e.g. different optimization levels), which can then cause even more instability because it's a clusterfuck of unequal shit
>arch uses (((systemd))) and switching to something else is hard
>the vim package on arch pulls in X, so if you want to have a fancy terminal text editor on a headless server, you need to install a shitton of GUI stuff which you'll never need nor use
>maintainer told the guy who complained to just symlink vi to vim (vi is inferior)

(2/2)
>arch users pride themselves in installing arch and learning so much about how linux works under the hood, yet the install is literally copypasting a bunch of commands, usually without proper explanation
>e.g. to chroot into the new install, you use arch-chroot, which automatically bind-mounts procfs, devfs and sysfs, but nowhere on the guide does it say that that's a very important step, so should archfags ever need to fix their system via chrooting from a livecd that doesn't have arch-chroot, they'd be fucked
>the kernel is auto-configured in a just werks way (basically make allyesconfig), which is unnecessary bloat and for such a diy distro, configuring the kernel yourself should be the official way of doing it
>arch cannot boot without an initramfs per default
>pacstrap always installs the same shit, uclibc, dietlibc, musl, gnu-less toolchains etc are not an option from the get-go

Worst post ever.

>t. assblasted arch user

>t. assblasted arch user

How do you install the aur? You just git clone the packages you want and makepkg -si, the aur is a manual repo you can’t install it

Literally never had an -Syu break anything, don’t believe the meme

>the vim package on arch pulls in X, so if you want to have a fancy terminal text editor on a headless server, you need to install a shitton of GUI stuff which you'll never need nor use
you're full of shit
archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/vim/

the gentoo compiling takes unreasonable amount of time on my old laptop, arch is fine as long as you have a semi good clue of what you're doing, even then it's really simple, so you'll probably run through 1 extra install before you're settled into it if you're not coming from a linux background
i bet gentoo is perfectly ok, its just that i cant use it on old things, ill sometime soon install it on my main machine and see how it works

Agree with everything except for your comments about the install.
Arch and gentoo install are identical. Just because gentoo makes you run a few extra mount commands means basically nothing. In fact, that section of the gentoo install is an example of the "mindless command copy and pasting" just like in arch.

No matter what Linux flavour you use,it will be fine as long it is stable with your some honing skills and hot tweaks.

If you have to ask then stay on ubuntu.

(Not here to defend Arch, more like to dicuss given points; With non mentioned points I agree btw)

>It's far less inconvenient to set up than almost any other distro.
Cannot agree with that. Other distros are far more easiert to setup. Or am I the only one who thinks that a GUI is just simpler than cmd?

>Since Arch's package manager only supports upgrading all packages when you're doing an update, you're usually guaranteed to end up with broken, unusable packages that you can't downgrade
Upgrade single pkg: bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=76376
wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/downgrading_packages

>- It's official repository is tiny compared to most other distributions (because the devs are lazy).
Portage package count is in fact double the size of the offical Arch repo, but does that mean it has more programs? Or does that mean the packages are just split up multiple times?

>- different core components (e.g. no systemd) will end up with broken packages
Do you have a reference to that?

>>arch cannot boot without an initramfs per default
Reference again?
Also gentoo does need a small preperation to use an initramfs. (Kernel needs support, you need dracut or genkernel(-next) and the update grub) What differs that from arch?

i got ubuntu a while back and said to myself i'll switch to something else when i learn more about linux. after i did learn abit more it dawned on me that there's no reason to switch, so i didnt.
still see no reason to bother myself to switch, maybe someone in this thread can offer a good argument of installing arch over kubuntu

Xubuntu user here, I'd like installing Arch because of its up to date packages, it seems to offer everything I want while with Ubuntu I either get old versions or none at all.

used to be that way, luckily they got smarter

sudo pacman -Sy yaourt

How exactly is it a botnet? Besides le ebin meme

>>It's far less inconvenient to set up than almost any other distro.
>Cannot agree with that. Other distros are far more easiert to setup. Or am I the only one who thinks that a GUI is just simpler than cmd?
Depends on how much control the GUI takes away. For example a friend of mine couldn't get grub-install to install the GRUB MBR to the right drive because the installer chose it automatically. As a gentooman my first instinctive thought was "Dude just grub-install /dev/sdX it yourself".
>>Since Arch's package manager only supports upgrading all packages when you're doing an update, you're usually guaranteed to end up with broken, unusable packages that you can't downgrade
>Upgrade single pkg: bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=76376
>wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/downgrading_packages
On the second link:
>Downgrading one package may require that its dependencies be downgraded as well.
(remaining text in the warning box may be relevant as well)
What this basically means is that pacman can't do reverse dependencies automatically. Portage supports it, but at the cost of much slower dependency resolution. So while all this is possible, it's more of a "not recommended" or "not officially supported" type of thing.
>>- different core components (e.g. no systemd) will end up with broken packages
>Do you have a reference to that?
Nope. Taking hot shots: Arch builds all binaries that support it against libsystemd, thus you need systemd installed or else those binaries don't run.
>>>arch cannot boot without an initramfs per default
>Reference again?
bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=153517
Note the "per default", link states the standard kernel does not support it, lots of modules I assume
>Also gentoo does need a small preperation to use an initramfs. (Kernel needs support, you need dracut or genkernel(-next) and the update grub) What differs that from arch?
pacman updates the initrd automatically when a package installs modules

Thats bs, i use arch on my work laptop, which allows me to work with all the latest versions locally and customize it. I've never had an update break my system in 2 years. Only thing that sometimes needs manual intervention is a python install but i fixed that by switching to virtualenv for python.

yaourt can be a bitch sometimes
read about/ try aurman

Arch Linux breaks if you do any of the following:
wait too long between updates
update at the wrong time
update only some of your packages
update without first manually fixing the botched updates listed on the Arch homepage

Yaourt has no more maintenance so its pretty much dead. Aurman no longer has public support(theres a thread on reddit about the maintainer getting too many shit tier issues on github)

If you're gonna use an aur helper i recommend yay.

>As a gentooman my first instinctive thought was "Dude just grub-install /dev/sdX it yourself".
Agree with that. Nice story btw

>>wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/downgrading_packages
>What this basically means is that pacman can't do reverse dependencies automatically. Portage supports it, but at the cost of much slower dependency resolution. So while all this is possible, it's more of a "not recommended" or "not officially supported" type of thing.
The wiki states
>Dependency changes will be handled, but pacman will not handle version conflicts.
So in fact portage's adavantage is ""only"" handling version conflicts on downgrade - which, of course, is considered a basic feature for a package manager

>>>>arch cannot boot without an initramfs per default
>Note the "per default", link states the standard kernel does not support it, lots of modules I assume
>pacman updates the initrd automatically when a package installs modules
I was a retard and read 'could not boot without by default', however yeah you cleared things up for me. Thank you, pretty good arguments

Start by using the command line on ubuntu. You can even change to a tiling window manager on ubuntu. Don't distro-hop until you have a really good reason.

This

If you want Arch just install Manjaro. It's the same except installs easier and most of the things you'll need are pre-installed. If you care about a minimal distros I guess use Arch. I used both, but switched to Debian, would recommend doing that.

stop shilling mediocre distros

If you want packages in close sync with upstream, be able to easily build your preferred environment without having to remove a ton of preinstalled crap, and not having to spend 80% of your CPU time compiling updates (hello Gentoo) since you get binaries, then yeah, Arch is probably for you.

If you have a religious aversion towards systemd, then you'd already be running Gentoo, so that's obviously not an issue.

>wait too long between updates
true, it's a rolling release distro

>update at the wrong time
what ?

>update only some of your packages
true for practically every distro, I'd say NixOS and GuixSD are the exceptions.

>update without first manually fixing the botched updates listed on the Arch homepage
you get a warning when updating, and something like this happens about one time per year at most.

Should it worry me that I read this incoherent babble and agreed with it completely?

can i get a quick rundown on systemd

Args Linugs was the first thing I installed, after years of pain trying Ubuntu. Arch was the first good experience I had with Linux, and as such, I'm still using it. Installing it as a beginner eats ass though, since they took down the easy guide. Try an installer, like Antergos, and tell it to use the official Arch repositories. Then it'll just be Arch.

Can't get my printer (HP) to work with Arch Linux. Error: filter failed :(

Install gentoo.

*Hello, hello, Bull Shit. Are you there?"
>Calling it

if you have someting that werks why would you replace it with anything?

Just install The Arch Way.

If you can't, it's not for you.

Install ArchLabs. It's the best.

Nobody's going to answer to that though
But when a ubunfag will break its new Arch install because he couldn't set the locale right everybody will react