Why the fuck is arch so autistic to install?

>visual studio code
>he willingly brings more botnet to botnetd/linux

>completely open source
>botnet
how do you function

>how do you function
drinking water
eating meat
watching tv
why?

literally says OSS in the title card.

autisim

compile it yourself or botnet

Someone did , Google "arch anywhere".

Arch-anywhere

This. Best installer around. I wish all distros had installers like this.

tfw
>cfdisk
>mkfs.ext4
>mount
>pacstrap

done

every linux is autistic if you try to use it for desktop purposes. it's a server os meant to be run headless.

>writing a conkyrc when his colors and wm are totally fucked up and inconsistent
What the fuck

To be honest I thought it was actually an intuitive install method. If you are unsure about what you're doing in installation process there's Manjaro and Antergos. The whole point of Arch is that you should know which programs you install are configured in which way, this requires a bit of autism and attention to detail.

I don't understand why people are so bothered with it. It's not like Arch is significantly different than any other distro, if you don't want to configure things to your liking why try to install Arch anyway?

Installed arch for fun once, folkowed the wiki that ofc missed several steps so I had to google shit for hours before it was up and running. and in the end it was pretty much the same as everything else I ever tried. So all that extra job for more or less nothing. Arch is pointless

t.maymayhat distrouser

>those mismatching menubars
GROSS

But that's not the point, point is configuring everything you install to your liking.

so autism with ocd on the side?

I just followed a youtube video and made it the first time.

Just get Antergos Linux, retard. Why the fuck did you even make a different thread?

Yes, and if you're not autistic enough to desire that, why would you even use Arch? If it is for AUR or pacman there's Antergos and Manjaro. I can't think of any other reason why anyone would choose Arch over any other distro if it is not for building up your own system.

Well,

>Antergos
The installer is so garbage I'd rather do it manually. It doesn't really rank mirrors, has to update the installer every time before installing and it's glitchy

>Manjaro
I don't want to repeat all the manjaro memes. Use it if you really want to but it's more vulnerable to breakage

>Chakra
Pretty good but reminder that there's no GTK applications in the repo

arch used to be good, but they went full poontoo way, probably selling ads on their shitty wiki. No other mental reason to make it a shitty LFS mimic.

But that wasn't what I was asking, if you are not into configuring the software you install why are you using Arch?

I'm not talking about the pacman based distributions, I just wanted to point out that you can reach the repositories without installing Arch if reaching Arch repos is what you are looking for.

If you dont want your shit to crash, dont use bleeding edge software. Download from stable repositories and use LTS kernels or GTFO. Also... Work on some UI consistency... That shit is just unappealing.

Do Arch updates appear like torrents to ISPs? Because they seem to get temporarily throttled sometimes like they think I'm up to something. Only other times it ever happens is when torrenting.

It's not, you're just stupid.

No. Intentionally it was a research project. Then it found it's way to the desktop. After that, someone found out it's great for server purposes.

How did you manage to get an Internet connection to install it? I might try it again, I wasted 2 days trying to install it without an Internet connection from a Live CD. Seems impossible.

Why Arch? Is there a reason?

It's aimed at competent linux users.
It even chroots for you, how could it be any easier?

Its a rolling distro and AUR are the main reasons I use it. You'd have to use it for a while to appreciate those.

Legit question I dont know much about linux. Why are some things hard to install? Like what do you have to do and whats the benefit of it over just having an "install now" button like the noob distros?

Text based installers offer a big flexibility. You can install Arch from a remote SSH connection, set different kernel parameters and hooks, install different bootloaders etc. If you want an install now button use Antergos.

Also it's not really hard to install.

They removed the installer just for autism's sake unlike Gentoo where you compile for a special install.

Try installing it without an Internet connection.

The first time I installed it, it took about a day. The second time it only took me about an hour.

Nothing arch does is really "hard" it's just a bit annoying at best. The OS can be installed in a few steps if you know what you're doing.

>ITT: Arch isn't hard
>ITT: First thing I did was install a GUI and you can see it in my screenfetch

Choose one. You guys are fooling anybody with your "muh Arch is for hackers" meme. If it's so easy, why the FUCK would you need to install a GUI. You give yourselves away. Also, try installing Arch without an Internet connection on a decade old laptop.

GTFO NOOB
Arch is for hardcore hackers only.

See:

>arch
>autistic

You wouldn't even know "autism" until you've touched LFS.

>Linux From Scratch

Good point but still too easy for these master leet Cred Forums hackers, they program their own operating systems right from binary code.

This.
Seroiusly, the "Do it yourself" installation is a virtue of arch. If you don't want it, then why the fuck do you even bother?
Want pacman? Use Antegros

>I can't think of any other reason why anyone would choose Arch over any other distro if it is not for building up your own system.

The same can be done with any Linux distro and simply tearing down what you don't want on it, deleting, uninstalling what you don't want or need. I wasted precious time before I realized this.

Most distributions can be assembled from the ground up like Arch, including Ubuntu, with debootstrap.

A minimal bootstrapped Ubuntu is also smaller than a minimal Arch.

Yes that is absolutely correct, but their packages come with configs for this, configs for that. That's why I added, "if you want pacman or AUR" in the post.

Also dependencies listed in repositories change as well. For EPEL for example there is like a metric ton of packages for python. But a limited number in other distros.

So it all comes down to, "Do you want to build a system with this repository or that repository with some sane configurations or no configurations at all?". If you are inclined to using a bare distro, Arch is pretty decent, but seriously no one should choose Arch over anything if they're not interested in what Arch is actually aiming for.

Yes, that is right. But Arch is not for being small. It is for configuring everything you install which is something Ubuntu does for you on repo side.

>unappealing
>taskbar is hovering off the edge
yeah you're one to talk

Are you having fun?