Arch is the "experienced" user's choice

>Rolling release
>rolling
Just like Debian sid or Gentoo.

So?

Guess what bucko

Attached: Screenshot_2019-05-14_11-17-33.png (1018x531, 73K)

claimed Debian users had to "wait for years" which is obviously false but is typical of Arch users' ignorance.

Guess what juilian, your moms a hoe

>aur so you don't have to build things manually
depends on what you're after, some stuff have precompiled binaries and some don't

compiling stuff on pic related is at times a nightmare, but the rest of the time arch is fine

Attached: .png (825x381, 50K)

Use neofetch Julian, it's nu-screenfetch.

>"Debian sid" is Debian
Which kernel does Debian use right now again? Version 3 something?

>he uses Ooooobooooontooo, just like me!
>Emacs? What is this, the 60s?
A distro literally doesn't matter anymore. What matters are the tools you use.

what is a serious stuff distro?

You use Arch because you couldn't setup Gentoo.

Ubuntu

Fedora IBM/systemd

Why did you reply to me 6 times?

He's not wrong.

Speaking from experience?

get me an 8 core cpu, fag

>Arch is the "experienced" user's choice
I think the meme was about Gentoo. Arch is Reddit version of that.

Okay, so why am I able to use bleeding edge games and tech with my 10yo system running Win7 64-bit? Installation takes like 10mins and most of that time I was making a sandwich and balloon boy shitposting.

Experienced users have already experienced endless fiddling, so they prefer Ubuntu.

imagine projecting this hard archtoddler

based

>starting with wrong pic

Attached: 1542656859531.jpg (1200x801, 273K)

>starting with wrong pic, #2

Attached: deanmacfag.png (1357x1012, 1.75M)

mint

Because Linux is a fucking nightmare of dependency trees instead of just including the relevant libraries with packages because they want to save a few kilobytes on their hard drives

He is the IT

If you didn't have a room temperature IQ, you would realize there are other distributons that release stable binaries quickly and do not expose you to security risks like Arch.

Arch is for people who can't into programming, so they copy paste a bunch of commands to install an OS, and pretend they have technical skills.

I haven't fiddled much with arch since I installed it. Did a dry run in a VM first then straight onto my daily. I've made a backup (and restore) script anyway if I need to jump ship for some reason, but it existed before I used arch.

Also in i.e. Xubuntu some things are reqs of xubuntu-desktop so uninstalling one stupid thing like a font wants to take the xubuntu-desktop package with it AND all of ITS deps so you're basically stuck with shit.

What the hell is the point of “bleeding edge” software if you’re not running bleeding edge hardware?
Most of my systems are going on 4-5 years old and any real optimization for the CPUs inside would have been done probably no later than a year after launch

you idiots, ubuntu is used for android development.

This is true
t. installed Gentoo after Arch

AUR is the best thing available on Linux for non-servers.

Who are you quoting?

This, but unironically.

You do realize the point of software updates is not just performance, right?
This has to be one of the most retarded posts I've ever seen on Jow Forums.

t. triggered archcel

RHEL/CentOS and SLES.

Really no point in arguing it either. More enterprise level applications/etc run on RHEL/CentOS with SUSE coming a close second. Ubuntu is cool for LAMP stack shit, docker stuff and the like, but when you're looking at standing up a SAS grid or SAP you're not doing it on Ubuntu.

I don't even use Arch, dumb faggot.

ultra successful memes arent memes at all, just like stereotypes exist because they are usually true.
low maintenance, rolling, recent vanilla packages, AUR, pacman is comfy, minimalish, great wiki, there is literally nothing to dislike.

Have you ever worked as a developer? You obviously don’t install Arch on a work computer. I don’t want to spend time setting stuff up and I don’t really care, I just need it to run the tools I need and I want the same system base as the other devs. On my personal machines I’ll go through the process of installing Arch and setting things up because I actually give a fuck about them.

A modified version of Ubuntu called Goobuntu was Google’s in-house distro. It was basically Ubuntu with their in-house tools added and set-up. They have switched to Debian as a base since.

This, as someone who uses Arch on my personal rig, I can say that it's not meant to be used in any kind of professional environment. If you're a developer, it's great for keeping up with changes being made in software, but you definitely don't want to use it for any kind of serious production.

Is Arch a good idea if I just want an OS that runs fast? Tried Lubuntu but maybe I could do better

If you're willing to spend a decent amount of time configuring your environment, yes. If you aren't, try Manjaro i3 or just stick with Lubuntu.

If I wanted to end up working as a wagecuck for Google I would use Ubuntu.

Even Terry used Ubuntu and "Ubuntu" is a niggerlicious name enough as it is.

Attached: 1556460380460.jpg (480x360, 12K)

>Terry was actually a glow in the dark CIA nigger all along

>btw I use arch

cringe and bluepilled
based and redpilled

i'm too scared to try