Cred Forums hates/frowns on/ bashes on Ubuntu and loves it at the same time

Cred Forums hates/frowns on/ bashes on Ubuntu and loves it at the same time.
Same deal for Arch.

Why? What's the actual Cred Forums tier/ or Cred Forums approved distro?

>noobuntu
>Cred Forums approved

Cred Forumsentoo

gentoo

Windows Vista

Windows 10 is a very solid, minimal version of windows. It's so stable and easy for new users, Arch linux and Ubuntu users alike should consider it. You can even keep your Bash scripts, run them in Arch or Ubuntu on Windows 10.

Gentoo. But there isn't anything wrong with Ubuntu. Nobody really uses arch except in desktop threads which are no more.

we just need to get rid of all the children

this pointless ricing is almost as bad as all the time wasted gaming

my distro > your distro

The breaks on updates meme has actually happened when I've used ubuntu., but never on Arch.
btw. pacman DOESN'T overwrite .conf files if they've been user edited. See archwiki pacnew page.
So if you've ever actually uttered the phrase, Mom, cancel my meetings, pacman broke xorg.conf again" why don't you just add an extra # to it somewhere?

Gentoo, Slackware, BSD

Why is that, though? Was Arch just an aesthetic meme or is it how people had/have configured their desktops to look? I'm stuck between Debian and Arch.

Arch for 9 years.
The memers shitpost from a vm that has only been up for less then 30 minutes
They all use windows though

>2016
>using xorg.conf

Been using arch for 2 years and nothing broke so far
Just pick whatever you want and stop looking into validation from anonymous pedophiles

Choice of Arch is mainly about rolling release for me. I have a Ubuntu and Arch machine and they look essentially identical on the surface.

Any distro can look like any other with the right set of packages.

Win ME

Ubuntu is a noob distro that comes with an ugly user interface and it's intended to be easy to use for people who don't have much experience with computers. While it's a Linux system, it won't teach the user a thing about Linux because using it doesn't involve deeper knowledge of the system. Just boot that fucker up and use a GUI for everything.

Arch is different, it can be made to look exactly like noobuntu, but the thing is it doesn't come ready packed with all the things you won't need. Arch is installed by using CLI only, it doesn't need a GUI to function. Naturally most people, me included, will have it run a window manager, but you don't need to have a desktop environment. You can install exactly what you want but nothing extra. It keeps the system light and faster.

Systemd is a thing proper fedora wearing nerds like to frown upon but even they have to admit it works and makes everything a whole lot simpler. It reduces redundant work and makes everything faster to access and control.

Arch is great because it teaches you a lot about Linux, the whole installing process is a great lesson.

Arch doesn't teach you a thing.

You should stop being afraid to try it.

I learned Unix on Solaris and been on Gentoo since early 2000's, kid. You learn unix buy having a unix system and reading books/wikis.

That's nothing, I'm a close friend of Torvalds and after I helped creating ARPANET me and Linus developed Linux, I wrote most of the code you don't see, kid.

>Torvalds
Who cares, it's not like he created something great like Arch.

Have never understood the point in distro wars

If you have specific uses or preferences you might as well build your own from Slack or Gentoo

Otherwise there's functionally no difference

Sure it does, if you take the time to actually understand the commands you're typing during installation rather than just copy pasta. If you're completely new to Linux and install Arch you will learn how to format drives in the console, mount them, use a console text editor to edit configure files (which you eventually have to do on other Linux distros anyways) and get familiar with using the package manager to install packages and upgrade the system.

If you didn't learn anything from installing Arch then you either already have a decent amount of experience using Linux or you just copy-pasted some commands and likely messed up your system.

Its essentially a battle on what constitutes sane defaults.

Sure but pretty much every single distro has a minimal installer, and if it doesn't offer one it's shit and you shouldn't use it anyway

it's literally a contest between who has the most autism for compiling and setting up config files for hours on end

...

can't you just change ubuntu to however you want though?

I'm very new myself, but as I understood it Ubuntu just came as a nice assortment of packages on top of the Linux kernel. So can't you just get rid of the Desktop environment, strip the whole thing down to a terminal interface with no driver support for mouses/speakers?

I agree that if a new use were to start from the bottom and work up they'd learn faster and with a better perspective, but I don't imagine as many people would prefer that learning curve over installing 'it just works' Ubuntu and then slowly learning how to use the terminal to manage the computer.

Thankfully there are more comprehensive manuals and how-to's coming out, instead of just browsing through thousands of incomplete/misinformed wiki pages.

install gentoo

Why would I want to strip a system when I can have it stripped and then make it how I want it to be? It's basically just writing pacman -S a couple of times and editing a few conf files.

>Ubuntu fags complain because they lack the ability to install arch
>arch elitists brag because they can copy and paste in a terminal.

15 poopees deposited into ur account rajit

installed ubuntu today as my first distro, thought i would hate unity, but its pretty comfy. pic related

what the fuck do you mean "strip a system"?
Why wouldn't you know...use it?

i'm not that guy
but removing things you don't want/need as a principle is more difficult than never having it in the first place

think of it the same as additive manufacturing and subtractive

Most of the time you still end up working with the distro repos. Things like stability, how up to date packages are, how customizable, community, maintainers, etc.
Also kind of applies to your comment

>but removing things you don't want/need
Why would you do this?

Save diskspace? sounds stupid.

If you're too retarded to realise that people will always have differences in opinion then maybe you shouldn't use technology at all.

Ubuntu-users are in my opinion usually the more humble of the two. They come from an OS like windows, and have come over to a better shore. On the shore is now a bunch of angry people telling the new arrival that he's not one of them unless he becomes like them. These are the archies and the gentooists.

I'm so tired of dogmas and ideologies. And you primitive apes who spew out shit all the time should just go away. You computer is a tool, and arguing and fighting over the bolts and nuts that hold the machine together is such a bore. You remind me of the catholic inquisitors of old.

Pardon my bad english..

>t. sergey brin

because i don't want windows media player or internet explorer on my system, if i wanted something i'd get it myself. so much more time can be spent on better things than developers chucking in preset packages

You do know we are talking about GNU/Linux right?

yes i'm just using that as a fucking normy example

>can't you just change ubuntu to however you want though?
Yes

I dont need various amd kernel configs enabled as i use intel.
I dont need 10 different file system configs, when i use 2.
I dont need 5 different video drivers enabled
i dont need batman networking
i dont need sonar technology
i dont need kernel staging drivers

Excuse my ignorance but I thought only the required set of things are loaded at boot.

Are you by any chance a homosexual?

It depends on what distro you use.
Some, such as arch, throw everything in the kernel, to support as much hardware and options as possible.
The standard kernel build from kernel.com is about 40mb uncompressed(Using cat).
My kernel is 10mb uncompressed(using cat). It will boot faster, only support my hardware,software settings that i want

If you dont want to do any of this and you dont required special configs in your kernel, then you dont need to do anything other then use the kernel provided to you when you install

For example, if your kernel did not have iptables support for some reason(they almost always have it default though) you would have to go in and compile it in to use iptables

>all my examples are to save diskspace because I'm poor.

Shit I remember solaris coming with 3 different DE's you chose the one you wanted and got on with your job.

Turn on every setting and hardware config and enjoy your 1gb image on boot up.

Let me connect every device i want to it, and get in to your system from obsoleted code from 2 decades ago, still included for muh workflow

You do know you can rebuild kernels in all distro's and even in commercial Unix right? It's not a distro specific thing.

Holy fuck I always thought unity looked like trash

every DE looks like trash stock. customization isn't even hard, i was able to do all of that on my first day using linux

Thats my fucking point you dumbfuck

Custom kernel is more then just fucking filesize
as per your original "argument"

Does this enhance anything other than boot time?

BUT That has nothing to do with distros which is what this fucking thread is about.

>Respectable Distros:
Debian, Gentoo, Redhat, CentOS, Slackware, Linux From Scratch (not technically a distro yet, but becomes one when you're done), *BSD

>"I like to go with the latest trendy things and pretend I know about Linux but I need my hand held and can't handle a real os" Distros:
Arch

>User friendly or "noob" Distros:
*buntu, Mint, Arch, Crunchbang, Fedora

>"What? Oh I forgot about those, no one cares" Distros:
OpenSUSE, Sabayon, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, Lunar, Xandros

>Laughably useless in the real world:
Windows, Mac OS X, Arch

Read:
Yes you dense motherfucker

Bash on ubuntu? Even windows can do that now

Cred Forums loves both Arch and Ubuntu. These are the top two distros here

>spotify

Building custom kernels has very little to do with boot times/ memory. In fact it is frowned upon in BSD's and OpenBSD tells you to fuck off if you decide to do it.

Just like Arch it's masturbatory.

It's a nice service, worth 10 dollars a month for me

>disable all but ext3 and xfs file sytems
>dont handle ext2 ext3 ext4 as ext4
>load only modules used.

Now your hardware literally will not function on my system as there is no way to handle it

>BDS
Who cares about bsd
using bsd past 1970 is bigger cukatude then windows

Do people have an issue with Arch or Arch users?

yep

>*BSD
>Respectable
kek

Kubuntu

>>disable all but ext3 and xfs file sytems
Hurr hurr THE ARCH WAY!

That's actually a neat idea

>not an argument
>went full retard

Nice quads but if you think I want to put my hardware into your "system" you're fucking stupid.

Is that a use case in the arch world?

I use Arch GNU/Linux and I hardly ever even posted in desktop threads

>arch elitists brag because they can copy and paste in a terminal.
please stop projecting

I've always managed a custom kernel going back to the 90's
slack,rhel,ubuntu,devian,fedora,gentoo,arch
Not all hardware was included, you had to patch in shit(printers).
Its common place.

If i dont have libsata enabled, good luck booting anything
If i dont have usb/firewire patched in, good luck using those devices

/thread

I personally use and approve of OpenBSD and Gentoo, but I would not recommend anything but Ubuntu to newfags. Arch I know and care nothing about.

>explains how to run make menuconfig
wow what a great argument for doing stupid shit!

>no argument