Why is there such an emphasis on choosing a Linux distro? Apart from a specific repository or niche program...

Why is there such an emphasis on choosing a Linux distro? Apart from a specific repository or niche program, they all effectively do the same thing (which, for most of you, is just browsing the internet).

Attached: gnu_bird.png (253x300, 48K)

>Ubuntu
>Arch
>Gentoo
The only distroes that matter.

>they all do the same thing
Massive oversimplification. OP is a retard.

>Arch
ask me how I know your a faggot

Attached: 1550864708260.png (800x750, 106K)

NixOS is actually different.
Pretty much every distro is based on Debian which was based on slackware which was based on SLS. They all follow the same principles even if they implement things differently. The only difference is how they come out of the box and what's easily available. You can always install anything or configure any distro any way. Over the long run it becomes helpful to use a distro with a philosophy you like because then the maintainers do your job for you. If you are new to Linux it really doesn't matter much though. When you are more advanced you will know what distro to use without trying them because you actually understand what the distro maintainers are talking about and if you agree.

I personally use NixOS because I'm a freelance developer and it allows me to easily install exactly the software my clients use so that I can reproduce everything correctly. Also, since I use the computer professionally, having a reproducible environment is important, if I update or reconfigure and break my computer all I do is switch the nix profile and I'm back in business in seconds, no crazy backups or rollbacks.

Another one is, I like alpine Linux for example, because on servers it can be a tiny base for a docker container which custom software is loaded into. It makes container images way smaller and reduces the chances some odd distro change will break something.

On my "fun" PC, I use slackware because it comes with tons of stuff to play with, and it's generally very stable so I don't have to fuck around with fixing stuff when I just want to play games or something. It also gives me nostalgia since I grew up with slackware. I prefer it to debian in this case since Debian is kind of more server oriented and imo focuses more on security than being fun to use.

>debian
>void
>gentoo
this.

available packages (Debian's are fucking ancient), hardware support (had a buddy's laptop which would only boot Debian -- Ubuntu died horribly during boot, same with Fedora, he even tried CloverOS), default config, whether other people bother packaging software for you or not

it's pretty important
you can pick most any distro if it boots, but depending on what you do and what you like, you'll have a much better experience with one distro over another

>you, probably: "arch is too hard to install"
stay mad

Different user here. New to Linux and managed to get Arch up and running.

What exactly do you think is wrong with this distro? It is whatever you make it to be, so I am struggling to find concrete issues with it.

Nothing really, I use it for a month and didn't have any issue, however, from what I see, is that many people aren't used to read the archwiki or manuals, so they obviously won't find anything so intuitive.

because you can choose, with windows you can't.

>Arch
Yeah, I use Manjaro

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

Attached: 1413764156511.jpg (1280x720, 82K)

COol story. My mom was thrilled to hear all about it.

I use arch too

Attached: abe3zpl36bb21.jpg (1920x1080, 1.06M)

I'm terribly sorry, but I would like to interject for yet another moment. What I just told you is GNU/Linux is, in fact, just Linux, or as I've just now taken to calling it, Just Linux. Linux apparently does happen to be a whole operating system unto itself and comprises a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Most computer users who run the entire Linux operating system every day already realize it. Through a peculiar turn of events, I was misled into calling the system, "GNU/Linux", and until now, I was unaware that it is basically the Linux system, developed by the Linux project.

There really isn't a GNU/Linux, and I really wasn't using it; it is an extraneous misrepresentation of the system that's being used. Linux is the operating system: the entire system made useful by its included corelibs, shell utilities, and other vital system components. The kernel is already an integral part of the Linux operating system, never confined useless by itself; it functions coherently within the context of the complete Linux operating system. Linux is never used in combination with GNU accessories: the whole system is basically Linux without any GNU needed, or Just Linux. All the so-called "GNU/Linux" distributions are really just distributions of Linux.

Neets sperg over distros. People who get work done are using Ubuntu or some flavor of red hat.

there are 4 kinds of linux users

1) programmers
2) people who like tinkering with stuff
3) people who need to feel different and will trade away functionality for obfuscation
4) losers that want to fit in on Jow Forums for some strange reason

types 1 and 2 are not exclusive but types are 3 and 4 are extremely prevalent here

Forgot to add, I am also gay. Dunno if that matters.

>Arch for babies
Literally everyone you know laughs at you behind your back for using that shit.

And what if my main reasons to use GNU/Linux are freedom and privacy? You missed that one.

who the fuck cares

I do. So should you.

That's type 3.

Richard Matthew Stallman and the Free Software Foundation?

nerds

I don't know.
It is massively irrelevant to most people.
It is a political and technical question on how and when software should be updated.
The only reason it is a debate is that it is one of the first words new users hear and they think those kind of decisions matter.

>people who need to feel different...
I just don't understand what's so radical about wanting your OS to respect your privacy. Is caring about privacy really that abnormal?

arch is for babby plebbitor who post on r/unixporn
if you want to be l33t then why not install gentoo instead of this r*ddit distro bullshit

some of the people who shout about freedom and privacy are actually referring to other things. the type of person who's so far gone they'll rationalize anything and i mean ANYTHING

i'll let you fill in the blanks. some of the people i'm referring to come here. some of them are reading right now. filthy fuckers

What about people who use low spec hardware/don't want to bother compiling everything/have more important stuff to utilize their processing power with?

Gentoo isn't the best fit for every non computer-brainlet.

thats why you use slackware instead of arch

If I understood you correctly, these people you refer to can't afford to have their privacy compromised, meaning they must avoid proprietary software that violates their privacy, meaning they absolutely do care about these things.

If not, please just spit out exactly who you are talking about.

You forgot 5) people who don't want their PC to crash and spy on them constantly

B󠀀 A󠀀 S󠀀 E󠀀 D󠀀 A󠀀 N󠀀 D󠀀 R󠀀 E󠀀 D󠀀 P󠀀 I󠀀 L󠀀 L󠀀 E󠀀 D󠀀
A󠀀
S󠀀
E󠀀
D󠀀

A󠀀
N󠀀
D󠀀

R󠀀
E󠀀
D󠀀
P󠀀
I󠀀
L󠀀
L󠀀
E󠀀
D󠀀

The problem lays in keeping it running, sooner or later your system stops working or you run in a problem with some conflicting programs and systemd is a clusterfuck.
Yes, the community support is neat, i give you that but a simple installer script wouldn't hurt for a distro that likes to break

Attached: jWGMo_s-200x150.gif (200x150, 1.64M)

What advantages does Slackware actually have over Arch?

1.working
2.stable
3.l33t and userbase that is not full of plebbit fags
4.closer to unix
5.no systemd
6.no systemd
7.Jow Forums bragging rights

Because lots of people like to choose distros based on debian(Ubuntu, Mint, and a trillion other distros) that are more up to day, ignoring the fact you can use Debian testing or Sid and achieve that without half the bloat and problems that other distros have. Hell, even on stable, I'm running plenty of programs that are the most recent ones and nothing ever breaks.

thanks, I am happy with it

Some distros are rolling release which is a big difference
Also each distro is meant to be used with certain specific software (e.g. some DE) and trying to change that usually doesn't work well

Varying in speeds, inits, amounts of packages, etc. They're not really the same when it comes to actually using them. My favorites are Void and Devuan.

only meaningful difference is the desktop environment

so pick arch because it doesn't come with one and install whatever you want

what a man of culture

Linux is just a kernel.