I just updated Arch Linux. Nothing broke, everything works. Why do people use any other distribution? Arch is based

Sid repositories exist m89

>Nothing broke, everything works
you said it like is the only condition to for base system

You're not entirely wrong, but not right either. The key point here is that the philosophy and design choices that lead a developer to creating a cli-based tool oftentimes also result in making said tool more flexible in the hands of an expert user.
I've yet to see a gui installer that lets you do btrfs-over-lvm-over-luks-over-softraid the way I want it.

Attached: 1553886869406.png (500x500, 220K)

nothing personal kid, but debian sid is the superior rolling distro

>shiver and sweat before every update
>Click update
>Close eyes in fear
>Update was a success only 24 dependency errors
>Create thread how easy it was and nothing broke at all like it's unexpected

The only reason you're using arch is because you couldn't figure out how to install gentoo.

>more flexible in the hands of an expert user
you mean gentoo users? real experts looking for maximum flexibility will most likely use from-source distros. how much much more flexibility can you get than compiling yourself applying personal optimizations and patches?
arch serves the """power users"""" who love to tinker with cfgs

If you're autistic about stability you're gonna hate it. Things don't break all the time like people say but you'll probably experience occasional crashes, xorg fucking up, or just stupid stuff like fonts constantly being overwritten. I wasn't a stability autist until I used arch and now I use debian

Attached: 1514148600032.png (2000x2000, 356K)

The FreeBSD is the most secure OS out there.

I thought about giving Arch go in a virtual machine, but your post made me realize what I'm going to deal with. Might as well deal with the time investment up front with fucking Gentoo.

It's a fucking meme, user.
Installing Arch and Gentoo is piss-easy if you're capable of following instructions. Gentoo is worse because you have to wait for compiling, and you still have a broken installation at the end of the installation.

I use ubutu
It is the most popular, so the most compatible distro.

At least masking is a thing in Gentoo. I'm not going to waste my time with shit breaking in Arch because of incompatible dependancies.

>because of incompatible dependancies
I have literally never had this issue.

Not everyone wishes to compile everything from source. Binary distributions for power users are a real concept.

I'm sure your computing experience involves a lot of productive tasks, such as ricing.

I'm a software developer.

you can do binary installs on gentoo though

What kind of software do you develop?

I am aware of users installing binary packages for stuff that takes forever to compile.
If you try to have everything installed like that, though, then you greatly reduce the flexibility/benifits Gentoo is supposed to offer, so why even use Gentoo at that point if you want, say, at least 90 - 95% of packages to be pre-compiled? Am I missing something here?

>Why do people use any other distribution?
Because they actually want to get the work done.

Attached: arch.png (1682x2684, 292K)

Arch is bloat

the question you should instead be asking is why use arch when gentoo gives you more options? you don't have to compile but the option is always there

>updates arch once
>n=1
>nothing broke so arch breaking is just a meme

>sid
stale meme
its not even remotely up to date

I don't like 90% of arch users and I don't want to be grouped with them.
The reason I don't like them is because they are extreme "smart" guys with inferiority complex.

literally never happened in 7 years of using arch, stop falling for the memes

I use Arch but variety is the spice of life they say, and so other distro's are used too, Ubuntu notably.

Attached: linux-kernel os.jpg (1100x550, 69K)

This is false and you should feel bad

I don't always Linux, but when I do, I install Ubuntu

Attached: 1550203364643.jpg (1600x1066, 721K)