It all comes down to these two distros.

It all comes down to these two distros. I'm on the fence and cannot make a choice after copiously hopping between them.
For what sound reason should someone pick one over the other?

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Inside of you there are 2 distros

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Inside of you there are 2 distros
      >One is gay
      >The other is also gay
      >You are gay
      One job anon.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Inside of you there are 2 words, sneed+feed

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Install gentoo or have a nice day

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Arch if you vaguely know what you're doing. Mint otherwise. I wouldn't recommend desktop debian.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Need more information. What are you using the OS for? Basically, you want Arch unless you have a specific reason for Debian.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There's no downside to Arch if you make proper use of snapshots.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There is. It is not a source-based distro.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >It is not a source-based distro.
        https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_build_system

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >cannot make a choice after copiously hopping between them
    This is a sign that you haven't found the right distro yet. What is it that causes you to want to switch from one distro to another?

    For me, I tried various distros but after a few months I always found them lacking. Gentoo was the one that finally cured my distrohopping, it feels like home.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    arch is completely worthless, has no legitimate use case. worst IQfy meme next to stinkpads.
    >inb4 hurr valve uses it
    yeah valve has a long long history of making moronic decisions

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nah it's comfy

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You are fricking moronic if you use Arch.

      AUR is king.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >AURtism
        Eventually you grow up and realize you don't get any points in life for being a blowhard obsessed with trivial minutiae.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You are fricking moronic if you use Arch.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Arch has bleeding edge and AUR which is kinda useful. It's strictly better in that sense, but you have to know how to read.
    Debian is meant to just work. It's just a relatively stable OS that a monkey could use.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >desktop
    arch
    >debian
    server

    you will have to install some shit flatpaks or have out of repository versions of software on Debian desktop. this will lead to problems
    inb4 updooter - by no means, I'm on Mint ant it's a good compromise. but I used both arch and debian and these were the problems with debian

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Arch because it's better.

      This
      Also Debian was made by a simp.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i'm running debian 12 atm (first time as a desktop user after using it on servers personally for ~10 yrs)

    i miss the AUR the most, sometimes finding packages as most aren't in the default repos can be a pain. i use appimages a lot if the software supports them. also, the software you usually do get from the repos are immensely out of date, so i end up having to build them from source or praying they have an appimage anyway. i don't use snap because of all of the shit it gets, and i haven't tried flatpacks yet.

    >you're welcome for an actual answer

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Flatpaks work pretty well for me, although the icons in a bunch of gtk apps are broken, I'm guessing because they're sandboxed. Also you can roll back versions relatively easily, I got a stylus for my laptop and wanted to try out rnote, but the current version crashes constantly due to some frickery, so I rolled it back one version and presto, it works.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You can use debian unstable
      You can go to the AUR via web or something and just install from there

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If you're using debian unstable, you might as well use arch. It's basically the same but
        >better wiki
        >AUR
        >no ubuntu search results pollution
        If it's for a server I don't see much reason to use unstable/Arch although it could be fine if you have a decent backup system.

        i'm running debian 12 atm (first time as a desktop user after using it on servers personally for ~10 yrs)

        i miss the AUR the most, sometimes finding packages as most aren't in the default repos can be a pain. i use appimages a lot if the software supports them. also, the software you usually do get from the repos are immensely out of date, so i end up having to build them from source or praying they have an appimage anyway. i don't use snap because of all of the shit it gets, and i haven't tried flatpacks yet.

        >you're welcome for an actual answer

        https://github.com/pacstall/pacstall

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          someone tells me this was invented by someone whose mind would be fricking BLOWN if they learned about PPAs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > uses a distro that prefers stability over newer
      > why are the packages so old

      Really? What is your shiny new stuff syndrome getting you?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        sometimes old things just don't werk anymore

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >It all comes down to these two distros.

    yep. Frick ubuntu why does it have like 4 loop devices?!?!!

    peice of shit botnet distro

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >debian
    unusable on desktop unless you run Sid because packages have versions from 25 years ago
    >arch
    only nocoders believe arch is hard/lightweight/etc.
    only real benefit is the AUR
    >fedora
    packages as up-to-date as arch, minus the breakages that Sid incurs and without the clusterfrick of X/Wayland config on arch
    litterally perfect distro, mogs all the others and your mom

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >packages have versions from 25 years ago
      rofl, true.

      >only real benefit is the AUR
      And excellent documentation.
      And extremely helpful community.
      And the freshest packages imaginable for a stable, user-oriented distribution.
      And end-users actively being supported in creating their own packages.

      >fedora
      SELinux sucks.
      Being a beta tester for EL sucks.
      RPM documentation sucks.
      Otherwise, an excellent distro, though.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I run Debian stable on my home server and it's been working quite well, even GPU passthrough. My Deck runs Valve's Arch-derivative since that's just the default.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >be me
    >Install Ubuntu
    >it doesn't feel right
    >install Kubuntu instead
    >Everything just works

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >kubuntu
      not only are you homosexual, but you might actually be homosexual

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Ad-hominem
        I win.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >install arch
    >pc breaks on a GRUB update because some lazy troony didn even try to build the commit before sending to users
    >install tumbleweed
    >6 months
    >only 1 major bug (KDE 6 update)
    been rolling smooth since

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Menstrual blood or Arch, your choice.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you're using debian unstable, you might as well use arch. It's basically the same but
    >better wiki
    >AUR
    >no ubuntu search results pollution
    If it's for a server I don't see much reason to use unstable/Arch although it could be fine if you have a decent backup system.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not really. Debian is great for servers but it's annoying to use for a work PC. You're better off using Ubuntu or Mint with better out-of-the-box functionality. Arch is for tinkertrannies and updoot addicts. If you want to spend hours customizing every aspect of your computer it's the best option but for real work Ubuntu-based is the move. Fedora is cool too but it made the WiFi on my Thinkpad slow as frick and I could never fix it so I swore it off as a result.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    they're polar opposites of each other. literally nothing alike. if you're picking between the two, I don't think you've done very much research lol.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    AppImage>AUR

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I am using OpenMEME "I like Weed" and it works fine for what it does. I am waiting for SlowRoll to install it in my mom's PC

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I just use Linux mint. I don't need to know how it works. Best distro in existence. Do what you want though.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >For what sound reason should someone pick one over the other?
    they're basically for exactly the opposite type of user
    debian -> I just want my shit to work, and not change its UI for years. I can't be arsed to do regular updates or reboot, I just want to use my PC for what I use it for and that's it
    arch -> I want the latest version of everything. I don't mind having to reboot a lot, having weird syntax for the package manager, and doing command-line installs. I'm willing to accept being a beta tester because at least everything is up-to-date all the time

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    arch has given me fewer issues than anything else, so i stick with it. been about 5 years.
    i tend to use debain for my servers, but i've thought about switching it up on the next one.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Same, been running arch for years without a single issue. I even use it on my work laptop. People having issues must be pure morons who are ngmi.

      Debian is my goto on servers though.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Arch if you know what you are doing.
    Debian if you are a moron.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      alternative, debian if you really know what you're doing and just can't be arsed to put any effort into linux anymore when you're not getting paid for it. arch, on the other hand, is unpaid work due to all the constant updates

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I use fedora because when I asked my crush to prom she said I look like someone who wears a fedora.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Fedora's dnf is actually good. Redhatibm may be a unfriendly arrangement.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Between these I'd pick Arch because in the end Debian had many generations of moronic packaging tools.

    The end user UI and even worse the developer/distro maintainer tool were always a little to extremely awkward depending on what you are doing. Arch may not have the best CLI but it's still far less crazy overall.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you are choosing between Debian and Arch, then you should pick Arch.

    That said, the only two distros worth actual consideration are Ubuntu and Arch.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    To me, questions like this suggest that OP isn't using their computer for anything besides browsing the internet. When you have no goals and nothing you want to accomplish with your machine, little imperfections and glitches - that are always present in linux desktop, on every distro - can cause the urge to "hop". Once you know what you want to do on your computer, it's easy to pick a distribution that works, otherwise hop to windows maybe.

    To answer the question, debian sounds cooler and has the better logo, so the choice is obvious.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Every Linux distro has its imperfections. It's just a matter of figuring out whether the rest of the system works well enough for you that you'd be willing to accept and live with said imperfections.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just use Mint

      I didn't know Mint was a distro. Isn't it just MATE desktop environment on top of israelitebuntu?

      Mint has been independent from Ubuntu for a while iirc.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What is it based off on now a days? Debian? Which repository does it use?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Mint is based off Ubuntu, LMDE is based off Debian

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So I was correct.

            I didn't know Mint was a distro. Isn't it just MATE desktop environment on top of israelitebuntu?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not the anon who originally replied btw, but yes you're mostly correct. Mint uses Cinnamon by default, not MATE tho

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >It all comes down to these two distros.
    This meme is moronic and OP is a homosexual.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    first arch
    then wayland
    then hyprland
    then some gay theme
    then rust
    then leggings
    then panties
    then no more penis
    if this is the path for you then embrace it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      i forgot anime desktop wallpaper

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >arch will get b***hes to give me their panties and stop my lust for sucking wiener
      Damn, I knew it was great but I didn't know it was that great.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Gentoo but unironically

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    use Mint

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I didn't know Mint was a distro. Isn't it just MATE desktop environment on top of israelitebuntu?

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Debian is a nice option for desktop if you value stability and don't want to spend your time doing shit just to get things working on your system.

    I recommend Debian.

    I use Debian, btw.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Debian's "I just want my shit to work" is a huge cope, it works as long as you don't need an up to date package which you ARE going to need eventually like if you need a tool for work or proton for gaming or whatnot; then you start doing backports and sid and whatnot and it breaks horribly.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I have not once, not a single time, not ever needed a package with a version higher than what is in the main Debian repos.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Left: Lesbians
    Right: P*dophiles
    That's all I know about those two

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Arch just works, debian constantly shits something up.
    In what fricking world would a distro ship some package without the fricking systemd services availabe that make the computer not destroy itself up every suspension?
    I'm speaking about the nvidia suspend, resume, hibernate and powerd services from their drivers.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Debian
    - Old packages
    - If a package isn't in a repo, you have to jump through hoops
    - Very stable
    - No hassle updates. I have a server that's been running Debian Sid for 6 years running unattended-upgrades every night. Never once had a problem.
    >Arch
    - Bleeding edge
    - Everything is in the AUR
    - Updates can break shit. It happens maybe once per year. Just yesterday I had a Manjaro KDE update lose all my installed programs. It was easy enough to fix, but you have to go digging through forums for it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      so to simplify
      >debian
      just works, easily able to grab packages via appimage, flatpack, etc.
      >arch
      breaks but AUR

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >easy enough to fix
      How'd you fix it though?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Just reinstall any KDE application, such as Spectacle. If you can't open a terminal, you can still access "Add/remove programs" from the task bar. Apparently this unfricks the cache and properly migrates it from Plasma 5 to 6.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I use arch cause I hate flatpaks.
    why would I wanna install packages from a different source just for "newer" but still outdated packages whilst on arch I can just go "yay/pacman -S [packagename]" and get the latest version in 5 seconds.
    Arch users are pure cancer but the distro itself is actually good

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just use ubuntu

    I'm dead serious. Use Ubuntu. Use the defaults. The only reason to ever use Linux at home is if you're a developer, because the best dev tools are (sadly) still locked to Linux.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ubuntu was buggy for me. maybe it was just GNOME. but Debian with KDE works perfectly for me.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I mean if it works then that's all gravy. Just don't hop. Linux is shit and you need to stick with the least stinky of the shits. If it stays out of your way it's good.

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I use arch on my minecraft server and debian on my desktop.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >arch on my minecraft server
      Fricking why?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I have a script to set it up, update and manage everything. It also runs on some ancient core 2 quad laptop, so I needed the system to be as lean as possible. Debian would still be a better choice for it, but I wanted to tinker with it.

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you havent used either if you cant decide, that said if you absolutely must be a troony then
    >debian on server
    >arch on desktop

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *