Turn on my laptop with archfor the first time in like a month

Nigger

>also, why does a distro that makes you build it up, piece by piece, shove an init system and system logger down your throat?
You're not building it piece by piece user

>LOGGER DOWN YOUR THROAT

Attached: 1541029749872.gif (500x500, 1.8M)

>Av1
Kek

the arch wiki is immensely useful even if you don't use arch, i have to give them credit for that one. pacman doesn't really break often if it breaks at all. one of the benefits of their frankenstein meta-packages is the entire bundle has been tested and found to work, so you won't find yourself in dependency hell at any point. fedora also has frequent updates so if you didn't mind fedora's updates you probably won't mind arch's. if you just want to sit down and work on something other than your os then arch will be about as obnoxious as gentoo, but not quite. i don't really see a valid use case for arch other than having autistic fun, so it makes a decent hobby, i guess.

I work on a gentoo thinkpad. I have no issues. Rarely do I have to troubleshoot anything. My workflow is amazing with tiling. My machine and os is stable. Same with my arch laptop. It seems like everyone complaining about these distros breaking have little to no experience on POSIX systems. If you understand linux (and not just some user who uses ubuntu) you wont have trouble with these "1337" distros

Can someone explain to a brainlet why dependency hell is even an issue in the first place? If you have multiple programs requiring different versions of dependencies, why can't you just have multiple versions of those dependencies installed so that everything has whatever version it needs. Sure you waste drive space like this but you never have to worry about it again

Why not just use sym links? Why do brainlets not use sym links?

this, updating arch is a roulette

Good to know. Yeah the Arch wiki is amazing. The Fedora community hasn't been able to help me fix a single issue, Arch on the other hand has fixed them all. The really interesting thing to me though is the AUR, everything I use is in there and updated. The package system is also well enough documented I feel like I could start helping to maintain the packages I use everyday. I don't mind working on my OS, just like I don't mind working on my car. I actually enjoy it. I don't have any experience with Gentoo so that comparison is lost on me.

I would be interested to hear more why you don't see a valid case for arch, and what you would use instead. This is the first time I've distro hopped and would like as much perspective as I can get before I undertake this.

I'm not very smart at Linux yet, but I don't think what you said applies to what I asked

Most of the time different versions of dependancies can be resolved with a sym link. Depreciated methods stick around for a while. So even if you have version 3.75.60 of x dependency but your software requires 2.62.05 you can create a symlink with that name and in most cases that will work

i just can't think of anything that arch could do that a minimal install of another distro couldn't. opensuse, debian/ubuntu, and fedora all have minimal and server installers that give you about as much as a fresh arch installation. the most notable difference between distros for me is the package management and configuration systems. debian has alternatives and other various scripts, opensuse has yast, and arch and fedora both use systemd's utilities. other than those minor differences the minimal installation of all of them feels identical, in fact i often forget i'm on a opensuse system now and try calling apt or dnf. arch adds a few steps to get to the same result, i just don't see how that could really be useful, it's fun of course, but not very useful.

But why isn't that or something like that handled automatically by package managers? This just seems like a giant pain in the ass. Like if I upgrade program x and it needs to upgrade program y to y.2, why can't it just add y.2 in a different location instead of overriding y, which program z might still depend on? I dunno I'm probably retarded. Its like how you can have virtual environments with python so that you don't break other apps, do any package managers do that kind of thing for you automatically?

it doesn't really happen with personal computers, it's more of a production issue. i worked as a sysadmin and at least 1/4 of the packages in use were apt-pinned from testing to stable. everything broke all the time, it was a nightmare. if you're not mixing repositories it should never happen, and i've never seen it happen unless repos were mixed.

I guess when it comes down to it the real attraction for me personally is the AUR. I like free software but I absolutely need proprietary repo's, and Arch has the nicest one by far.

This user answered for you
Most of the time your package manager will do it for you. But there are fringe cases where things go wrong. The point is that you should be able to fix these things yourself. Its not inherently an arch problem. Dependancy management is a ubiquitous challenge. You should still be competent with how POSIX systems work and how symlinks work. The greatest mistake we made is convincing people that they dont have to have any tech literacy to use tech. We should be teaching tech in school. These days its just as important as english or math

That's the fault of the software maintainers if they make new releases over meaningless shit.
Linus would disapprove.

This, I've literally never had an arch update break anything and I've been using it for two years

From a perspective of someone who has been using arch linux for 3 years, it's honestly unstable. But it's not as unstable as people here present it to be - people here want to make you believe it will crash with every update you take. For the ~3 years I've used Arch I had a "catastrophic" failure 3 times
Once it was me accidentally dd-ing my hard drive and the other 2 were pacman breaking. In 3 years the update has fucked me only two times - that's still less than Windows and that's something I can cope with. The benefits of using arch are a good exchange for it breaking once every 2 years

im updating every month or two for like 3 years, nothing happened

yeahh... now install a new package and do a system update.

someone's triggered..

i'm pretty sure linux couldn't give a shit

What happens if pacman breaks? Do you fix something or do you have to reinstall? What broke it?