Arch Anywhere

So what distro do you recommend if you want to use pacman, AUR and rolling release without intentionally crippling yourself with a retarded way of installing it?

Don't listen to this fag, AA is fine, architect is fine, antergos is fine. Copy pasting a few commands doesn't plug you into the Matrix. If you really want to learn the essentials, install LFS. Anything else is posturing for internet points

I know, I literally just installed Arch two days ago with Arch anywhere, I'm just curious why these retards think the only reason for installing Arch is to "learn how Linux works" through trial by fire

no. by installing you will understand "how archlinux installed" not "how linux works". like how pactrap feth the packages then extract it to your filesystem, how to set locale manually, and so on. you're not too dumb to understand the process of installation, right?

That's a completely useless thing to know though.

>trial by fire
arch is not hard. if you're focused it doesn't take that long to install, even if you've never done anything of the sort.

Wait until you run your first system update after you've installed things and watch things break. When you can't start X or connect to a network anymore you'll really love arch

>Arch is bad because PEBKAC

Okay then

user I literally installed two programs, one of which was screen fetch, ran pacman -Syu and X failed. Surely this is a quality distribution.

Why use Arch in the first place? It's one of the most useless distros.

Yup, thanks for proving my point. If you can't even install screenfetch without fucking up your system then maybe you should stick to Ubuntu

How does this contradict what he said?

This. It happens every single time. For months, archfags have told me that arch has gotten more stable and X doesn't break anymore. I try it out, and within 3 months X breaks again. No matter what happens, I'm never going back to arch or arch-likes. It's such a shame, too, the AUR is god-tier.

>Blaming the user when the distro is the problem
Face it, Arch is terrible.

how is this his fault?

every distro is gonna be useless for a neet like yourself

Debian is great actually.

it's not meant to contradict him
it's an explanation

Pamac is actually pretty great senpai.

Well the first word was "no".

*insert doesn't work on your machine*
dunno man.. it's just meme didn't work on me

How is it the distros fault if so many people can manage to do it without fucking up?

>so many
>literally not a single person in the universe
Really makes us all think.

Why should we help CTR in their plan to dox us and throw us in the gulags when hillbot wins?

no meant to correct the thinking of "by installing archlinux you will automatically learn how linux works"
i don't know, sometimes mixing grammar can result to disambiguation. sorry english isn't my native language

Whatever. Copy pasting from the wiki is not learning Linux one bit.
LFS is the only way you will learn what is really going on with Linux.

Arch is a quality distribution for quality minds.
>not for you

You proved my points here:

[citation needed]

Burden of proof is on you.

Oh no worries, I'm just being pedantic. The person you responded to actually agreed with what you said so was just confused. :)

Because different machines and configurations produce different results and problems.

I'm supposed to disprove your claim that it breaks for every single person who uses Arch? I don't think you know how burden of proof works

I accept your surrender.

Doesn't break for me, senpai

Argument disproven

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden

>When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.

Try again, buddy

Literally just need one example of it not breaking lol.

Do you enjoy disproving yourself with your own posts?

Disputing a claim is equivalent to asserting the falsehood of that claim. There's no such thing as a burden of proof, all claims and disputes thereof require proof.

See

No proof that it doesn't break for you.

autism

Good, so we're on equal ground then since you can't prove that it breaks for everybody

I've been using Arch for 5 years and it didn't break a single time, what the fuck are you guys doing??

>I'm a paid shill for one of the candYdates
CORRECT
THE
RECORD

Fuck off

No because you're the original claimant.

>LGBT symbol on his bootloader
Just fucking kill yourself faggot!

The original claim is that Arch fucks it up and not the user, genius

>people like you don't want to actually learn about operating systems
>implying minimum arch installation teaches you anything useful about operating systems or linux in general when all you do is copy paste commands from the wiki.
Op just use this installer im sure its fine, and for having a community full of retards like this guy, arch wiki seems pretty comprehensive. But seriously consider using a sane distro if you value your time.

Your original claim is that only pebcak breaks arch, inbred.

Actually not being able to use Arch is more symptomatic of being further on the autistic spectrum.

Which is true for everything computer related, how about you explain to me why it works with no problems for me if it's not PEBKAC related?

>I've never installed Arch, it's too hard

The only people who mock the process as if 'we' think difficult are people like you who've never even done it.

>if I pretend it works, then it isn't a broken piece of shit as acknowledged by everyone else who's ever come into contact with it!

>everyone else

Still going to need a [citation needed] on this, buddy

What the fuck would you even accept as proof that my system is working? Do I have to let you Teamviewer into my PC? I'm supposed to prove claims that are impossible to prove but you don't have to?

You're the one who makes the claim, bub, you substantiate it. I know it's hard to understand such difficult and complicated concepts for the likes of you, though. you ARE an arch user after all.

Hey pappy sup'

I have substantiated it, by saying it works. That's all that seems to be required for you to support your claims.

Arch intellectuals everybody!

Any other claim you need to be disproven on?

I use Architect just to save time when I do a fresh install, but noticing this thread I tried Arch Anywhere to see if it was any different/better.

As soon as I was done performing the exact same steps I would on Architect and rebooted, I got:

>pacman-key errors, had to manually refresh gpg keys myself before I could install anything
>it didn't put the "architecture = auto" option in pacman. Just left the line out. So it didn't know my arch at boot.
>Refreshed packages, tried to install my first few packages for my specific openbox setup, couldn't download a package. Refreshed AGAIN, now I can, got a page full of "exists in filesystem" errors. How is this so when I couldn't install the package? Used --force, tried launching package, tons of errors related to said files that got overwritten, wouldn't launch. Tried uninstalling with -Rsn and reinstalling, didn't fix it.

I don't know what happened, but I just threw it in the trash since its literally the exact same menus as Architect but plain ncurses-based like any other console installer. Why this guy felt the need to make it doesn't really make sense. He didn't even add anything to the install process, just changed the way it's displayed.

*the exact same menus as Architect, but in some weird colorful theme while Architect is plain ncurses-based

>I'm going to spout memes and don't do anything to back them up with facts

You sure showed him, big guy

If you don't install arch manually at least once - don't install arch.

It takes like an hour max to get up and running fucking hell. And it will ALWAYS work 100 percent of the time if you just follow directions. Every time I've tried to use a GUI arch installer, or even just a CLI based installer, I spend more time making it work because of "muh UEFI, muh IOMMU, muh video drivers" rather than just fucking doing it myself.

Seriously, just fucking do it. If you're so afraid of a CLI that you need to install arch with something like AA or Architect your first time - arch isn't a distro you want to get involved with.

Like people said before, just stick with the normal iso and read carefully all explanations.

It's important you understand all the step as you will learn essential things which you will probably use in the future as well. Also, don't take the easy way, just stick with the wiki. Don't watch pajeet videos on youtube or other blogs.

>installng arch
>difficult in any way
yeah pacmaning my whole fucking desktop encironment from the ground up is soooo difficult, and after im done i get to tell all my friends at the playground what a leet hacker i am l causr i can cli. Time consuming and unnecesscary does not equal difficult you fucking mong. A child could install arch as long as he can fucking read. Jesus arch users are cancer, is g terminal guys?

So this... is the power....... of your brain on arch...... wooah!

I'm running antergos and I've never had an issue updating anything. I also only download from official arch repo and aur.

Actually, this is a good one.
muktware.io/arch-linux-guide-the-always-up-to-date-arch-linux-tutorial/

I followed it as a cross-reference with the beginners guide, and now that they killed off the beginners guide (being the elitist shills they are) this is a pretty good resource. Even takes you through yaourt and the AUR.

Protip - don't forget to install gnome-keyring with your wifi shit.

> If you're so afraid of a CLI that you need to install arch with something like AA or Architect your first time - arch isn't a distro you want to get involved with.

Why? Installing Arch is the only thing that requires an IQ above 70, how does it function any differently from other distros after that?

And he doesn't even know what a meme is. Keep posting, you're hilarious

This proves you never installed Arch, the real one not the spinoffs.

Use the Architect installer. Gives you an option for that and whatever DE or WM you want

Except that I have. Anyone can go to a wiki like i fucking said. But I wish I hadn't, it disgusts me that I ever had anything in common with that whole community.

There's literally no reason to not use Architect or Arch anywhere. The only thing installing Arch from scratch does is consume time, you don't learn anything from copypasting from a Wiki page.

Because it makes you comfortable with going and reading about commands you are executing instead of running that fancy GUI installer. Unless you are literally on autopilot while you install, you'll learn a few things. Probably the MOST important thing you'll learn about is chroot. That's never something people deal with unless a system failure happens, and if you've never seen it, it's not something you'll think of. It also familiarizes you with things like systemD, grub configuration (or systemD boot), and some other basics.

You're not going to come out the God of Linux like people seem to believe, but it's still an important step. I've been running arch for a while and I've not had a single issue of it just "breaking on it's own" except broadcom fuck broadcom. But sometimes, you'll have to spend some time in a CLI getting things just right. And it's not like you wouldn't on either distro, but you'll find that if you've built this system up from the pacman base, you won't have ANY curve balls thrown at you.

It's just my two cents. It's like having your first drink when you were raised anti-alcohol or something. You think it's pointless, worthless, and retarded. Then you have a few and you realize it was never a big fucking deal in the first place.

After you've installed it, then you can do whatever. I run Manjaro on my desktop now. Fuck wit me.

You're showing more and more that you've never installed Arch every post. You're lying.

Then read about the commands.

>Hurr you don't learn anything from copying and pasting commands
>I mean I could follow the links a bit and skim the article to understand the commands
>but that's effort I can't make even though pacstrapping takes a hot second anyways
>too busy posting on Cred Forums about what timesink it is

I can be up and running with most of the things I need out of a distro in an hour.

And exactly what condition do you have that stops you from reading the Wiki page after the installation, or even trying it in a VM? ADHD? Terminal autism?

One particular skill that's useful that you can learn from installing Arch is being able to chroot into a remote host, if you're interested in all the ways to install it. If you don't know why that's useful, there's no hope for you.

Face it, people who are good at Arch don't whine, complain, and bitch about it. That's how I know it's your frustration from not being able to use it. That's your own fault.

>reading the wiki page on installation after install
>reading the wiki just regularly rather than when you have a problem

Don't tell me people do this - I know you're lying. Even if you 100 percent believe you are correct, you're lying.

Except that I do use Arch. Copypasting from a Wiki isn't a skill. Why would I waste time on following a completely unnecessary process when I can just read about it on the Wiki?

I don't do it, I'm talking about the people who are saying that you need to install Arch from scratch to "understand the commands" when you can just read about them on the Wiki if you really need to know them.

Why do you people lie? You're not even good liars. What you all say proves you never even installed Arch.

Just get Antergos

Lie about what? Using Arch? I literally wrote in my post that I didn't waste my time on following an unneeded process, I installed it with Arch anywhere

This
I've been using this with cinnamon and it's comfy as fuck.

If somebody is perfectly fine reading them and gets just as much out of them - then hey more power. But if there's one thing I've learned it's really easy to read something and go "oh yeah I understand how that works" and not really understand it at all.
>t. a majority of college students

You get a much better feel of these things doing them, so it's worthwhile even if it isn't really all that intensive. Because a majority of the commands you run you WILL see again.

>I wish I hadn't, it disgusts me that I ever had anything in common with that whole community.
Such emotion, such passion in your introspection for these things!
Jfc man relax

>you won't learn how linux works
>implying I want to learn how linux works

Yea, shits gettin me hot. Im just gonna go chill out. Cheers m8.

Every Arch thread in /g is now a blame game thread it seems.

So why would I run an increased risk of fucking up my system that I depend on using every day when I can just do it in a VM?

>using arch
autism

That's fine - although it's really hard to fuck up and a VM is pretty basic.

It doesn't matter the environment you do it in - just that you do it.

>I use Windows

Not him but installing Arch isnt hard, just pointless. While I do like many things Arch offers I always thought that not offering a simple installer was one of it's faults.

yes personally i think so too. but til now i could live with that, considering it's not that time wasting. technically it's just like installing ubuntu without graphical front-end with additional bootstrapping.

i prefer evo/lution than arch anywhere tho. it gives off a professional feeling to it.

the only reason i care about an installer is disk encryption. best practices ship often enough that if you follow a tutorial you're at real risk of setting up some braindead defaults

This isn't a distro flavor, it's an Arch installer like Architect except done by some middle aged Woodstock hippie

Or worse, Debian.