Is there a single reason to use anything other than Arch?

Is there a single reason to use anything other than Arch?

Attached: download.png (2000x2000, 101K)

arch is rolling release and it's annoying to keep upgrading your system. it's why i quit using windows, ubuntu has minor security updates and that's it. there's nothing wrong with using arch but nothing wrong with using other distros user

Stability
That's why peopel are using Debian

No but not everyone has a high enough IQ to install Arch

Not everyone has autism

>can't install just security upgrades when you don't want to reboot
feels smug to use fedora

Attached: haruka.jpg (979x1099, 126K)

>Stability
stale meme

you can update your Arch install every 6 months if you wish, no one is rushing you to run update every minute

>stabilty
you spelled insecurity wrong, you fags, because of incompetent devs, get security updates last
looked up right now, and your chromium version is few weeks stale

Debian is much better tailored for server usage and other type of network projects which is why I stick with it

RHEL/CentOS are the only distros supported for our linux-only product.

>what are CVEs accumulating
well OP you just revealed yourself as a retard, in fedora you can just give the --security flag to the package manager and you are already safe without having to upgrade everything.
>debian is shit you get security updates last
>dude update every six months
having a stroke archtard? you're sweating

System Daemon

Init

Yes. Windows, it works

>software was packaged by my grandma back in the 1940s
enjoy your "stable" shit lmao

No idea

some people use arch because MUH SYSTEMD

Arch is the best distro around nowadays.

It's 2 years, the same amount of time a LTS has.

>thinking that every CVE automatically means that you can be hacked
brainlets GTFO

>software was packaged by my grandma back in the 1940s
Ever heard of Debian testing/sid?

I've found Debian netinst to be just as DIY as Arch, but with a much cleaner installer, more stability, and a more sane package manager CLI.

Attached: a429ff063cbd4a5760c352cf98c51351.png (512x636, 33K)

were you born with a penis

its unusable

Attached: 1531806151580.png (807x209, 126K)

because this world uses Windows 10

finally, someone with a 130 iq

Is there a single reason to use Arch?

Attached: 17aa9c58d93c8c77d20d5673fc2e204a3df863f5ee32f7da1510a67e6fcb0d82.png (1660x1940, 265K)

because i still like to use my comfy i686 and arch devs are too stupid/lazy to target more than one platform. debian even has freebsd and hurd versions of their distro. arch only has amd64, how pathetic.

>systemd

Attached: 1540179838485.png (1379x1189, 648K)

Clear Linux if you give a fuck about performance. It's rolling release and has updates almost every weekday. It's more secure too.

Curiosity.

Attached: 15080095584711.jpg (600x524, 38K)

Stability. And not in the "reliable and never crashes" sense (Arch is deceptively good at that if you ignore the memes. But in the "only changes to patch security holes" sense.

Stability is a massive plus for servers and enterprise, so those use cases don't work well with Arch. It's not impossible, just not preferred. Similarly, some people want that same kind of stability for desktop use. It's merely a philosophical question.

>2019
>still hating on the best thing that ever happened to desktop gnu/linux
Yes, systemd is useless for servers/embedded/other shit, but fuck using anything else for desktops. Used GNU for over two goddamn decades and every other goddamn init system has been shit until systemd came along.

Fucking braindead Dumbers.

gentoo exists, so no need to use Arch

It doesn't run Ableton.

>implying that arch is difficult to install

Yay or pacman better

because I have an actual job

I use arch and barely spend any time fixing it (as it rarely breaks) and I spend some time customizing it

"""Stable""" just means that the updates are more spaced out

I don't disagree. I'm just saying that model is generally preferred for servers, enterprise, and the like where the preference is to change as little as possible for as long as possible.

I mean I like it but upgrading arch every fucking times I use it is a fucking pita.
That's why I use windows LTSC, stable base with all the latest software

Yes. Two reasons.
Gentoo or LFS.
But I'm too braindead for that so I use Arch.

I've never understood that time wasting meme, yeah sure I spent quite a lot of hours customizing it in the beginning but for the last 3 months I've barely touched any config.
As far as breakage goes I've been updating daily for 5 months without issues, stable enough for me.

Bait.

Also, Arch is easy to install.
You just follow the instructions.

Although considering the amount of retards on here, I wouldn't doubt that not many people can read directions.

More on that later.


Also, a really good reason why a lot of people don't use Arch is that: it's a step back in technology.

There's a lot of things about Arch that are more complicated than they need to be.

I mean even installing the OS requires you to follow a f****** manual. Unless you are an extreme hobbyist that has the time to f*** around with configs and fixing s*** every time it gets broken due to an update, Arch is terrible.

because manjaro exists.

Not everybody wants to use systemDildoinsertedinurethra

Attached: 佐藤日向_262.jpg (900x1200, 193K)

yeah man software is getting better so quickly you really want to make sure you stay on board haha