Which Arch for brainlets distro is Jow Forums's favorite?

Anyone use ArchLabs? Looks breddy good.

Attached: archlabs.png (90x80, 2K)

Antergos

goy linux

>Looks breddy good.
For you.

I know someone who does. He enjoys it

Antegros is when I'm really lazy and just that vanilla shit by quickly filling some boxes.

I hate that obnoxiously colorful and sometimes unreliable desktop manager (login screen) you get if you pick a DE for it to automatically install, but for clean install it's all good..

Yeah, making it so that you have to click something before you can type your password and log in is really annoying. No idea who thought that was a good idea. Puts me off ever wanting to use Antergos.

> arch for brainlets
Literally step by step wiki on how to install. You literally can't mess up.
It should take like 30 minutes tops. The longest part is updating and installing the base and devl packs

I do

Attached: ArchLabs_2019-02-14-30_1366x768.png (1366x768, 602K)

How do you like it? Are the other WMs/DEs as polished as the Openbox version or do they just feel like tacked-on extras? I'd probably go with XFCE, were I to install it.

I honestly only tried the openbox version and I thought it was really good. Only needed some minor tweaking to get it how I wanted it. But things like the network, temperature, etc. in the polybar worked out of the box for me.

Just install the regular Arch, the instructions are easy enough for a brainlet to follow.

Source: installed Arch a week or two ago and am brainlet

tfw too high IQ to install arch

I like it too

Arch itself is a distro for brainlets. Everything has perfect defaults. Configuration is already there, you just install it and it works. Arch is quite literally ubuntu with a package manager that sucks, and a binary repo that doesn't permit you to use anything but le epic bleeding edge packages (protip: you can be bleeding edge on any distro.)
>B-but muh AUR!
It's shit.

Attached: 800px_COLOURBOX24907507.jpg (800x534, 40K)

Fine, for lazy people who want Arch but with an installer.

>arch but with an installer
help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD

arch is pure porn

Attached: arch.png (528x1406, 707K)

Oh look, it's another "I'm better than you because I use autistic, inconvenient software" thread

Attached: 1474890449573.jpg (320x334, 22K)

>SystemD
Go Artix or Obarun
youtube.com/watch?v=DYL3mb8AlJ8

>is too dumb to use inconvenient software.

Look at this pleb

Attached: IMG_20190203_193152.jpg (1080x1063, 175K)

I was trying this, but Grub is a nightmare compared to bootctl...

Just use Arch.
I'm a total idiot and I managed to do it easily, used LARBS for ease of use my first time round and have already started to comfortably make it my own

Attached: pic-full-190208-2341-58.png (1366x768, 194K)

I've installed Arch several times in the past. I know it isn't hard, but it's pretty tedious following all those instructions just to get GUI-less system set up. And once you've done that, you've then got to manually install your WM/DE and tweak it to look nice, then install a long list of all your favorite applications before you can finally just sit down, relax and enjoy your system.

Unless you're really intent on getting the most minimalist system possible and customising everything exactly to some highly specific set of personal preferences, I don't really see any reason to use Arch itself anymore.

You can easily copy these customisations into a fresh arch install, much like LARBS does.

what the fuck is this pic

Some fag thought it was hilarious

Manjaro

Anarchy. There's literally nothing wrong with making the install process for Arch easy. Technology is supposed to make shit easier.

The guide used to be a lot simpler.
I tried arch a few years ago and there was a noob guide on the wiki which was indeed simple.
After a long hiatus with windows
I switched to linux again and tried installing arch and the guide was way more bloated. There was no noob guide, and the main guide forces you to go to different pages to install and configure different things.
Also it forces you to read irrelevant information you don't need.
Plus it is always changing so any guide you find elsewhere might be obsolete or not do things the right way.
Seriously I like arch but it is kind of elitist as if it's trying to force the new user away.

Install gentoo

still is, has a "friendly" installer for linux noobs wanting to try it out.
Helped me make the jump from xubuntu to Arch on my laptop.

most bloated Arch ever built. It needs the Ubuntu's Amazon spyware and it's like installing Win10

>For brainlet
MXlinux, abd debian based
>For patricians
Gentoo, LFS, and maybe slack.

Yeah, that beginner's guide was way better than what they currently have. Despite the name suggesting it was for people who didn't know what they're doing, it worked really well as a simple, stream-lined guide for people who DID know what they were doing and just wanted a single page of step-by-step instructions which they could skim through.

deleted my swap file on the last update and have switched to debian but it was a great beginners distro for me

UbutNut or Fedora you incel

>arch
>inconvenient
It's literally one of the most convenient distros available. Always up to date packages, large package repositories, AUR for shit that isn't on official repos, wiki with easy instructions for doing or troubleshooting almost anything, etc. Install once and it'll keep ticking for years as long you don't fuck it up yourself or have some catastrophic hardware failure.

Attached: 1503761856331.jpg (793x985, 140K)

I've only heard good things about it from people I know who has tried it. Not that i have though

>It needs the Ubuntu's Amazon spyware
wut?

Can Manjaro really be said to count when it has it's own repos?

yes, that's the point. it was named arch anywhere before renaming it because it wasn't a real fork or whatever the reason exactly was

>inconvenient
I can install pretty much any package in existence with a single command.

I mean the new guide is by no means super complicated. It's really easy to skim and extract what you need. The reason it seems elitist is that you have to be able to help yourself. If the new guide is too complicated for you, then using something like Arch is too complicated for you.

Because the programs that I compile don't bitch about how I have an "old" version of GCC

> not elitist
> then using something like Arch is too complicated for you
I rest my case.

Having every possible type of bloat enabled in your packages is pretty inconvenient.

>Braindead ``l33t" blue and red rice with a default i3 status bar on Arch
>I'm a total idiot
We can see.

Found the literal brainlet who can't even follow a wiki

Nah he's right sir. I switched to ubuntu after years of arch when I became annoyed with little kde glitches and photoshop not functioning. IT JUST WERKS