Why do you fags use arch?

There is more support for arch then minimal Debian since almost everyone doesn't use the minimal version

you shouldn't move your whole system to testing or sid
just specific packages
nigger what
debian netinst is the same as debian but with fewer packages by default

Who gives a shit about minimalism. I like arch because it does what I want without treating me like a retard

minimal Debian and ubuntu is a meme
it's slower to install than with the regular live cds which you can also test if it works with your pc before you install it

ok

when anyone says minimal they usually mean package dependencies not some obscure comment on a mailing list

read

Attached: 1530764948545.png (800x600, 17K)

debian sid here, the ONLY distro worth of your time

Attached: debianrem.png (3840x2160, 2.39M)

no point in moving your whole installation to sid
just use backports for your web browser, etc.

>debian netinst is the same as debian but with fewer packages by default
This doesn't show any more support for i than arch
Also it's netinst so it installs the packages anyway

They have little to do using their computers, so they need their computers to be something to do.

Had Sid on my personal server laptop and it broke after a few years so I installed Stable. I'm not wanting for freshness.

>t. has no idea what he's talking about
Debian is the best supported consumer distro. The archwiki meme is just manpages in retard-digestible form

>Debian is the best supported consumer distro
That must be why the packages are 4 years old
>The archwiki meme is just manpages in retard-digestible form
You've clearly never read a single page on the wiki

Have you ever seen a vagina?

>stable packages bad
>new packages good
NPC detected
>You've clearly never read a single page on the wiki
I actually have, I used to use arch before I realized how shitty it is compared to the classic debian

have you?

>how shitty it is compared to the classic debian

why¿

yes

it's not minimal, can't be minimal if you want it to, and was never meant to be minimal

You're confusing stable with outdated

I love up to date packages retard.

I'm not.
There are testing/sid backports for debian stable if you absolutely need to have the latest for example firefox

Based OP

Yeah and these solutions all work like shit. Up to date software often relies on other up to date software. The Debian devs don't expect you to use Sid for daily use so it's unstable as fuck. Arch despite the memes is not. I have never had an arch install break. I've never had a Ubuntu or Debian install that hasn't broken. Sid despite all the bugs and instability is still not as up-to-date as arch is. "Backports" also don't have all the software I use not even close.

>I have never had an arch install break
>I've never had a Ubuntu or Debian install that hasn't broken
this is a lie lmfao

I got memed into it before the gentoo meme got rolling. Now I'm in the process of moving into gentoo...
>They have little to do using their computers, so they need their computers to be something to do
This is accurate

No it's the truth. I've never had an arch install break. I've had probably a dozen versions of Ubuntu and Debian horribly break. Not to mention out of the box Debian doesn't even have the drivers for my amd graphics card in it's kernel. Which arch and everyother distro I use include. Why would I waste my time with a buggy poorly maintained "operating system" with awful driver support and no up to date packages in the "stable" repo. I actual can't think of one good reason to use Debian. Fedora , opensuse and arch are superior desktop experiences. centos and Gentoo are better for servers.

>Proprietary, binary-only firmware (aka microcode) was removed from the Debian kernel's radeon DRM driver in linux-2.6 2.6.29-1, to resolve Debian bug 494009. The firmware can be provided by installing the firmware-amd-graphics or firmware-linux-nonfree package.

Currently installing Debian Testing.
What are the best packages to backport? Kernel is the first one that comes to mind. Maybe mpv.

backport to sid, I should specify.

backport your web browser for sure
there's really no reason to use testing or sid for the base system though

I just download Nightly from the site - is that in the repo's? Would be nice to have it under dpkg.
And I'm fine with having testing as a base system, at least right now. Maybe when Buster officially release I'll drop down to stable for a few months though.

no I don't think they package the nightly builds of firefox, that would be a nightmare and probably never be truly up-to-date

pics doesn't count

They do mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/desktop/

>what does package mean

what?

tell me how you take that .tar and install it with a package manager

Use your brain debiantard. I don't care why they took it out. It works on arch with zero issues out of the box. Debian is a massive time sink for zero payoff.

>Debian is a massive time sink for zero payoff.
>Use arch instead

Attached: 1524370062777.jpg (1000x1000, 187K)

You compile it
Also archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/firefox-developer-edition/

it's a binary
>imagine my shock when arch has a package for unstable software

>real minimal distro
wtf you on about?
basic arch install is much smaller than basic debian install

They also have a stable package archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/firefox/
>Wow more options Arch sucks

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

Yeah you install arch once and that's it. I don't have to worry about out of date packages or stability issues. All I do is update the system every couple of days. Ive had the same install on my laptop for two years and my desktop for a year. Arch is one of the most stable easy to maintain distros out there. The onyl people that think otherwise are retards that update their packages once a year and expect stuff not to break.

not at all true unless you mean installing a DE with debian netinst vs the arch install.
(You)
and how does that make arch better than debian in any way shape or form?
>what is apt dist-upgrade

>arch uses systemd
So does debian and no one in this thread uses devuan

OP here

Attached: 1534398221905.png (1440x900, 28K)

>What is apt-dist-upgrade
Something that has broken my system several times leaving corrupted packages that I've had to manually fix without apt. I have never had that problem with arch.

read the manual

1. I'm used to it and know how to use it well
2. The AUR is nice
3. I like the screenfetch logo

Again debiantard why would I bother doing that when I can get a better experience out of the box by using arch ? So, I don't have to waste my time reading incredibly out of date Debian documents instead of enjoying my desktop. If I ever do have a problem on arch the well maintained wiki is a Google search away anyway.

>1. I'm used to it and know how to use it well
I mean I guess that's a reason, but it's not really an argument
>2. The AUR is nice
the aur is cancer
>3. I like the screenfetch logo
oof
>I am such a linux expert because I installed le arch
>why should I have to read the manuals?

Fuck off nigger I do use devuan.

Judging by your wording I'd of thought that you use Windows 10

I'd have* thought

I would have and I would of are the same

you're a fucking retard.

typical archfag, everybody

>I would have and I would of are the same
fuck you and everyone that cares about you (protip : noone)

for all intensive purposes they are retards

I like arch because it's what Jow Forumsunixporn told me to use

Don't put words in my mouth debiantard. I never said anything about being an "expect". I enjoy using systems that are stable and low maintenance. Debian doesn't offer either one of those things. You seem insecure like most Debian users.

Jow Forumsunixporn confirmed for cancer

>I enjoy using systems that are stable and low maintenance
this is the definition of debian.
ask anybody who knows anything about the various distros
>You seem insecure like most Debian users.
cope

Attached: 1535231050407.gif (320x240, 1.99M)

>have never had an arch install break.
same

>Debian is stable and low maintenance
That's cause they never update the packages

Totally new to debian. Want to use unstable but don't know how. And what is backporting and pinning?

go back

How is the aur cancer?

not true at all. they just keep the "stable" stable.
backports.debian.org/Instructions/

because it's community supported and audited by nobody so shit like this bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/malware-found-in-arch-linux-aur-package-repository/ can happen.

if you think I won't burn your war machine in a bond fire, you've got another think comming. In other worlds, "fuck off".

These are called eggcorns btw.

Attached: shitpost.jpg (258x195, 7K)

No it isn't the definition of Debian for the reason I've already outlined in my previous posts. I'll stick with stable, up to date , low maintenance arch. You can continue to use your buggy out of date unstable distros but stop wondering why a sane person wouldn't want to use it.

>stable
>arch

Attached: 1525727949807.gif (800x430, 564K)

how do you change color of border?

i3wm.org/docs/userguide.html#_changing_colors

That was taken down after less than a day. There just install scripts it's easy to see if an aur package is doing something malicious.

doesn't change the fact that "it's community supported and audited by nobody"
if some user didn't notice the malicious code it would have stayed

To fit in and be contrarian at the same time. That way I can switch between a eccentric intellectual or be part of low key hipster collective.

Now you're just repeating yourself. I've already started how stable arch is after you posted almost the exact same shit response. I'm not repeating myself debiantard. I've notice you guys have tendency to not be able to read.

>I've notice you guys have tendency to not be able to read.
>Why should I have to read manuals when I can google the arch wiki
o im laffin

>Old outdated bug ridden packages
Sorry but 'I' like a functioning system. Not some autism toy for people who LARP as mission critical users.

>I like a functioning system
>uses arch
the ABSOLUTE STATE

It's easy to look for malware in arch scripts. I don't really see the problem there isn't any evidence of any wide scale malware problem in the aur.

>AUR packages are user produced content. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk.

besides all this "malware" did was to print a bunch of user-accessible info to a file

I wonder why someone did

Just because you have a mini dick doesnt mean that minimal is good.

Studies that I have done myself have proven that Arch is the most stable and Debian is the least stable.