I'm having a hard time deciding between these two. Please help me Jow Forums

>Alpine looks nice but seems like a bad choice for desktop rather than server
It works just like Arch but it's easier.

Last time i checked it had a similar number of packages compared to others i mentioned, unless you're using it on i686 version where you don't have firefox and friends, but it's not the case for OP. I also forgot to mention that it's very fast, very stable and actually minimal.

Please do not listen to this retard OP he’s literally trying to ruse you.

>It works just like Arch but it's easier.
how is it easier when it lacks packages and the aur?

>and I'm time limited.
Then go Debian, I'm on Arch in my main PC and it's a pain to fix it every time an update crashes the system. Nothing impossible, but it does take time.
Besides, AUR is a potential security flaw. It should never be used on a working environment.

> - packages may be slightly or VERY outdated
> - have to compile anything else and create a frankendebian
write a package

I'm not a programmer and
>time limited

hadn't thought of it that way. thanks for the advice

>they are both great
Lies. That's like saying 1 dollar is equally as great as 1 rupee.

Attached: based.png (477x335, 135K)

>packages may be slightly or VERY outdated
> have to compile anything else and create a frankendebian

You can always use a script to add PPAs, it's easier and faster than downloading and compiling shit, but like AUR it raises concerns about security

I've used Arch for a couple years now and I've never had it fuck up. It's more stable than you might think.

Arch for PCs
Debian for servers

They are different distros with different goals
Your analogy is shit

This. I use Debian on my server as I just need the basics. Arch on desktop for all the latest software. Been running both for 4 years without any major issues.

I've been using Debian for a while, what are the ubuntu advantages, cuz I could use something a bit more up to date than testing but still using apt. Sid is a tick-tack bomb so it will explode sooner or later. Does Ubuntu offer something else to a non newbie user compared to Debian? Is it true upgrading every 6 months a non LTS distro tends to break things or are people just being stupid/shitposting?

that

i'm still waiting for Arch to break lol

>It doesn’t really break as long as you don’t -Syu 10 times a day
ackshually it's would be easier to pinpoint a problem this way if Arch was actually unstable

arch being unstable is a Jow Forums meme
I know this because arch was my first linux (coming from windows 7). 5 years and my arch has never broken. Not even once.

probably because
I've never used AUR
I almost always compile from source
I don't blindly run commands from the wiki/stackoverflow. Always read about things before running them (I had lots of time because I was learning)

OP here, I have decided on Debian for my laptop, but I will use Arch on my desktop for recreational use/gayming etc. thanks everyone

Jared is a different person with different goals. He works at mcdonalds and plays fornite at home.

Doug is a different person with different goals. He pursued a masters degree in software engineering and uses AI to try to design medicine that cures aids in africa.

>yes these are equivelant we live in a lovely world where everyone is equal and everyone's ideas are equally valid

False. Arch is unstable shit that is totally useless to every company on earth.

Debian is glorious masterrace stability and can run all software and in a more stable way than debian.

>muh old packages

Well guix solves that you dumb fuck.

Attached: 1560147182892.jpg (379x379, 14K)

Wanna be a productive member of society who gets work done? Use Debian or anything based on Debian eg. Ubuntu.

Wanna sit for hours configuring and ricing an unstable distro for hours only for it to break and be an unproductive member of society? Use Arch or anything based on Arch eg. Manjaro.

you can do minimal install on debian aswell. but if you really cant choose just do bedrock with debian as base and hijack arch? ))

bedrock linux is way way way unfinished and unuseable. Gnu guix does what bedrock linux tries to do. guix essentially gives you an AUR that works in every distro and lets you install whatever packages you want (old or new). the only limit to guix packages is what kernel you have installed.

But yes you can absolutely install debian "the arch way".

You realize some people use Arch to have an up to date system and that's it, right? Just because you never leave Jow Forums doesn't mean everyone that uses arch rices.

I can't use the minimal netinstall as I need non-free firmware, but I am installing with no DE

Install Ubuntu or Windows ffs

Fedora for middle ground

I'm a student and I use arch. Its somewhat more advanced, meaning you need to configure more shit yourself, but because of the arch wiki it really helps you understand how things work or how to fix a fuckup. I I alot more using arch than when I used ubuntu. That said arch should be used as a personal OS, as it's fun to mess around with while still being very useful, but if you're going to do serious work, you should go for something stable that you dont need to configure too much. A few anons mentioned that Fedora is a pretty safe distro and it seems like it.

If you want to learn the machine, go Arch. If you skrew up somewhere the Arch wiki almost always has a fix and explains how. I use arch and manually configuring things really helps you learn about the machine unlike other distros that come right out of the box. Plus arch is really fun to rice

debian testing > arch > debian stable > debian sid

These distros are not even similar. If you can't decide between these two, you're trying to solve a problem you don't understand. Just use Ubuntu and go away.

how exactly is AUR a pro?

Nice LARP

Because it makes it really easy to install a lot of software that can be a pain to get on other distributions?

Attached: image.jpg (554x554, 144K)

True, but Debian by default is the distro with more packages available. Most of the stuff in the AUR is ricing crap anyway like polybar, any productive tool is available on Debian.

You can install debian sid without installing graphics and thus you are able to install debian completely from scratch "the arch way."

Everything arch does debian does better.

use net inst and put the no free fw on a second usb stick the isntaller will isntall it

Attached: 63203011_p5.jpg (550x660, 136K)

its the other way around. debian makes it really easy to install a lot of software that can be a pain to get on the AUR. Its called productive software, for example the whole MinGW compiler collection.
this

Attached: 1556549765720.png (600x450, 222K)

Nice bait

Yes, as lots of Jow Forumstrads mentioned already, Arch is for a laptop, Debian is for a server.

Also, if you do some development, then it probably should be Ubuntu. Google and FB are using Ubuntu

>unstable/fucks up on an update
it doesn't

manjaro does

also it's not minimal but that's not necessarily a bad thing

k list some of your productive tools that are only available on debian

ALL PACKAGdES ARE AVAILABLE ON ALL DISTROS WITH GUIX
ALL PACKAGES ARE AVAILABLE ON ALL DISTROS WdITH GUIX
ALL PACKAGES ARE AVAILABLE ON ALL DISTROS WITH GUIX
ALL PACKAGES ARE AVAILABLE ON ALL DISTROS WITH GUIX
ALL PACKAGES ARE AVAILABLE ON ALL DISTROS WITH GUIX
ALL PACKAGES ARE AVdAILABLE ON ALL DISTROS WITH GUIX
ALL PACKAGES ARE AVAILABLE ON ALL DISTROS WITdH GUIX
ALL PACKAGES ARE AVAILABLE ON ALL DISTROS WITH GUIX
keep up with the times jesus christ

Attached: 1560313343287.jpg (320x240, 40K)

>using something you can't pronounce

goo-ix
It's not hard

here comes the tranny leftist shill

Attached: 1553532839762.jpg (247x250, 6K)

Maybe for you. For me, Arch is passable- i had a computer running it for a while where it had lots of shutdown problems due to systemd but other than that it was okay. Debian on other hand is the worst distro i used in this almost 1 year period where i tried out like 40-50 distros including BSDs, ReactOS, Haiku and others, just to find the best replacement for Windows which for me is Parabola; i can't be more serious than that. Slowest package manager with worst commands out of all, terrible userbase, systemtrash, terrible installer and mutilated and outdated packages that force you on the testing repos where they are even worse (which is just scratching the surface).
There are like a dozen things i simply love to hate about Debian but apparently there are other people who are calling it home. I can't understand how the reality works anymore when someone comes up, praising it with one reason from debian.org/intro/why_debian or just citing his personal experience, then i compare it to the last time i used Devuan where i wanted to rip my head off due to how much time i was wasting and how stressful it was troubleshooting its problems and quirks when i could be happy using a different distro altogheter where i can get the job done very easily. I could spend days going in detail, nitpicking it and explaining how much i hate it. I'd rather stop using a computer than be forced to use it again. I don't even know how to make my opinion more credible than this.

good luck compiling aseprite and hydrus on debian
based AUR

android sdk
mingw
phantomjs
...to name a few

pdftk

arch on desktop, debian on server

Go with manjaro. The beauty of arch less the pain of installing it. Works great and it's up to date but really stable.

Attached: 1543099991805.png (1347x633, 44K)

Arch
> - pacman will bite Xorg
> - You may gain at least 40 lbs until you learn all the distro's intricacies. This has no weight if you aren't a wageslave
> + it's minimalist. Kind of.
> + bleeding edge

Debian
> - Trannyism (high tranny to normal male ratio, high possibility of becoming one). This is a positive if you're a chaser
> +Stability itself. This is a negative if you need software made after 2010. Double negative if using more than one backport AND needing to update the distro afterwards
> + no non-free stuff. This is a negative if you need wifi, most videocards or hardware made after 2015.

Until you need to update it of course.

>but really stable
implying arch is not

call me back when then next huge™ cumulative update breaks your mengina

Install Gentoo

Same here user, I had Manjaro w/ i3 installed which is supposed to work out of the box (protip it didnt) and while the arch wiki was helpful I eventually gave up on it. Now im running debian sid with dwm. It runs fast and stable as butter, if you need more up to date packages (you most certainly dont) just compile them yourself.

install arch

>AUR
= A collection of broken PKGBUILDs maintained by a community of archfags.
Have fun installing things from the AUR especially large packages like mingw stuff with all its dependencies just to realize that you need to spend hours for compiling that shit.
>But muh *-bin packages
Installing the *-bin package doesnt affect the dependencies so you have to rewrite the PKGBUILD and the dependencies PKGBUILDs to use the *-bin package instead of the default. Then you run into cycle dependencies because AUR maintainers cant get their shit right.
How exactly is this "easier to install"?

Tried arch once. Its literally a shitty meme. I want to get work done, user.

>2 of the 3 are upstream binaries
rly shows you the debian retardation

>How exactly is this "easier to install"?
>makepkg -i
this not simple enough for you? wew

I would recommend Debian.

You're never going to find a package that isn't setup in the deb format and isn't in the repos, but in the off chance you do, you can find it in another repo. Better yet, configure it yourself. Odds are if it's that niche it won't be integral to your system, nor will it need to be updated frequently. Debian just werks. Arch just werks. But Debian has the added privilege of not exploding when you don't update it for a month

>> - maybe unstable/fucks up on an update now and then
Very unlikely these days. I have arch 5 years now and happened to me twice with proprietary nvidia drivers.
Everything that is in official repos should be rock solid.