Install debian

fug

Arch is superior in every way imaginable

>literally breaks itself
>malware in the AUR
>no installer because arch users want to pretend following a guide makes them smart
>shitty, pretentious user base

at least you guys have a good wiki and package manager i guess

Debian buster here. Though I gotta say, the famous Debian repos are actually missing lot of packages that are available in every other common distro. But I am sure Debian cockcozies will tell me it is me not getting the philosophy.

Netinst Debian! give it a try

>systemd

Install devuan

beat me to it by 5 minutes. fucker.
devuan is clearly the superior choice between the two.

i thought devuan was no longer in active development?

I'd go back to it if it ever had ANYTHING UPDATED FUCKING EVER and didn't completely BLOW UP THE ENTIRE APT SYSTEM when I tried to install a newer available version of something.
It just werkz if you're fine using unbelievably outdated shit 24/7.

But I already have it for 4+ years user.

once you know how to pin repositories you cant possibly fuck up your install with apt

>>literally breaks itself
no more than ubuntu
>>malware in the AUR
no more than 3rd party debian repos
>>no installer because arch users want to pretend following a guide makes them smart
hence why manjaro and antegros exist
>>shitty, pretentious user base
this thread is exhibit A for debian users
>at least you guys have a good wiki and package manager i guess
and less bloat, more stable, easier to contribute, and more actively developed.

I still get updates every few days if that's what you're wondering.

debian is surprisingly comfortable

>it is me not getting the philosophy.
well, you aren't
but just use a different distro if Debian doesn't have or do what you want

For one, I shouldn't have to pin specific out-of-tree repos for every single program I don't want to have outdated.
For two, a whole fucking shitload (read: Almost all of them) programs don't have their own apt-friendly repository to yank out of.

>and less bloat
dumbfuck meme. your own developers said your system is bloated.
>more stable
you are so full of shit
>easier to contribute
Not an argument. If you want to help seriously, you can
>and more actively developed.
again, you are full of shit.

>this thread is exhibit A for debian users
And you are exhibit A B and C for arch fuckwits.

And no, I don't use debian so you can drop that pathetic attempt to counter-troll right now.

You smell like gentoo

for one you should, because that's how every ppa or third party repo works when you install something and want to be able to roll back the version, and for two you should fucking read the faq page first and realize that debian stable isn't for you if you want feature updates.

>no u
>no u
>no u
go back to plebbit

>arch more stable than debian

Attached: 1439958106355.png (619x550, 71K)

are you going to make an argument or just sperge out

anyone who's taken the time to install an arch based distro knows your system runs faster, uses less wattage, and only breaks if you're incapable of reading a pacman log.

>shit breaks
more often in debian than arch. something breaks? downgrade it and ignore it in your pacman.conf until it's fixed. simplicity = stability.

For one no I shouldn't, that's fucking lunacy and defeats the point of a distro-based repository system. At that point you may as well throw apt into the dumpster and exclusively use AppImage or Flatpack or one of the other 45 shitty unused "install anywhere" package systems.
For two, yes I know I shouldn't expect debian to have bleeding edge software. I don't want bleeding edge, I want to be able to install weechat 2.2 without making my system take a fat dump.

no I get get around getting .deb packages. But stuff like clisp missing from stretch repository - I just do not get it.

>good wiki
the wiki that goes out of its way to destroy information out of 1337ness is 'good'
>good package manager
compare dpkg's and pacman's way of handling packages and you'll find the former superior. also, pacman is faster but it lacks in stability, "no partial upgrades supported" and it bundles every package into one so your package count looks slower, while debian allows you to trim useless features

not the guy who you responded to, but in distant future, when you, god forbid, have a job, come back and tell me how you chose arch for your work laptop cause it is more stable than debian.

should I switch from Ubuntu minimal to debian sid?
there doesn't seem like much difference

>less bloat
>literally packages development headers in every package, completely useless if you don't compile

Not unless you want to suddenly be 9 versions behind on everything.
Sid doesnt even have a usable version of emacs in its repos, the oldest emacs that you should bother using if you want any modern features is 25.4 and sid uses 25.1

For script-kiddies who installed Kali as their first distro sure.

All of those are criticisms of arch

I meant to reply to

Install Debian Testing