I use arch-linux because I'm a power-user™

You could've fallen for a worse meme. At least Arch is reliable, has good support and doesn't bug you about upgrading to a new version of the distro every 6 months.

at your mothers house where you work on your sweet arch rice and not be productive

>arch
>reliable
>doesnt bug you about upgrading

>ostracized tech a few days later
Arch has always been a joke.

>I use arch because I don't know much about linux but know that it's extremely hard to install and also the best because it isnt noobuntu

Attached: arch linux tard.png (804x906, 46K)

>Wangdows Power-User ™

I use antergos on one laptop because it just werkz
I use void on another laptop because it has 2GB RAM, a tiny 5400rpm hdd, and a core2 duo but still cold boots to GUI login within 15 seconds

>still cold boots to GUI login within 15 seconds
kek every time I select Arch from grub it has to run a "start job" on my wireless interface which takes 1 min 30 s and always fails. Then to access wifi I have to bring down my LAN interface and manually open Network Manager

Yes, but its more true for linux.

And why haven't you changed it to not do that

AHAHAHA! YOU NEED TO GO BACK TO WINDOWS YOU STREET SHITTER!

Might want to make it not do that.

Attached: 1523271993765.png (1280x853, 1.55M)

Arch has never been a Jow Forums meme.
Install Gentoo.

Is this what it's like to computer as a brain let?

I like using crapple and microshit because i like being bent over

This guy unironically uses a riced Arch setup. See anything else wrong with him?

Attached: LiteralArchUser.jpg (1512x1659, 362K)

That's not a thinkpad.

how

Gee I don't know, maybe you could “search the web” for the problem you're having and find answers there?

What kind of potato camera produces masterpieces like that picture in $current_year?

Blackberry Storm, smart-ass.

Still pretty bad compared to the dumbphones and htc crap i have from that time

huawei? More like no way.

I use Manjaro b/c I don't want to spend 30 mins checking the Wiki while installing Arch.

Attached: tendies.jpg (415x207, 17K)

This.
>Install that takes 5-10 minutes
vs
>Install that takes 30-60 minutes, multiple checks on a Wiki, and doesn't work well out of the box because I forgot to build one stupid frickin piece of the OS

an (((iPhone))) 7

Attached: IMG_2200.jpg (750x1334, 192K)

i use arch because when i tried ubuntu apt was an awful experience that turned me off of linux for years

>>reliable
Yes, reliable, it doesn't get in your way and it does what you tell it to
>>doesnt bug you about upgrading
Yes, it doesn't bug you about upgrading, you specifically tell it to upgrade, it doesn't (by default) have any tooling to alert you when updates are available.

Want to know how I know you've never used Arch?

Attached: 1470406730904.jpg (385x375, 35K)

The only thing you're partially correct about in your post is the time it takes to install. Yes Manjaro takes less time because it does everything for you with an installer but even then you're wrong about the time it takes to install Arch.
>30-60 minutes
60 minutes when you're a Ubuntu/Mint newbie venturing into the big world of big boy distros? Sure. However if you know what you're doing and your internet connection is not Australian you can get a nice Arch system running KDE in those 30-60 minutes.
>doesn't work well out of the box because I forgot to build one stupid frickin piece of the OS
You're not describing Arch, this sounds like Gentoo. You don't manually configure the kernel or compile your system when installing Arch. Arch automatically pulls in all the fucking dependencies you can imagine so you can pretty much just sit there typing '# pacman -S' over and over again.

Not sure about other people, but I personally don't use Arch because "muh hard 1337 status" or whatever the fuck you newfags are trying to meme. It's a solid system that doesn't get in my way, and does exactly what I want, with the great additions of the AUR and light base install. And it's not a hard install at all, it's one of those installs that you could easily automate once you figure out everything you want for your installs I've written a script that does so. But anyway, Arch is good because it's basically the anti-distro, minus the AUR, it's just a solid base to do what YOU want, not what the creator of the distro wants. It's harder to get this on most distros.

Attached: Screenshot_2019-04-04_18-54-21.png (1600x900, 546K)

>it's just a solid base to do what YOU want, not what the creator of the distro wants
>light base install.
see pic related
>It's a solid system
Unstable, mostly untested packages are the opposite of solid

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

redpill me as to whether gentoo is also like this??
i've used gentoo but not arch

Attached: Arch is not even a meme.png (1272x1377, 274K)

I don't user, I have been using Arch and haven't found any major problems with it. It can be modified enough to meet my needs while still being stable enough to serve as a base for productivity applications.

Apart from the AUR, that user basically described Gentoo. I guess the installation is a bit harder on Gentoo.

I don't pretend Arch is as minimal or light as you can get with something like Gentoo, it's not, but I believe is strikes a fair balance between being heavy and very bloated by default (Like Ubuntu) and being autistically light (Like Gentoo). Not that I have an issue with Gentoo, I like Gentoo quite a bit, but I don't need that level of efficiency and lightweightness, I take the middleground, Arch

As I said in my reply above, Gentoo is considerably lighter than Arch, since you're getting nothing you don't specifically choose yourself. It's obviously a lot harder than Arch to install and maintain, so it's up to user what they value more (ease of install in return for more heft than an ultra light distro VS hard install and maintenance in return for ultra light)
I choose the former

Attached: 1554008110483.jpg (383x670, 64K)

>At least Arch is reliable

Attached: ACB80099-D6C4-47CC-BB41-7CCA168DD467.jpg (577x1024, 70K)

Gentoo isn't light either, it's customizable. The point is that even *buntu or debian will be lighter and more customizable than arch if you start from a minimal install.
There's really no reason to use arch, better alternatives are everywhere and you're only shooting yourself in the foot if you use an unstable distro like that for no good reason.
>It's obviously a lot harder than Arch to install and maintain
It's very easy to maintain if you stay on stable for critical packages.

I use Memejaro Linux because I've just started using linux 2 months ago, and my shitbook has cherry trail processor, which leaves me without a sound because alsalib on all stable distros such as Ubuntu/Debian stuck at 1.1.3-1.1.6 while cherry trail was enabled in 1.1.7. I didn't know about existence of debian sid, so this is the distro I'm looking forward to. Half the time I get 404 trying to get dependencies for soft from AUR. I don't think I have the right to say it, but it looks to me very much as a meme OS.

wearing a wig?

that's just how his hair looks every day.

unnecessarily voluntarist

I use and will keep using arch, convince me else wise.

You need to upgrade if you're installing new packages.

>Half the time I get 404 trying to get dependencies for soft from AUR.
It's not officially supported. Anyone can create a pkgbuild and upload it there.

So what is the better alternative to arch?

I use arch linux because it seemed nice

It's easy to install, use, and configure. That's why I use Arch.

Arch takes me 10 minutes to install. It's not difficult if you're not a brainlett.

I use BSD because Linux is for fags.

Just not true, please stop posting

*hugs*

why are you lying?

Attached: 1503858785057.jpg (599x510, 26K)

You don't need to but if you haven't updated in a while chances are you're gonna get a 404 because the package you want is a version ahead on the mirrors

>OpenBSD doesn't have this problem

Yeah it just has other problems like destroying your SSDs with normal use

old meme, TRIM is handled by the firmware now you fag

lolno
Yes, that's true if you're using the base install and dont customize stuff. But you obviously do because most of the presets on arch are fucking garbage.

Because now you are biased and see more negative posts about it, everything is always criticized by Jow Forums

This

>new Linux user
>uses Manjaro
I don't like this meme.

I use openbsd because

Attached: images(9).jpg (251x201, 12K)

You like cute blowfishes.

linux is a kernel

I use arch linux because I like it
being a power user or not has little to do with it

>windows has Linux Subsystem for Windows that runs those tiny little Linux apps natively and flawlessly
>Linux has WINE which is a shitty emulator and runs all the behemoth Windows apps like shit

Yeah...

it's ostracized by different groups of fags
no matter what you use, some faggot on Jow Forums will shit on you for using it
this applies to general tech, not only linux distros

>WINE
>emulator

Attached: 1479711787052.jpg (348x342, 37K)

>Linux has WINE which is a shitty emulator
Delet

This, someone might tell you to install Gentoo instead of Arch and next day someone will call you a faggot for using Gentoo.

hold up yall
arch is supposed to be blob free and non proprietary.
its a customized install. how can you be a windows user and pretend to know anything about arch?

>flawlessly
lol

Name some flaws besides io performance.

Last time i tried to setup my working environment there there were more bugs than atoms in observable universe
Msys is still miles ahead

Pure autism.

Arch provides the opposite of user customization. Packages are split less often, optional dependencies are enabled by default, and switching to a different init system is a nightmare.
Why you even list the AUR as a positive is beyond me. Installing from the AUR is barely more convenient then just compiling from source yourself, and is far less secure. Often it is actually less convenient, as the packages are unmaintained and you have to manually update the package build.

If all you want is bleeding edge software and rolling release, then fine, use Arch. But stop it with the "muh customization" meme. Almost every distro has a net install, get over it.

Gentoo isn't "light" in the sense that even a bare-bones install, by its source-based nature, requires some things other distros don't, such as a C compiler (to compile the kernel and basic utilities) and a Python interpreter (to run Portage). Arch, for example, includes gcc in the base-devel metapackage, but but not in the base package (the only one required for a working system).
However, since Gentoo makes it easy to strip unneeded features at compile time, it results in smaller, faster binaries, leading to lower RAM usage and overall (marginally, and sometimes) better performance.
It's true that the pont of Gentoo is customization and choices, not "performance" or "muh minimalism", but it does usually result in a lighter system when it comes to memory consumption and performance when compared to an equivalent system on a non-source based distribution, but often at the price of (slightly) more disk space used.
Personally, I think it's a good deal, and that's another (minor) reason why I use Gentoo. I think it's actually easier to use than many other distributions thanks to its distro-specific tools.

>it's almost as if not every Jow Forumsentleman has the same opinion...

THIS HAHAHAHAHAAHAH

I don't know who you're quoting but yes, Jow Forums is not one person.

>Base OS somehow related to workflow even though desktop is not part of os
>software limited
>hard install
>reddit meme

Lol whatever faggots.
Arch has the most accessible repository of any distribution. It is one of the oldest and most consistently used of the relevant existing distros. It is made to be customizable and makes you learn everything once rather than repeatedly or never. If you can't install it, you're a brainlet who can't read the wiki.

If you're trying to drag "apps" from a toolbar like a fucking grandma then just install elementary or Ubuntu you fucking dunce

imagine actually being elitist about using Arch LMFAO

>most consistently used
by whom?
>It is made to be customizable
How is it more customizable than Debian or Ubuntu in any way?
>makes you learn everything once
What does that even mean? What can you learn with Arch that you can't with Ubuntu?

Consistent placement on distro watch

Debian pretty good but both come with bloat that is more work to remove and replace with what you want

Arch doesn't change your defaults frequently. You have more control over exactly what is installed over your computer without fucking around.

>Debian has more bloat than Arch
>what is netinst

How is the net installer for debian effectively different from installing arch other than the fact it is not a rolling release distro?

>distro watch
Arbitrary metric. Millions of servers run on Debian and they're not counted by Distrowatch.

>Debian pretty good but both come with bloat that is more work to remove and replace with what you want
Minimal Debian and even Ubuntu are smaller than minimal Arch. Try it out yourself.

>Arch doesn't change your defaults frequently
Debian does? Citation needed.

>You have more control over exactly what is installed
Doubtful. In what way?

>the fact it is not a rolling release distro?
Debian sid and experimental are very much rolling release distros.

What has become of Jow Forums?

>I use arch-linux because some bold shill on youtube told me to, so i learn something about linux, then i make a thread on Jow Forums complaining about arch-linux because i can't use the catalog and have never read the sticky. i basically know Jow Forums exists because that bald dude from youtube

Attached: 1549693341279.jpg (225x224, 8K)

Based
Archfag btfo

rude

Attached: 1E33BD98158B44D9A0CC872F071C0126.png (917x599, 46K)