Why are these two compared so often like they're similar? They're nothing alike and things like Fedora Rawhide and Debian Sid in how they function are far closer to Gentoo than Arch is.
Is this really just:
>Both traditionally don't use a graphical installer, even though Gentoo has a graphical installer one could use, even though Debian, Ubuntu, and Fedora all over a “netinstall” / “minimal install” option as well which comes without a graphical installer, therefore Arch and Gentoo are somehow similar?
>Rawhide
why do I have to think about foreskin every time I read this?
t. uncut european
Same. Ride 'em cowboy? Fails even the most cursory customer market research. Still better than Android.
Same here.
Also, you watch too much U.S.A.porn if you even use the word “uncut” and tink that's remarkable.
to give a serious answer, I think it was historically just slightly more complicated to setup than other distros so more nerdy type of people were using them and all nerds are the same obviously
>tink that's remarkable.
I just said that because this is an american website
>European
>obsessed with dicks and foreskins
pottery
Now this is a classic case of projection. No one in Europe even thinks about foreskins until they find out Americans butcher their baby boys' penises because it's just what they do.
Maybe because it sounds like "Noahide"
Noahidism doesn't require circumcision thoughbeit.
wtf is wrong with y'all, is leather not common in europe or something?
english isn't common in europe. sure, everyone learns it in school, but not words like rawhide.
I think many native speakers of English who purely interact with very advanced English speakers on the internet think every European speaks English fluently.
Those same very advanced speakers often have parents, coworkers, and friends who aren't at that level but can still hold a decent conversation.
>why are the 2 most popular complex distros that focus on frontloading customization and require similar knowledgebases to manage, which is still outside of the realm of the average linuxgay mind you, be compared as similar?
Gee I dunno Black person, maybe it's because nobody knows what's different between them beyond their neofetches and how annoying archgays are
Because your entire statement is a lie?
Gentoo can be argued to be “complex” but it tries to make the task of building from source as simple as humanly possible with a lot of automation. Gentoo simply offers a lot more choices than most systems.
Arch is just a simplified Rawhide netinstall essentially. It offers less choices and less complexity than Debian Sid or Fedora Rawhide and less granularity on every level. None of these systems focus on “front loading customization”. It's simply that the basic installation of all them is quite minimal, requiring the user to then install what he needs, but again, Gentoo does offer a graphical installer and does offer graphical profiles like a full KDE or GNOME environment during the installation if one should chose to pick it.
These are the first 10 profiles Gentoo offers on my arch, there are actually about 80. I've selected the first 10:
[1] default/linux/amd64/17.1 (stable) *
[2] default/linux/amd64/17.1/selinux (stable)
[3] default/linux/amd64/17.1/hardened (stable)
[4] default/linux/amd64/17.1/hardened/selinux (stable)
[5] default/linux/amd64/17.1/desktop (stable)
[6] default/linux/amd64/17.1/desktop/gnome (stable)
[7] default/linux/amd64/17.1/desktop/gnome/systemd/merged-usr (stable)
[8] default/linux/amd64/17.1/desktop/plasma (stable)
[9] default/linux/amd64/17.1/desktop/plasma/systemd/merged-usr (stable)
[10] default/linux/amd64/17.1/desktop/systemd/merged-usr (stable)
It's obvious from this that I selected the most basic one which by default doesn't come with much but I could select the GNOME from a graphical installer if I wanted just fine.
Arch is simply a simplified, less complicated, less granular Fedora Rawhide in most respects that also makes it's own strange choices a times that ignore most of the standards that Debian, Gentoo, and Fedora all do converge upon in file system layout and shebangs.
It makes sense when you realize the troonix community is completely driven by memes and sayings. Your average linux user does not make decisions based off of concrete, technical reasons. There is no substancial difference between distros maybe with the exception of NixOS and GuixSD. They are gathering points for tribes of trannies that fell for different sets of memes.
Both distributions are for people who don’t value their time.
Arch is just a netinstall. Once it's installed which admittedly takes too much time because it's a netinstall without options so it's just being unnecessarily manual for what could be automated, it's done. It takes 30 seconds, then it updates and works like every other system.
Gentoo mostly works like every system in terms of human interaction but of course compilation takes more time, but it mostly makes applying custom patches really easy and trivial compared to Arch and Debian, though Void also does that well since xbps-source is integrated with the a.b.i. of the system and does automatic rebuilds on a.b.i. breaks.
Gentoo probably takes more time if one not be interested in custom patches, but then one will be spending more time on other places anyway.
gentoo with minimal use flags is great. compilation really doesn't even take long these days if you only compile what you explicitly need. unless you want chromium or libreoffice then you go kys when 12 hours into the compilation you run out of space
I do use Chromium, but it doesn't really matter.
With ccache it takes about 6-7 hours on my system, 1 hour if I redo the exact same version for use flag changes, but with Zen-kernel I do't even notice.
I already use librewolf but if I didn't I'd definitely switch to a non-chromium based browser if it took that long to compile, that's crazy. Why?
Browsers in general take long to compile.
Why? Because big browsers armed up against W3C back in the day when it was trying very hard to push XHTML 1.1 and 2.0 designed to make things infinitely simpler and remove all old cruft that needed to be supported and instead forced HTML 5.0 which made everything insanely complex so no small player could create a new browser from the ground up, ever. The result of this is that web browsers have to be insanely complex code at this point that takes forever to compile.
Web browsers are literally 20 times more complex than kernels, than highly optimizing C compilers, than video games in terms of how long they take to build.
Well maybe you just have a slow computer, I haven't tried compiling chromium, but firefox takes way less time than 6 hours, so it's a chromium thing, actually if you're using ccache I guess fresh it'd take way longer.
>ra out space
Really?
>admittedly takes too much time because it's a netinstall without options
except that archinstall is in the ISO now
> t. IQfy user
>Ummm... you plebeians are so unintellectualized, I'm so much more nuanced and hecking bigbrained because I know how to install linux... I bet you dumberoonies don't even know the difference between gentoo and arch. (I use arch btw)
the reason I used both of them, a long time ago, was that they made the fewest modifications to upstream packages and also had the largest repos of any distros I could find. for me it pretty much stemmed out of horror experiences trying to do things on ubuntu and finding I had to compile 100 packages myself because debian and ubuntu patch the frick out of everything.
I'm not sure whether Debian does that in Sid, but that's one of the things yes, where Debian actually patches and introduces bugs from time to time.
>Both traditionally don't use a graphical installer
That's not true at all though.
Arch Linux had an installer in the beginning.
i always feel restricted by gentoo it sucks hard and its very slow, arch is very fast in every aspect and allows me to do everything painlessly.
This is not flame it's just the reality. Yes you can optimize gentoo better, leets will say but my pc is already insanely fast, I cannot see any difference.
morons are afraid of command lines, and both distros are command line centric.
They are the non-quirky 'endgame' distros, along with void I guess. Void is the new Arch.
Gentoo has the power of very precise package compiling but Arch has pacman which is pretty great.
Void is also very different from either.
Arch is simply pretty much a worse, less configurable less specified Fedora Rawhide or Debian Sid, as in a binary rolling system with muh systemd and mun Freedesktop everywhere and muh glibc in your face. Basically Freedesktop/Linux, but rolling, none of them allow partial upgrades but at least Debian and Fedora actually allow upgrades. With Arch it's entirely possible your system won't upgrade any more after 6 months of not upgrading. They just say “you should regularly upgrade” but they don't say how often and nothing is specified and all bets are off on Arch.
Void actually does something else, uses Runit, offers Musl and offers some semblance of partial upgrades with Xkbs-source which is well integrated into the package manager and a.b.i. aware. It does try to be a binary/source hybrid that only falls back to source for custom modifications where needed.
Gentoo is simply a full source-based system with a lot of choice, far more than Void.
Of those three, only Void and Gentoo try to be different than your standard Freedesktop/Linux system. The only real difference between Arch, Debian and Fedora is the package manager, and the Arch package manager is awful and constantly behind the curve. I think it got package signing like 10 years after Debian and Fedora got it. Does it have or-dependencies already? I don't think it did last time I checked. It's entire dependency system is utterly primitive and package maintainers don't even use it and rarely bother to research what package version something really need and specify it though it does have versional dependencies based on the logic of “You should always have the latest version anyway” which is what can lead to the system failing to upgrade after not having upgraded for long enough.
I just pacman -Syyu every day and never had any package problems. I don't know how you can find so much fault with it except if you had a bad experience. But works on my machine. I don't know anything about partial upgrades / xkbs-source but last time I tried Void it didn't even install because it wouldn't detect my partitions. I do like Arch but I keep being lured to get Alpine working properly. If I can put wayland/sway on it and all the package functionality I had on Arch then I might stick with it. It's a bit more complicated, though. And I'll have to research from scratch everything about luks / mounting and open-rc services. I don't like starting from scratch.
>I just pacman -Syyu every day and never had any package problems.
As I said, it doesn't show up if you regularly update. But if you find some old machine with Arch on it that hasn't been updated in however long and try to it will probably break.
Also, your system will probably break sooner or later if you try to tinker much with it because it doesn't specify what is stable and what is. Try setting your system shell, not login shell to Dash for instance, as in your /bin/sh. Wll it break things? I don't know because Arch doesn't specify whether /bin/sh can be changed safely or not whereas all the other systems forbid bashisms in /bin/sh scripts.
>But works on my machine. I don't know anything about partial upgrades
Sometimes they're simply needed. Sometimes upstream introduces some kind of bug in a new version and you want to hold a single package back from upgrading until they resolve it. Arch only allows that until the a.b.i. of some library it depends on changes, at which point it'll break, and it doesn't tell you when or where that will happen.
>but last time I tried Void it didn't even install because it wouldn't detect my partitions.
Neither Arch nor Void detect those, one has to set up the partions oneself on either. Unless you mean the bootloader, in which case both use the same grub autodetect script one can use, or write a custom grub config oneself.
>but I keep being lured to get Alpine working properly. If I can put wayland/sway on it and all the package functionality I had on Arch then I might stick with it. It's a bit more complicated, though.
Is Alpine even remotely trying to get into desktop usage? It's niche is servers and embedded right?
>Neither Arch nor Void detect those, one has to set up the partions oneself on either.
No, on the installer iso live environment, I can use fdisk, gdisk, cfdisk or even the arch-installer script to create partitions and it installs to them. When I booted void I wrote the partition table and tried to install and it wouldn't list any of the partitions. I've heard it's been improved since then but I'm just saying void isn't perfect.
My endgame distro is ubuntu. Went Ubuntu, debian, fedora, arch, gentoo, and back to ubuntu. Easy install, easy updates, supported for forever, it just works. Being employed, I don't have much time to frick with my os
My degree of “fricking with my OS” comes down to running
>emerge --sync && emerge -uUD @world
Whenever I feel like it.
I have no idea why people say source distributions or even Debian take more time. It's all done by the package manager. Yes, it takes longer for the command to complete on a source-based system because it has to compile it but that's not human time spent on things.
wether you use
>apt-get update && apt-get upgrade
Or the above command isn't going to cost you any more time.
The only thing that makes Arch hard to install is that the official guide tells you to use fdisk instead of cgdisk which is way easier and doesn't let you know that you should probably enable dhcpd so you have internet when you reboot.
I have no idea why anyone would even bother to do it like that.
I installed Gentoo more than a decade ago from a Debian system that was currently running without a live CD. I just partioned the drive and all that from the already running OS with gparted from X11 and then rebooted, the of course it didn't boot, then I troubleshooted my kernel like 5 times before it did but I'm stll running that same install over a decade and 4 motherboards later.
I just use Linux mint cinnamon and live my life. It just works. If you want to use meme distros, be my guest. I'll be over here just being happy.
<3
Everything “just works” bugs aside. I never got this “just works” meme.
Do you think that if you install a package on Gentoo it generally doesn't start and crashes with an error or something when it's the same software?