Disclaimer: not a troll

Arch is a distribution because they made a package manager, and a very good one.
It's not a debian clone in any way.

This is just silly.

yes, but debian doesn't make those claims.

have a kek, my good sir.

i think this is accurate.

it's debian testing

>Arch tries to be Ubuntu and Gentoo at the same time and fails at both.
Arch predates both of them and their mission statement has never changed. How are they trying to be them?

What's the point of calling arch a "custom built system" if it's binary and comes with systemdicks?

There is literally no difference between arch and Ubuntu minimal except the installation process.

Attached: 1543693364275.png (270x321, 42K)

>What's the point of calling arch a "custom built system"
Where is that stated?

5-10 Years ago:
never reinstall - the distro.

Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora used to be a pain to upgrade.
The do-release-update script didn't realy exist
and you had to do a long list of things by hand,
if you wanted to upgrade without reinstalling.
In Arch you got notified about the do-by-hand things early
and had to do very little in most cases.

Today:
I never reinstalled and now develop for linux - the distro.

If you develop for linux and use native libs,
Arch is a perfect companion on your laptop/desktop.
If something breaks its almost always an upstream bug.
The upstream bugreport comments are way more helpfull and applicable
then the garbage in some distro bugtrackers
and of course arch also gets the fixes more timely then the rest.
Usually i see bug reports from Fedora and Arch
on upstream github/gitlab first.

The wiki is pretty good for a reference and one of the easier distros to rice on, considering every autist and their dog has a rice and set of configs. I generally use an ncurses installer or a manjaro installation. Last time I did it the "arch way" was 2 years ago and I still use the same i3 config with minor changes. Haven't had any major issues. Have no plans to migrate to Ubuntu or Debian (outside of server use).

Best advice is to try it, try installing the "arch way" or use an installer (i.e. antergos, manjaro). If you don't like it, stick with ubuntu/debian/fedora/slackware/etc. If you do like it, stick with it. Don't let some neurotic trap on Jow Forums influence you otherwise.

I think the logo looks cooler than debian's

It's not debian you double nigger. Do you know why distributions are called distributions? Because they distribute software through repositories.
Arch's packages are built on their own package manager. Debian clones are called debian clones because they use Debian's package manager.

easy package management for those who are beginners is a definite draw for me. if pacman -S package doesn't have what I want, then yay package gets a result 99% of the time

It's for people who value their time and don't want to reinstall all the time

>as far as i can tell, it's just a debian clone with no significant differences.
>it's just a debian clone with no significant differences.
Being such uneducated, yet opinionated faggot.
>can someone explain why this distro exists?
Minimalist System with nonmodified packages and faster updates.
Is that answer for you.

Who else uses Arch for the AUR as the sole reason

>use a garbage distro because it contains hacked-together support for an unadultered mess of random unmaintained compile scripts
smart!

>System with nonmodified packages
doesnt this mean that software will be less compatible/ less integrated with the distro?

No, just lazy as hell tbhfam

You can just search for *-git stuff as well, is that maintained and reviewed and audited enough?

This is why I use Manjaro, because I wanted the AUR without going through the Arch install process. I wonder if people who are mad that Arch exists also hate me.

It's a rolling release distro.

who calls it a "custom built system"?

it was made by people who thought gentoo was too difficult but still wanted to seem like cli ninjas.

>debian maintainers prefer stability
There's a difference between using stable packages and ancient packages. Requiring packages to be tested is fine but 2+ years of testing isn't.

>Arch predates both
No. It doesn't. Gentoo was around years before Arch. It does predate Ubuntu

Topkek I can’t unsee the fat man now.

Nothing against newfags but it surprises me that there are people itt who haven't seen this

Attached: 1406827921652.png (804x906, 46K)

It's literally just a helper for when everyone on this board is baited to go through their neckbeard phase. Do not trust anybody using Arch and consider them mentally ill.

You can. It's the silhouette of an erect nipple.

>depends on the distro's philosophy
So the philosophy differs between the two, congrats, you figured it out

>pacman
>good
Tell me about your reverse dependencies

>debian clone

>If you want a minimal distro tailored to your needs without having to recompile every update, install Arch
there you go tardwrangler

rich user repository. That's what attracted me - more packages that are up to date and easier to install

>rolling release
>pacman
>official kernel supports proprietary hardware
>not outdated
>doesn't split packages as much
But yes, in general there are more similarities than differences, probably because both are just GNU/Linux.

>>what does arch set out to do that debian doesn't already, or any other distro?
It's made by and for fat autistic children.

It was made by people who thought Gentoo was too retarded for having to wait 6 hours to update your system and 2 hours to install Firefox but still wanted a simple do-it-yourself system.

Yes. Also means the developers are very lazy and usually don't test anything
Arch wiki meme "philosophy" page
>hate compiling and wasting time
>but use random AUR packages, which aren't supported in any way by the way unlike gentoo

arch is more like Debian Sid (aka unstable)

I don't use AUR packages, speak for yourself. Even if I did, installing two small packages that compile in 30 seconds isn't comparable to spending 6 hours recompiling the system.

I use gentoo
>spending 6 hours recompiling the system.
There's no reason to do so. Also pretty much all heavy packages like chrome, firefox or libreoffice have binary versions. The exceptions are the kernel, llvm and some DE stuff

>uses rolling release distro
>he doesn't update his system
>uses source-based distro
>he downloads binaries
Are all Gentoofags this in denial of how shit their distro is?

>systemd-ick
just because systemd does more than is required from an init system does not mean it doesn give you control. seriously people hate on systemd for it being supposed bloat but its actually very efficient, fast and lets you control any aspect of how it operates. plus its actually a modern piece of hardware that is actually stable.
i seriously dont get the hate for systemd it works great.

Yes, I'm using one of the few stable rolling release distros because I want a stable system.
>he downloads binaries
Because I don't have autism and go with what makes the most sense.

Use Debian if you want a stable system but don't have autism.

>Arch wiki meme "philosophy" page
Where?

There is though. You're just not digging deep enough. Arch let's you customize at a much lower level, Ubuntu comes with some per-determined stuff that may not necessarily be to your liking. This is how Ubuntu achieves it's stability. You can't customize your kernel in Ubuntu either.

I don't like their free software autism, systemd, having to upgrade between releases and lack of good documentation.

>debian testing == arch

Attached: 1354645634562.jpg (720x720, 222K)

>Arch let's you customize at a much lower level, Ubuntu comes with some per-determined stuff that may not necessarily be to your liking
Wrong, Ubuntu may come with non-default presets but Arch ironically lets you change far less stuff before the system breaks. pic related
>You can't customize your kernel in Ubuntu either.
Of course you can. You just never did because you thought you need a meme distro like Arch to do it

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

me

>Tell me about your reverse dependencies
Only becomes an issue when using AUR packages maintained by an ass-hat. Arch uses the generic upstream kernel that everything is supposed to be built against.There's rarely a serious issue with anything.

systemd hate is meme in case you still couldn't figure out

I love arch so much

Attached: arch.png (699x377, 5K)

>what does arch set out to do that debian doesn't
work

>just works
if that's the standard you set for the software you run, then it's no wonder why you don't get where the hate is coming from.
either git gud or stay an NPCniggerfaggot

>free software autism
What is nonfree repo
>systemd
What is Devuan
>having to upgrade between releases
You don't have to. And you don't update your system on Gentoo anyways.
>lack of good documentation
Just read the Gentoo or Arch documentation or whatever like everyone does.

Really, retard? You have choices in terms of kernels (vanilla, lts, custom), network management, file systems,you name it. Ubuntu minimal doesn't offer that.I use both, and they are completely different animals, but they're both very stable.

>no one gives two fucks about the fact that they compiled their kernal from source
You're thinking of Gentoo, most Arch users use binaries you autist. Clear you've never actually used Arch

>What is nonfree repo
Not as many shit as gen2
>What is Devuan
Somewhat working debian fork
>You don't have to.
Of course you do since you want new package versions
>And you don't update your system on Gentoo anyways.
On gentoo stable updating just werks and is done in the background. There's no fear like in Arch about everything breaking after every update, ya know?

wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/BuildYourOwnKernel
So hard...

Also
wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/MainlineBuilds

very minimalistic and lightweight in comparison to most other distros, you essentially have to put most of the pieces together yourself so to say, requires some linux knowledge to install and can be a very valuable learning experience
pacman
AUR
probably other notable reasons

also it's not a debian clone that's fucking retarded
t. have never used arch but apparently knows more than OP

>in fact, you could just say that debian testing == arch.
No, Arch have packages go through their own 'testing' repo before they reach the normal users, Debian testing is like if you use Arch and enable the 'testing' repo.

nani?

Attached: lookingcloser.jpg (1080x645, 85K)

I use arch just as a hobby, I work with windows 10

arch actually does what debian was doing previously, but debian became so mainstream that they had to basically freeze the whole distro to keep the whole internet infrastructure from blowing up, so yeah, it doesn't do anything special deb didn't do before but things have changed

>t.debaintard that's too much of a brainlet to use arch
Arch is a binary distro dumbshit. You don't "compile" the kernel to install it. You're thinking of gentoo. The whole thing takes 30 minutes to install on a fast internet connection if you know what you're doing.

Install Gentoo.

You don't have a choice in anything since you are using a coc'd systemd distro

Not having apt is killer feature imo

already did

That's a bit much, I install it in 10 minutes with LVM under LUKS.

arch isnt minimalist

daily reminder arch's OFFICIAL iso had an installer until autists came

How autistic do you have to be to still be talking about systemd? Jesus Christ kys already

BASED
Arch is hard fags btfo

>How autistic do you have to be to still be talking about systemd? Jesus Christ kys already
after you, cianigger