Why do you use Arch?

>hacka53 is not on the user list

I need bleeding-edge software, which is hard to get and install on pretty much any other distro.

>get
source
>install
compile it yourself

aur is just training wheels

it comfy

Attached: file.png (1039x749, 83K)

AUR
Rolling release.

I don't, I use Debian since 2011.

I like debian better but I couldn't get it to work on my new hardware :(

Your new hardware has to be really really new then. If so, just use Ubuntu

And if you want it up to date,
>remember
every piece of software you installed
>keep checking
every repo for updates to see if you need to upgrade

thanks, I'd rather have my AUR

Because their logo is the only thing you could comprehend?

lmao you're literally the guy in the pic

>I'd rather have my training wheels
then just call it how it is

>Making it harder on yourself for internet bragging points

you're the one calling it harder mr training wheels

But AUR makes it easier.

Training wheels for what? writing your own package repo?

ABS. Having an easy way to build packages from source is nice.

yeah no other distro lets you build packages from source, really weird how the devs keep the secrets of package building to themselves but not in Arch!

It's way more complicated in most big distros. I know for a fact that doing it on a debian based distro is needlessly complicated. And that doesn't even include the troubles you have to go through to manage the package with apt.

>I know for a fact that doing it on a debian based distro is needlessly complicated. And that doesn't even include the troubles you have to go through to manage the package with apt.
apt-src install package
apt-src build package
dpkg -i package
or you can even shortcut it and do like --build install or some shit
How is that complicated

Okay bait

>apt-src is a command line interpace for downloading, installing, upgrading and tracking debian source packages

>debian source packages
And where do you get those from?
Well I search around I apparently you use dpkg-buildpackage. But it isn't that simple.
Read debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/index.en.html
Making a debian package is a complicated process, especially when.compared to the simplicity of PKGBUILD and makepkg.

>And where do you get those from?
from the repositories, just add a source repo lmao

You've made this more difficult for yourself than it need be.

I use it on my laptop because how minimal and fast it is. All the other distros I tried felt slow and bloated.

>source repo
What if I want to install a program that doesn't have a debian source repo available?
While apt-src may be an appropriate counterpart to the AUR, the packaging system itself is needlessly complex.

>What if I want to install a program that doesn't have a debian source repo available?
then it would be as if it wasn't in ABS. apt-src is an analog to abs, not the aur.

the aur is great, and a good reason to use arch. abs is fine but it's not really anything special. tons of operating systems have a ports-like system for building their packages

AUR, new packages, fairly minimal, pacman is fast af, vanilla.
I use macOS on my desktop and Debian on my server though. I'm not a fucking virgin anymore

>tons of operating systems have ports-like system for building their packages
Disregarding non-Linux and forks, only 4 come to mind, Arch, Void, Slackware, and to an extent, Gentoo. Out of these, Arch is the most popular, and it just happens to be the one I use.
Mybpoint isn't that there aren't other distros with a ssimilar build system. My point is that most major distros don't have such a system and Arch does.

hey I know I'm ignoring the meat of your post but I don't really want to discuss it any more
>discussing systems that have ports-like systems, but not including any BSDs which are what ports is from

because I'm among fellow retards

user pls

Attached: nobloat.png (639x4513, 182K)

>spend a couple of hours setting it up
>has been working fine for the past three years
I really don't get this meme, do people really find a way to break their installation? like you have to be a special type of retard to pull that off lol

that's not the same image though, fellow debloatfag

Anyone who actually uses Manjaro or Arch reports very few problems. It's all the other distro users that tell us how difficult Arch is, and how it's so much easier to actually have your system break once a year with Debian updates.

Because it's been rather stable from when I first installed it, I've had no issues on arch that I haven't already had on other distros so I just stuck with it. Been running 2 installs for 3 years now and I gotta say, it just works.

It just werks. Seriously, I've had more issues with debian and ubuntu based mint than my arch install.

Because new users fresh from using Winshit are convinced they should be using Arch as their first distro and they can barely install a fucking noob distro so they fuck up arch and whine about it.

Why are Archcucks like this?

Attached: 1351470509418.png (650x4376, 979K)

all the users who didn't have it break are fine. only those people who experienced breakage NO LONGER USE ARCH

Because I'm too lazy to port on Ubuntu. Literally the only reason. I have a few things I need to be very current and Arch has them handy. If they're ever abandoned I'll be right back with Ubuntu.

if you care about ports why not use gentoo? nixos also does ports if you disable the binary cache (or install something not on the official hydra)

I'm comfortable with Arch. I like having binary builds for 80-90% of the software I use.

Stop saying bullshit. Debian doesn't break once a year. The only chance Debian can really break is with apt dist-upgrade and that's every 2 or 3 years and in my experience it never happened. You can defend Arch without saying bullshit about other distros.

because I like it when the system breaks after I run pacman -Syu

for this time it was systemd

check out this debloated chen

Attached: chen-50-smallest.png (50x50, 388)

>Arch is not minimal like a Debian or Gentoo
>Arch devs have written in the wiki that unless you're ready to troubleshoot things when something goes wrong, you SHOULDN'T use it. Don't listen to the users, they lie all the time. Systemd updates break all the time, budgie broke last week, etc
>Arch doesn't patch anything
Basically, arch is a very raw system. If you're an linux enthusiast or a programmer, I can see the benefits of using it since you're getting everything as is and right away from upstream with very minimal waiting time. If however you do regular things or work that doesn't rely on bleeding edge software, you're probably better suited with Debian or Ubuntu. Just my two cents. I guess Fedora too, but rpms distros and I never liked each other too much, except OpenSUSE, I actually really like zypper, probably the best package manager there is.

different user, but apt dist-upgrade breaks debian 100% of the time in my experience

AUR
Wiki
Bleeding edge
Configurability
Savvy community

Well, it never broke in my experience.

Why is your i3bar so messy? How do you make sense out of it?

>maintaining an rpm spec is hard

Post more chens

I first installed it to learn more about Linux but since I liked it I kept installing it on new systems and I have no reason to change