[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/g/ - Technology



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



Seriously, I just switched from Dual booting windows and linux mint to a fresh arch install on a new hard drive because muh memes and actually everything seems to be going just fine...
I mean sure I had to tweak a few things right after installation but after that I got to build a custom system and everything seems fine and dandy.
Whats with the Arch hate or is it just a meme?
>>
The only ones who hate Arch are those lacking the intelligence to install it
>>
>>65964887
Nobody hates Arch but Gentoo folk like to say they are best because their software repository requires you compile literally everything, whereas with Arch, pacman offers binaries for commonly downloaded software and leaves the AUR (Arch User Repository) with less common software for compilation from source.
>>
Arch isn't necessarily _bad_. There are some design and security issues I don't like (overwriting configuration files when reinstalling a package, pulling in AUR sources from external URLs, etc), but that's about it.

My problem with Arch is that it brings _nothing_ new to the table. Everything Archers brag about (KISS, customisation, community) has been a part of other distributions for decades. It's as though most Arch users think every non-Arch distribution is like Ubuntu and locks you in to a specific way of doing things.

I haven't seen any of the Arch developers push useful code upstream either. They just write a few Arch-specific scripts and patches. Go diff the mainline kernel against Arch's. Whereas other distributions add new features and bugfixes that later get accepted into the kernel proper, Arch just adds a few patches I doubt their developers even wrote:
http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk?h=packages/linux

And yes, I realise that contributing back code isn't the be all and end all of a distribution. However, other distributions that are frequently attacked for not pushing code upstream contribute in other ways. The obvious example is Ubuntu; it does little for actual development, but it has done more for advocacy then any other distribution I can think of.
>>
>>65964887
Ignorance. Arch is very flexible, Linux is very flexible. There is virtually no excuse to cry about breakage on any distro.
>>
>>65964887
i have to get shit done :(
>>
anyone that relies on a stable functioning operating system (i.e. non-NEETs) hates arch.
>>
File: archmodelm.jpg (1.46 MB, 3264x2448)
1.46 MB
1.46 MB JPG
>>65964887
everyone has their preferences. I never got people complaining about installation...it's more or less how you'd bootstrap anything with linux. (These are people who struggle to install things though so take their opinions with a bowl of salt)

>>65965050
>My problem with Arch is that it brings _nothing_ new to the table. Everything Archers brag about (KISS, customisation, community) has been a part of other distributions for decades. It's as though most Arch users think every non-Arch distribution is like Ubuntu and locks you in to a specific way of doing things

to be fair, it's an older distribution now it's been around for a while. back when I first jumped on some of those ideas were pretty fresh. they're definitely par for the course these days though.

Things are slowing down with it though as it gets larger, the AUR is getting harder to keep clean just given the size of it and how many bad/negligent maintainers there are for niche packages.

I'll still stick with Arch, the rolling release never stamped my toes much. If/when I do change it'll be to one of those new declarative OS's those look interesting.
>>
>>65965098
nice keyboard
>>
>>65964887
Because this is 4chan in the current year and all usefull content has been replaced with shitposting and shitty frog memes.
>>
>>65964978
> Thinking installing Arch is hard
I've installed Arch in VMs before, but still use Fedora as my main distro. Fight me
>>
>>65964887
People shit on arch to make fun of tryhard ricers, not because arch itself is bad
>>
>>65965050
>Everything Archers brag about (KISS, customisation, community) has been a part of other distributions for decades
That's not entirely true, you have virtually no control over kernel versions and custom kernels in a distro like Ubuntu. I think a lot of people misinterpret the original meaning of the claims Arch made.
>>
>>65965138
Care to inform us all as to why you use Fedora?
Genuine question
>>
File: model_m.jpg (1.71 MB, 2448x3264)
1.71 MB
1.71 MB JPG
>>65965123
hey thanks :D it's old faithful
>>
>>65965183
Care to inform us all as to why anyone uses Linux at all? It's beta
>>
>>65964887
>just installed
lol, new eh?
give it a few weeks.
>>
>>65964005
> Everyone I see here uses Linux
Funny, everyone I see here use Windows
>>
File: images(13).jpg (20 KB, 554x554)
20 KB
20 KB JPG
>>65965169
And you can't remove systemd, replacing it with another init system on Ubuntu, Fedora or Mint... While on arch..... Oh wait... You can't do that in Arch either.
>>
File: arglinugs.png (51 KB, 512x512)
51 KB
51 KB PNG
>>65965032
I compiled AbiWord from the AUR, it took my 10 year old laptop 20 minutes to compile. However it runs very fast otherwise. I would hate to have to compile every single piece of software on this machine.
>>
Its not necessarily Arch that people hate, just its average users. They think they are intelligent because they copied lines from a wiki verbatim to install their system, and love to talk down on users of other distros, or people that choose to use DE's over standalone WM's.

>>65964978
As seen here, this is the most common response an Arch user will give when confronted. They often conflate tedium with need for intelligence.
>>
Arch is one of those things you either like a lot or not at all. If you do not like messing with your os by all means avoid Arch.
I never recommend Arch to anyone even though I like it. If you're not sure you need Arch, you don't need it.
>>
I have always wondered why it's cool to shit on Arch, but for some reason Gentoo is always chill and noone shits on it (in a way that people shit on Arch at least).
Some people even misattribute some of Gentoo's stuff, like a need to compile everything, to Arch.
Is it because Arch is baby's first am-i-a-hacker-yet distro and nobody actually uses Gentoo?
>>
I think most of the Arch hate comes from people who aren't particular about their computing environment. These people don't care about what's "under the hood" or don't have enough experience in the unix programming environment to appreciate the relatively unadulturated OS that Arch is.

Arch is incredibly stable while at the same time providing access to the latest releases of software available in their package manager. People who complain that it isn't stable are just bad at administrating their system. They put configs in the wrong place or don't design their environment intelligently.

There is definitely a crowd out there that prefers Debian or Centos over Arch. While both Debian and Centos are great distributions, I prefer having the latest releases of software available through the package manager instead of only available through manual installation from a tarball or github.

Which brings me to the next point:
>>65965338
>They often conflate tedium with need for intelligence.

pacman -Syu is a lot less tedious than doing ./configure, make, make install, and then manually updating each config for all of your software individually. Sure you could use apt-get or yum to get the latest releases from the repositories you had to manually subscribe to, but you won't be using what's documented in your distribution's wiki.

Oh yeah, Arch's wiki is probably the best Linux wiki on the internet. That's another great reason for using Arch.

But like I said originally, the hate is from people who don't understand or care. Who cares what they think anyways.
>>
>>65965478
>Arch's wiki is probably the best Linux wiki on the internet
Gentoo's wiki is better. Say "one of the best" and i would agree.
>>
>>65965478
I was referring to the installation process being tedious, not the package manager. Just to clarify, I don't dislike Arch at all, just the elitist users of said distro.
>>
>>65965338
True, I can definitely see that there's an elitist culture in the Arch community that's annoying to everyone else.

>>65965478
>elitist users of said distro
Ninja'd haha
>>
>>65965169
>you have virtually no control over kernel versions and custom kernels in a distro like Ubuntu.
You can easily compile and integrate your own kernel in Ubuntu
>>
>>65965288
Yeah,so?
>>
>>65965513
Sure, it's one of the best. Gentoo's wiki is great, too!
>>
>>65964887
We hate Linux in general, not just Arch. Grow up and use Windows.
>>
arch is just gentoo for retards
>>
>>65965653
The Linux users already beat you to trash talking Linux,Windowsfag. Move along.
>>
Best distro I've used.
>>
>>65964887
Arch users used to be very loud and obnoxious making tons of Arch threads everyday, even chilling it in other unrelated threads and acting in the same way as rick and morty fans (see >>65965060 for a mild example). they've calmed down recently though.
>>
im prettshosure no one really hate arch its just a meme that arch users like to shw that they are using arch and they rice
>>
File: 1521052507067.png (860 KB, 1020x689)
860 KB
860 KB PNG
>>65964887
Sour grapes Debian users.
>>
>>65965050
>My problem with Arch is that it brings _nothing_ new to the table.
Well it has the only usable Linux manual and information source on the internet. It doesnt matter which distro or which packet you are using, only the arch wiki can explain what it is and how it works.

Also it is the only distro that runs absolutely stable for me. I'm not sure if it's because I'm mostly on newer hardware or because I'm actually using newer features a lot. But things like Ubuntu or god forbid debian are basically broken by release. They care so much that packets work together, they absolutely forget that packets should work in the first place. Shipping with old and buggy as hell software is absolutely not what Linux needs. I don't understand how people can run their servers with completely outdated packages with lots of know problems and often you are even unable to install the never ones, because your are stuck with an old as fuck kernel (which of course has lots of bugs and stability issues).

There might be alternatives to Arch, but anything that hasn't a rolling release is basically broken by design.
>>
>>65965183
It had fairly up to date packages but rarely breaks. There's also some proprietary software that only comes as an RPM, as it's intended for use on RHEL.
>>
>>65965578
>True, I can definitely see that there's an elitist culture in the Arch community that's annoying to everyone else.
I don't really think that is true. People in the Arch forums are often a little ruff when people ask "noob" aka rtfm. But this mostly comes from the notion that the wiki is great and should be your first point of reference. Often people ask question over and over again about stuff they could have easily found out just by reading the article about their specific package.
>>
>>65964887
Don't hate it, but have seen people recommend it to newcomers, which is plain stupid
>>
Arch is a hobbyist beginner distro for those who are too lazy to read the Debian manual, as evidenced by statements such as:

>you have virtually no control over kernel versions and custom kernels in a distro like Ubuntu

>>65965060
>Ignorance. Arch is very flexible
Arch has a rolling release.
Debian has 2 rolling releases and a stable release. What's more flexible?

>>65965430
>Is it because Arch is baby's first am-i-a-hacker-yet distro
Yes
>>
>>65966623
>for those who are too lazy to read the Debian manual

This is the retardest comment I had read, you can install debian being retarded brainlet who never read a manual.

YOU CAN'T install an stable main arch based system without basic sysadmin skills and reading the manual by first time.
>>
>>65964887
Arch is a good distro for learning and having some fun, but is horrible when you want to use it in a productive environment because there are more stable distros with much lower maintenance time. The time it takes in Arch to install/configure/repair something is more than I can afford on my job.
>>
>>65966753
>I can afford on my job.
And now you gonna lie about being a sysadmin or programmer.
>>
>>65964978
>The only ones who hate Arch are those lacking the intelligence to install it
Watch out boys you gotta be super smart to pull up the arch wiki install guide. XD
>>
>>65966787
its the same argument debtards are making >>65966718

They say arch fanboys wont read a manual .
>>
>>65966623
>Arch has a rolling release.
Arch has an LTS kernel and several other options.
>>
Ironically, my longest continuously used distro without breaking the syetem is ArchLinux. On top of it I installed it because it was easiest to install on my Chromebook. It was the only distro to have good practically relevant documentation on how to install, and solve the problems, along with having a kernel new enough to support the hardware in the first place.
>>
>>65965288
https://systemd-free.artixlinux.org/migrate.php




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.