Gimme all ya Arch memes

Gimme all ya Arch memes

Attached: b4c3042f-48f6-4cf7-97a8-70b0e25d56e9..png (540x625, 285K)

Other urls found in this thread:

storage.privatevoid.net/s/kPPxCaDosZ5j4qm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Stop making fun of it. Arch is literally the best thing i discovered in the past 10 years. I don't care if someone makes fun of me because i'm fat or some random shit meme hes pulling, Arch may as well be the best OS ever made.

>t. brainlet

>has systemd

not a problem

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)

Attached: 1538761619337.gif (800x533, 3.69M)

>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

Attached: aeaeae.gif (524x399, 53K)

>Legitimate concern
>"Not a problem"

>security doesn't matter

wtf i hate arch now

I use Arch because it's unironically the most stable desktop distro I've used outside of Debian. I don't care about running a minimal system I just want something that doesn't break every 3 weeks and that has packages that aren't 3 decades old.

today i sill remind them

Attached: arch_btfo.png (995x510, 127K)

if you cared about stability whatsoever you'd be using either debian or gentoo
no excuses faggot

Attached: 1538584491841.jpg (453x600, 139K)

>debian
On servers, sure. But I don't want retard old packages on my desktop system.

>Gentoo
I don't value my time that little. Which is why I want a stable system to begin with.

Attached: downloadfile-8.png (1465x1007, 117K)

>debian on servers
Enjoy being part of a chinese botnet

I will, thanks.

If a two minute compile time for a large package is too much for you, go back to daycare. Literally -j16 on any modern hardware you nonce. Oh yeah, Gentoo also comes with portage layers and the ability to mix different versions of the same software at once, much easier than what the equivalent would be on Arch.

But of course, you would be more willing to sacrifice stability, configurability, custom-fitting, and peak usability for.... "bleeding edge binary packages".

>debian repo is old a durr hurr dur durr
protip: that's what stability looks like. You can use other repos for that or literally compile source yourself.

>muh bleeding edge
Well guess what faggot, you're not getting bleeding edge from the very beginning if you're using preconfigured binaries.

>If a two minute compile time for a large package is too much for you, go back to daycare. Literally -j16 on any modern hardware you nonce.
This is just disingenuous. Does most software compile reasonably fast? Yes, (although updating 10 packages that all require 1-2 minutes to build is still 10-20 minutes). Even then, a typical desktop/laptop is going to have several pieces of software that will take an inordinate amount of time to build.

>Oh yeah, Gentoo also comes with portage layers and the ability to mix different versions of the same software at once, much easier than what the equivalent would be on Arch.
Oh great, a feature basically nobody ever needs on a machine with a typical use case. I guess you win.

>But of course, you would be more willing to sacrifice
>stability,
I've had maybe 3 or 4 very minor (ie. like 2 minutes to look up the issue and fix it) breakages on my machine in the past couple years. Gentoo/Debian might theoretically have better stability, but it's a tiny amount of functional improvement over my current situation.

>configurability, custom-fitting,
You're right, I don't care about manually fiddling with a bunch of options. I just want something that gets the job done and stays out of my way.

>and peak usability
What the fuck does this even mean?

>for.... "bleeding edge binary packages".
No, for a system that requires very little maintenance effort and packages that are reasonably up to date. I never said anything about bleeding edge.

>protip: that's what stability looks like.
Again, I don't care. The amount of extra stability Debian actually provides over my current Arch install is minimal at best.
>You can use other repos for that or literally compile source yourself.
Which increases the maintenance demand, and will lower overall system stability anyway.

Image makes no sense.
Arch doesn't stop you from doing any of those things.

Artix

>it don't compile fast durr abloo bloo
Stop using processors from 2000
>he has had any problems at all
use a distro that isn't shit
>I don't care about configuration at all I just want it to werk
Install ubuntu.
>arch user doesn't know what usability means
lol
>little maintenance, up to date packages
Congratulations. Install Ubuntu and stop using a shitty distro just so you can post on r/unixporn with your arch trampstamp.
>using other repos is difficult/increases maintenance
no
>using unstable repos lowers system stability
then stop using Arch, retard.

thanks for writing this list of things arch users don't care about:
>bleeding edge software
>configuration
>usability
>stability
>ease of maintenance
>up-to-date software

Go install Ubuntu.

Attached: 1538169933127.gif (240x256, 2.11M)

>Install ubuntu.
Last time I tried installing Ubuntu it broke like 3 days later. Ubuntu is trash.

>arch user doesn't know what usability means
No I don't know what 'peak usability' is supposed to mean. Obviously what you think what high usability is differs from my own definition.

>>using unstable repos lowers system stability
>then stop using Arch, retard.
My point is that switching to Debian for more stability just to do something which will make it about as stable as Arch is retarded.

Arch is a meme itself

Attached: 1arch demon.jpg (1500x1064, 177K)

just posted another i3-gaps rice and got 1000 upvotes today lol

Attached: 1516732764879.png (800x867, 840K)

This is why arch is ultimately pointless.
It's a distro priding itself on being a 'lightweight distro' and yet it has systemd.
Get your shit together and install gentoo

>"Arch is superior."
*Pacman bites xorg.conf*
>"NOOO PACMAN NOOOO, I NEED TO SHOW EVERYBODY MY ANIME WALLPAPER AND TILING WINDOWS."
>*Xorg.conf error, Archtank cant load i3"
>I-I will fix it in no time
>*Drivers sucessfuly loaded, Mintank now activates DE*
>"HA--HA Priopertiary drivers"
>*Cinnamon DE activated, Mintank ready to operate*
>B-UT CINNAMON IS A BLOAT
>"ArchTank meets unknown error, KERNEL PANIC ACTIVATED"

Attached: lol.png (1062x664, 114K)

storage.privatevoid.net/s/kPPxCaDosZ5j4qm

ITT: people who don't get it. I use arch for the bleeding edge, I can't stand debian's outdated packages.
>inb4 fedora
I mean, it's not bad, I guess, it's actually somewhat equal to arch and better in the sense that it's sustained by one of the biggest corporate contributors to the linux kernel.

nice overfull \hbox, faggot

Attached: images.jpg (225x225, 12K)

>The main issue, however, is the culture of the users. The type of user
that Arch linux attracts is a direct result of what it is. It is a basic and
simple to use distro that looks like its complicated and difficult. It’s got a
reputation for being for ”advanced users” when really advanced users would
use a distro with proper support. It’s a distro where you’re encouraged to
snidely tell anyone who wants help ”ugh no spoonfeeding” yet with a wiki
that literally spoonfeeds you every command you need to do things with no
real explanation of what happens.
Therefore the average arch linux user is someone who wants to go around
showing everyone how smart they are, but without actually having solved
anything themself. They enjoy the idea of everyone thinking they’re an
advanced user and convincing themself that they are, and be hang around in support channels to be deliberately condescending to everyone else. Hang
around in the SJW dominated archlinux channel on freenode for a while or
on the forums for endless examples. This makes the community around the
distro particularly annoying and unhelpful.

OUCH

Are you the qtwebengine guy

Attached: Arch retardation.png (1682x2684, 292K)

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

Attached: small pinus arch logo.png (383x321, 25K)

>you may not want to use Arch if...
>you require package signing for security
holy kek lmfao

Attached: arch linux desktop.png (647x487, 17K)

I have been using arch with xfce for 3 years on the same install. X has never broken, and as somebody who has been using linux desktops for over 10 years it has been the most hassle free experience I have ever had. I'm not even the most technically literate person. I like arch because it has up to date packages and is fast and 'simple.' I don't get why people hate it. I understand if you prefer something else but why get mad because people like arch?

Attached: arch is not minimalist.png (1169x3679, 513K)

>I've had maybe 3 or 4 very minor (ie. like 2 minutes to look up the issue and fix it) breakages on my machine in the past couple years.

Been using arch on an x200 (tablet) for the past year and I've never had any infamous arch breakage either. The only issue I've ever had is when FontAwesome decided to be jews and remove the space character from their free package on the 5.0 release. It populated my i3bars with unicode glyphs so I rolled back to version 4. Very easy.

>Debian
desu I could probably be convinced to use debian if there weren't the depressing story behind it's name. Everytime I'd use it I'd just be reminded of the creator.
Arch is just so easy though. It's just the amount of autism I can handle.

So knowing how to type "mount proc" is the difference between a noob and Linux God?

no, knowing how to type "archroot" instead of clicking Install is

I just dislike it because IRL I have seen people having problems with it where people with other distros were always fine.

Nevertheless exactly these people will still tell you that everything is so easy, minimalist and stable although it seems to be exactly the opposite.

Also all arch users I know are very unsympathetic people.

Attached: kevin spacey.gif (510x419, 118K)

I only use Arch because it is more minimal than Ubuntu and has more up-to-date packages than Debian Stable and more stable packages than Debian Unstable. Help, I want to jump ship bad.

Damn, this is so true in my experience.

Just use Manjaro if you want the rolling release stuff and have to do something with your computer or Antergos if you're a sensible hipster

Install Gentoo.

Ironically Arch has had package signing for ages.

hahahahaha memes dude xD

this.

Attached: arch_aqua.png (800x800, 173K)

>Arch Linux is a versatile, and simple distribution designed to fit the needs of the competent Linux® user. It is both powerful and easy to manage, making it an ideal distro for servers and workstations. Take it in any direction you like. If you share this vision of what a GNU/Linux distribution should be, then you are welcomed and encouraged to use it freely, get involved, and contribute to the community. Welcome to Arch!

Nobody with a brain thinks Arch's purpose is to be lightweight, unless you're a fa/g/got or r/unixporn poster who copies and pastes dot files and posts package number screenshots proving they do nothing but browse the internet and have no real reason to be on GNU/Linux.

>it is more minimal than Ubuntu
wrong, Arch never split packages whereas Ubuntu does.

>an ideal distro for servers and workstations
Who actually use that shit for servers?

Attached: 1510951060555.png (1024x768, 166K)

have any of the arch hating fag/g/ots that claim all this horseshit about X breaking actually used arch for a considerable amount of time?

Or those that think the install is "difficult" actually got through it? You literally just partition your disk and install packages. I _really_ don't understand the hate.

My guess really, is that it's the arch haters that literally have no idea what they're doing on Linux and see arch as some kind of difficult club they're not able to get into.

you dont have to compile anything in the repos on arch

and to think, some dumb faggot wasted all that time typing that dumb shit nobody will read

enjoy the ban, queer

snowboarding guy sliding down a hill.

What's wrong with not wanting sixty-year-outdated packages?
>inb4 install gentoo
*compiles webbrowser*

>I compile everything
stopped reading right there.
You're mistaking arch linux with gentoo.

it werks™

>literal autist sperging out because people aren't as autistic as him

emerge -a firefox-bin

heh, nothing pursonal kid

Attached: 1530301377364.jpg (412x398, 61K)

That would have been useful before I attempted to build a webbrowser on a first gen Intel Atom. Nice to know though.

You forgot all the commands after emerge fails to complete

Congrats son, ya made it.

Attached: DeepinBildschirmfoto_Bereich auswählen_20181007015420.png (1548x187, 35K)

>has more up-to-date packages than Debian Stable and more stable packages than Debian Unstable.
You know theres a debian repo between those two, right?

installing gentoo is easier than arch and is great for an optimized developer system that you aren't going to touch until the project is over. it guarantees you fastest compile times