Honestly wonder what even is the advantages of using Arch vs Ubuntu I see all this talk about one being better then the either but is there really a measurable advantage of choosing either?
 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
Choice of Linux Distro actually does not matter?
nakadashi maki
Okie
If you're autistic enough to take one distro and swap the package manager and everything, no, there's no difference. It's doable, but requires effort and crippling autism, unless you're doing it on a dare/for money.
Broadly, there are two groups of distros:
>Rolling release
This prioritizes new software over stability. You're getting new software faster, and you also generally don't have to reinstall the entire OS.
>Standard release
You'll have fewer updates, but updates are more tested. You're also more likely to run an older kernel.
Within those two groups, you'll see some different ideologies as well. Ignoring flavor differences (Like Lubuntu vs Kubuntu vs Ubuntu vs Xubuntu etc), you'll have ideas like:
>I want to compile everything myself
>I want to choose everything that gets installed and be very specific about everything my computer runs
>I want to do the above example, but I hate SystemD
Put simply, if you're an absolute beginner, pick a beginner distro. That's generally going to be a standard release distro, but Fedora is fairly beginner friendly while being a rolling release distro. Common suggestions include, but are not limited to
>An Ubuntu flavor
>Linux Mint
>Fedora
However, once you've spent some time learning what you like and dislike (and probably running some other distros, because distro-hopping is common in the beginning) then you'll eventually find something and settle on it, but it's not like using a different distro will make you unable to work. It's fundamentally a question of taste, since if something needs a newer kernel you can fix that yourself, or if you need a specific version of a program there are workarounds for that too.
use arch its cooler
imagine telling your friends you just obongo or whatever they'd probably ask you to say it again lol
with arch its just like yeah I use a DIY operatiing system that doesn't have elgoog Black persony preinstalled. Even contemplating installing shitfartu should be frowned upon, let that hunk of corporate junk expire like its doing every year. Ubuntu is dying and arch just gets bigger and better because it sounds cool to say and also I might get a tatoo becuase the logo is cool unlike ubuntu that is some cringe the logo looks like cryptocurrency
>I use linux
>which one?
>the most popular one
arch linux is popular because people who maintain it actually know what they're doing, unlike ubuntuBlack folk who make a distro so fricking shit that you need to use docker to use Linux as intended (kernel for servers)
I'm hosting several servers on arch, more than one per machine and I never needed any of this virtualization garbage bullshit because the distro is sane and built from the ground up to be fricking usable for the thing it was intended - do only what I fricking told it to do
will I be able to run arch on this build or is my pc too crap
I'm running arch on a Celeron
Ask yourself instead if your PC can run Cinnamon, unless you wanna change Desktop Environments.
If it works on your Mint install, it will work on Arch too.
Wait so you're saying I can have my same aesthetically Linux Mint experience on Arch? Arch can mimic Linux Mint desktop exp, but be completely different under the hood?
Really the only difference between linux mint and arch is that arch uses a different package manager and has no software installed by default. There is little to no difference between distros apart from the init system, package manger, and preinstalled software. It's the desktop enviroment/window manager that's makes your desktop look the way it is.
>people maintaining arch know what they're doing
>help plx how to update gcc
>sudo pacman -Syu
Ubuntu is debian with snaps
and mint is ubuntu without snaps
HUH???
all debian based distros are dogshit garbage, if you can take bare debian and actually set up the thing you want then good for you, but if you install literally any derivative you're fricking moronic, that fact reflects in your choice and inability to evaluate the fact that israelitebuntu is malware
yes it does, you can either choose a distro that just works, or you can use a distro that everyone uses but is so shit that some homosexual needed to invent linux containers and then wrap them up in what's known as "docker", "kubernetes" and other bullshit just for the distro to actually become usable for the only thing it was meant for - servers.
Arch does package management really well. For the vast majority of software you want it's just one pacman or paru/yay command to get it downloaded and installed. Arch starting so minimal is great if you want to rice it, but if you're going to install a desktop environment anyways, an Arch based distro with an easier installer and more stuff in the base install is probably the way to go.
the only practical difference is the package manager and default repos
that is only relevant if you're maintaining packages
the true benefit of arch for a developer is that it's super easy to package for
declaring a package via a shell script is so much easier than tinkering with an apt package directory
now i think about it, pacman + various devtools is basically a primitive nix/guix that still respects the fhs
I use pop_os on my laptop, and I only use my laptop to browse the web. So to me, it doesn't really matter.
first one is for white men
the other one is for Black folk
not really, just pick one and stick with it
linux distros come down to two main things
systemD vs other init systems
and of systemDistros, what package manager you use
for all other purposes, distros using systemD might as well be exactly the same with minor differences in installation, firmware and drivers. you might as well call it GNU/SystemD at this point, the "linux" part of xyz linux has been irrelevant for well over a decade.
GNU/linux is depreciated, its now
>GNOME/SystemD
>XFCE/SystemD
>KDE/SystemD
Choice of distribution matters, but not that much.
The more experienced you are with Unix-based systems in general, the less it matters.
ubuntu comes with bloat
arch doesnt