Let's settle this once and for all. Which one is the best? No more "it depends" and such...

Let's settle this once and for all. Which one is the best? No more "it depends" and such. Time to be an objective person and not a non-decisive twat

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 40K)

it depends.

Can't like them both? Fine. If I had to choose, I would choose Arch. No default shit or custom branding on everything, you pick everything on your own. Debian is fine too though.

neither

it depends.

It depends is literally the objectively correct option.
Some things are much too complex to just make a black or white statement about. The only one that proclaims that X is best in all use cases is an absolute retard.

based on package manager alone, pacman slaughters apt. never have i once had issues with pacman but every fucking time i try debian apt gets fucked up, even using the default sources.list

MX Linux with KDE Plasma 5

>install and then remove a package with pacman
>leaves behind at least 50% of the orphaned packages it pulled in, most of which weren't dependencies in the first place

>install and remove a package with apt
>system stops booting

Attached: stockton.gif (125x125, 29K)

gentoo

it unironically literally depends, op. Seriously. If anything, stubbornly reducing the usecases and niches either can fulfill to a simple "JUST ONE FAGT" is far more retarded. In situations where one shines, take that one, christ.

pacman -Rsc

doesn't work, pacman can barely even be called a package manager

Objectively Debian is better. It's more versatile, you can do whatever the fuck you want with it. It runs on most architectures, people use it for servers, desktops, laptops and all kids of shit. I use arch btw.

Devuan.

it depends. really

it depends
debian JUST WERKS
arch will earn you ricing points on reddit

OP here, I was just being a faggot.

Fedora.

pacman -Rns

There's no comparation, thy're made different ends. One is made for stability and reliability the other is made to break so you can lose your jobless time fixing it.

t. arch and debian user

Debian. At least knowledge of it can land you a job as sysadmin someday.

Debian is like commieblock. Old, kinda ugly but stable.

debian just werks if your hardware isn't new. the real "just werks" distro is mint.

That's why pamac is master race:
>tracks orphans very well and will remove them by default if you uninstall their "master" package
>has a gui (hurr I wanna feel like a hacker) and cli
>can do AUR out of the box, will also orphans for them
>can do parallel download
Arch should just deprecate their ancient pacman and fork pamac.

PAMAC
A
M
A
C

So if I get a new pc I can't run Buster for instance? Sounds retarded for a giant distro such as Debian

Listen here! I will show you how wrong you are once I fixed x!

DNF wins here:
>install something
>literally just undo the transaction removing everything that was installed.

debian net install + setting xfce to my autistic tastes + installing the stuff i use:

Who gives a shit, just use whatever

Attached: 1548114590605.png (1266x757, 42K)

Fedora

They both work based on completely opposite premises. One is that only old software is good. The other is that only new software is good.
Objectively, they're both wrong.
Install NixOS or GuixSD.

Biebian

Attached: biebian.png (1024x768, 561K)

This
dnf is fucking great

i couldnt install fedora because fedora installer's systemd shat himself at some task and got stuck

epic distro bro, never happened wth debian

There's literally no excuse to use Debian over Arch. No one who values their time is going to use an operating system that has to go through hoops to install the latest software, and doing so usually results in breakages. I'd rather have software that's latest from the developers rather than hoping some Debian tranny cobbles together some patch. Arch has great documentation and the only times that you need to fix anything is the occasional copy paste from the front page. I have used many distros for servers, and I'd put Arch, Ubuntu, Gentoo, and pretty much everything else in front of Debian.

>But muh installer
Use Anarchy Linux

>I have used many distros for servers, and I'd put Arch, Ubuntu, Gentoo, and pretty much everything else in front of Debian

Attached: 1516314262064.jpg (640x558, 34K)

it quite literally depends. debian is more server oriented, I use it on my server over arch, but arch has newer packages so I use that on my laptop

why do you have to fanboy a distro, are you 12 years old?

I installed Debian once and felt like I'd travelled back in time a decade.

>using Arch for a server
wtf m8

Back in my time trolling meant something

[spoiler]sudo pacman -Rsnc $(pacman -Qqdt)[spoiler]

Where's the lie?

Attached: which is best.png (769x733, 99K)

sudo dnf history undo last

>even trolling is low quality nowadays

Attached: 1518301318011.png (625x626, 775K)

Well, the fact that Debian is probably the most used distro for servers and arch is mostly, if not all, used as a desktop/laptop OS? I mean, how many servers are there running on Arch?

Based critical thinkers, brainlet op btfo

MX Linux

In the case of someone legitimately posing that question, I'll take a knife any day.

I give back in spades.

with a knife you can make a cup, with a cup you can't make a knife.

yes you can. but why not just get a cup from the cup factory?
Unless you really enjoy making cups, so why don't you make your own knife then?

You could always just not update and have just about the exact same experience, there's nothing stopping arch from being run with a "stable" kernel either.

Let me guess, you're just pretending to be retarded?

Every place I worked used Ubuntu for Linux servers. Though admittedly, they tried to use Windows servers as much as possible for God knows whatever fuck reason.

>proprietary cups

Yes, I use the hardened kernel, but lts is available too. If you install Anarchy Linux it let's you pick kernels.

Both have an utter shit installer.
Mint == MX > Ubuntu == Manjaro >>> Arch==Debian.
There. Objective facts.

Isn't Manjaro supposed to be arch for newbies and yet it breaks all the time? I like MX because it's a more polished debian stable.

Is it worth switching from hannah montana linux?

Never looked into MX, what makes it better for servers than debian? Shill me on it if you can be asked.

>Though admittedly, they tried to use Windows servers as much as possible for God knows whatever fuck reason.
Any non-tech company will keep using their ancient VB6 scripts for as long as possible

I think debian beats it for server use but for desktop MX is more polished debian stable with handy tools, backported programs integrated right away, takes 1 click to create a snapshot of your entire system too. Uses a more recent Kernel too(4.19 if i'm not mistaken)

>takes 1 click to create a snapshot of your entire system too
Out of the box? Sounds nice enough to try it on my laptop.

Neither. They're the same fucking OS.

yeah out of the box

Arch for Desktop
Debian for Server

Why didn’t you just fix it? Also which installer and which release?

Ubuntu is Debian with some extra shit and older testing repos

based and fedorapilled
if you truly mean for EVERY use case. then RHEL, literally can't go wrong with anything and you will have people to support you to whatever it is you want Linux to do

You can. Most new hardware uses ancient drivers. I have an x470 board and run buster just fine.
Maybe if you get a laptop with some meme fingerprint reader or something you would have a problem.

People who say "depends" on linux of all places are fucking retads. Linux is the same everywhere, meaning shit like appimages/flatpacks will run on any distro (provided you know how to make them run). The only difference between distros is the amount of packages installed by default, which will make some distros more friendly oriented than others, and faggots who tell you one is better than the other just do so because their chosen distro just has the packages they need by default on their everyday use.

fpbp

OpenBSD.

>Arch
I want the most current software that is compiled for my hardware
>Debian
>I want software that was known to have worked well 8 years ago because I'm that scared of bugs. All software must be compiled to still run on my 1993 Intel Pentium!

I'll give it to you straight:

arch

Why? because it's tradition to hate arch. And it's tradition for a good reason: arch just fucking works. Install whatever the fuck you want on it, and it'll work. Pacman is braindead easy to use, and all you need to know are some basic commands that you can always look up. At most you'll fiddle with cli stuff during installation or when ricing your desktop. But arch just fucking works, and Jow Forums hates that.

no, you are retarded. because the upgrades may break shit, and in arch case they do break
nice bait, arch is hated because it fucking breaks with any upgrade

@NPC70289467
This is the tradition I'm talking about: "Arch breaks on every update" is the favourite Jow Forumsunixporn meme

Neither of them, they are systemd infected distros. Install Devuan instead, upgrade to testing or sid if you want more recent packages. Choose your init system.

Attached: devuan_installer.png (600x453, 274K)

How do I install systemd on Devuan?

and it does
>DUDE THIS PIECE OF SOFTWARE IS THE PROBLEM TRUST ME JUST REMOVE IT AND NOW LINUX IS GREAT AGAIN
no, and if you are that autistic install gentoo normanfaggot

Debian will be here long after Google stops funding Gentoo and Arch is abandoned because they ate their own dog food.

correct answer

Installing gentoo isn't difficult, at least both it and Devuan give you a choice in installing systemdicks rather than forcing it upon you.

Debian for server fags

Arch for LITERALLY everything else

@NPC70289540
it doesn't

niether
install gentoo

>updating kernel
Let me guess, you're one of those retards who think keeping w10 updated makes you secure, or that w7 will magically be rendered useless next year. At most, the things you need to upgrade are the software you use everyday, such as browser, office suite, etc. Don't be an ignorant please.

More like lada, I would say.
Whereas arch, well I have no idea

want a stable but outdated system? use debian
want a less stable but newer system? use arch

>rolling release
>servers

Attached: 1512250853552.png (645x773, 37K)

arch is like looking in the mirror

Objective people understand that using only one tool is unwise because different tools are best in different circumstances.

Attached: 31000106-toolbox-with-tools-on-white-isolated-background-3d.jpg (1300x1300, 151K)

yeah sure i could fix systemd failing to load a module which gives inability to switch tty to do anything. i don't remember exactly but i think it was filesystem related.
Fedora-Server-netinst-x86_64-29-1.2.iso

what's better with fedora than in debian/ubuntu?

At work, Debian. At home, Arch.

but if you dont do the 'depends on this' then you are not being objective. because objectively it depends on things
saying something would be defiitively the best would be subjective not objective
its not being non decisive its being realist. we cant decide for you without knowing your needs and wants. what kind of bullshit you can tolerate and what kind of bullshit you cant.

devuan runs Xorg as root though

>Having to reinstall an entire operating system every major update is productive.

A distro isn't a tool though, it's a philosophy around a set of tools.

just stop trying.

openrc
busybox
musl c

gets the fuck out of your way so you can enjoy your life.

Attached: Screenshot_2019-03-25 index Alpine Linux.png (225x73, 3K)

>updating the operative system in the first place
don't try to fix what it ain't broken