11

These ignorant comments about arch are starting to get on my nerves.

You ranted or asked help about something exclusive to windows and someone pointed out they don't have that problem in arch and now you're annoyed?

Well maybe it's for good.

Next comes a very rough analogy, but imagine if someone posts "hey guys, I did a kg of coke and feeling bad, how do I detox?"

It takes one honest asshole to be like "well what if you didn't do coke?".

Replace the coke with windows.
Windows is a (mostly) closed source operating system owned by a for profit company with a very shady legal and ethical history.

What on earth could possibly go wrong?

Oh you get bsod's?
The system takes hours to update whenever the hell it wants, forces reboot and you can't stop it?
oh you got hacked because it has thousands of vulnerabilities?
wannacry on outdated windows versions paralyzed the uk health system?

oh no one can truly scrutinize it because it's closed source?

yet you wonder why people are assholes when you mention it? This thing is fucking cancer, it's hundreds of steps backwards in terms of human progress.

and one of the causes for its widespread usage are the savage marketing tactics they practiced early on. just google that shit up.

but no, linux users are assholes out to get you.

and how do people react to these honest comments? "let's make a meme out of it. let's deligitimize linux, linux users and devs are a bunch of neckbeards, end of story, watch this video of rms eating skin off his foot on a live conference"

short minded idiots.

I'm not gonna deny the challenges or limitations linux represents for the end user.

It does take time to learn how to use it properly.
Nvidia sometimes works like shit.
Tweaking is almost universally required.
A huge amount of games, or Adobe/Office/X products are not compatible.
The docs can be very obscure sometimes (I for one hate a couple of manpages)

But you get a system that:
* Boots way faster
* Is way more stable
* Is way way way more secure.
* Is accountable, as in, no chance to being forced to get exploited by some evil marketing shit.

In other words, you're fucking free.
You can even create your own version of the system, with total control of it, even profit with it.

I'm not sure the average end user cares about this, but this is a developer forum, so I think in all honesty every developer owes open source OS' (linux, freebsd, etc) major respect for being free and not being corporate horseshit.

Doctors have a hippocratic oath? Well maybe devs should have some form of oath too, some sworn commitment that they will try to improve society.

I do have some sympathy for the people that are forced to use windows, even though they know ideally isn't the ideal moral choice.
As in, their job forces it, or they don't have time or energy to learn an alternative.

At the very least, if you don't know what you're talking about, just stfu and read.

But I don't have one bit of sympathy for the rest.

I didn't even talk about arch itself.
Holy fucking shit, these people that think arch is too complicated.

What in the actual fuck.

I know what the problem is, the arch install instructions aren't copy paste commands.
Or they medium tutorial they found is outdated.

So yeah, the majority of the dev community is either too dumb or has very strong ADD to CAREFULLY and PATIENTLY read through the instructions.

I'll be honest, I wouldn't expect a freshman to follow the arch install guide and not get confused several times.
But this is an intermediate level (not megaexpert like some retards out there imply).

Yet arch is just too much. That's like saying "omg building a small airplane is sooooo complicated". Yeah well it's a fucking aerial vehicle. It's going to be a bit tough. But it's nowhere near as difficult as building a 747.

So because some devs are too dumb and talk shit, they just set the bar too low.

Or "if you try to learn how to build a plane you'll grow an aviator neckbeard". I'll grow a fucking beard if I want too.

I'm so thankful for arch because it has a great compromise between control and ease of install and use.

When I have a fresh install I only get *just* what I fucking need, no extra bullshit, no extra programs I know nothing about or need running on boot time, and that's how I boot way faster that ubuntu (which is way faster than windows already).

Configuring nvidia optimus was a major pain in the ass? Sure was, but I got it work the way I wanted to after some time.

Upgrading is also easy as pie, so really scratching my brain here trying to understand the real difficult of using arch.

Comments
  • 10
    You know, we had OS that were difficult to install 30 years ago. I had to set fucking jumpers and DIP switches manually. That got me the interrupt and IO port settings. Then I had to make the OS match the hardware settings. Plug and play was not yet invented, memory was scarce, CPU power also.

    Today, this is a solved problem. We have the RAM, we have the disk space, we have plug and play. The only reason why installing an OS could be hard is because the SW is fucked up.

    Mucking around with OS installation in 2019 is about as much of an exciting "achievement" as discovering that the American continent exists.

    Computers are a commodity, just like cars. You know, the first ones took half an hour to start, with tons of manual levers and shit. Today, you turn around a key because a car isn't about a car anymore. People are on another level - they just use the car to get from A to B.

    Welcome to the future, we're there. Well, most of us at least.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop wtf kinda of future you're talking about?

    I just demonstrated that windows is basically a product from the past.

    it drags on unscrutinized software from ages ago that eventually gets vulnerabilized.

    it doesn't boot fast, it forces updates with reboots, it's closed source (while every major software project out there is nowadays open)

    all this fucking response is broken as fuck, because you do that preface of all that legacy bullshit that you had to do with older system, as if you have a similar scenario with linux.

    End users want a car that just runs? I understand that. You on the other hand are not an end user, and you have a choice to learn more modern and transparent systems, but no, let's just keep using vulnerable and slow windows because it has a better out of the box experience.

    arch is too "unfuture" to you? fine, there are other distros much easier to install that are still way better pieces of software than windows.

    would you rather powershell than bash?
  • 0
    Yeah, arch is the other way around: might work much more nicely and gracefully than Windows, but it's only recommended if you don't care about the stability of its bleeding edge repos, and have tons of time to spare to configure your system. If you haven't used Linux before and want your sanity, don't use arch. Debian is there for a reason: to be one of the most stable OSes and ecosystems out there. Ubuntu is there for a reason: to make stuff in the Linux world a little easier. Elementary OS is there for a reason: to make the most beautiful and functional ecosystem possible. Arch' reason is to basically squeeze all the potential out of a PC. And that does not align with what most people do with their PC. Nobody who just wants something that works wouldn't get his hands dirty with it. So, don't recommend it to newbies, it will just push them away back to Windows. If you still want to squeeze everything out of a PC but don't have time to spare, I recommend Solus.
  • 1
    @aggelalex I don't want everyone to use arch, I'm just saying, it's not that that hard like everyone makes it to be.
  • 0
    @jesustricks using arch is exceptionally hard. But it's the price you pay for bleeding edge repos and a very streamlined OS. Using Linux with the GNU software stack though is not necessarily hard though.
  • 0
    The vast majority of computer users (even developers) need their computer to be a commodity. They will choose hardware/OS accordingly.
  • 2
    @monkeyboy

    The flaw in that reasoning is that nobody who has never used Linux would consider it to replace a major component of their workflow, unless they were forced to use it. There is a stigma, especially among people ignorant to it, about Linux: it's esoteric, it's obfuscated, it's unstable, it's difficult.

    The vast majority aren't going to treat Windows and Linux as commodities. Given their own choices, they're going to use the tool they already know. Some may get curious and decide to try Linux in some form, but most just carry on using the tool they know.
  • 1
    @aggelalex see, I used to think this a couple of months ago but a friend of mine got me to try it out in my summer vacation and I thought "might as well see what this is all about. If it breaks I can easily go back to ubuntu". But it didn't, it actually works like a charm. It was piss easy to install as well since it's basically just copying and pasting a bunch of commands. Then when it is installed, well it just works.

    My favourite thing is how like everything is in pacman, and the two things that aren't are in the AUR which I use a program called "yay" to install shit from. Which is fun because when I need something from the AUR, like Dropbox, I just type "yay dropbox". The same with updating all my software and system, I just type "yay" :v

    I also like how I can actually use KDE and not have VLC installed. Had to have that with Ubuntu since apt is kinda fucked
  • 1
    I also thought I'd have problems since I have to dual boot with Windows, but nope, os-prober to the rescue
  • 1
    @inaba exactly, people blah shit about arch from the non experience.

    exceptionally hard? wtf? the bar is too low for these guys. they either didn't try to install at all, or gave the laziest try ever.

    the average dev out there is too damn lazy or terrible. if they can't find everything figured out for them on stackoverflow, then it's exceptionally hard.

    i heard people say linux from scratch is harder IS hard, but it wouldn't shock me to find out it's not really that hard either.
  • 0
    @inaba ok. Acceptable. But when I'm installing an OS, or any package, or anything at all, I don't want to deal with shell. GUI exists for a reason. You can't tell me that retyping commands is easier than eg. the Debian installer or the Ubuntu installer. Because with commands you can mess up things much easier. And you can't tell me that issuing yay or apt commands is something a new user can get used to faster than GNOME software in Ubuntu or Debian, or AppCenter in elementary OS. Also don't forget that because arch packages are exceptionally bleeding edge, things might break much easier. Eg. A friend of mine who was using arch wanted to make some .vapi files from his existing gobject c code, and he had problems because of an error that was produced by a very recent commit, whilst I, in elementary OS, could do it flawlessly, because things were a little older and more stable.
  • 1
    @jesustricks If my job as a Dev was to maintain an arch system, I would have no particular problem. But using arch as my daily driver is just extra work for nothing. You can't blame Devs for choosing the least time consuming way to do things, if they didn't development would take ages. There is a video on YouTube of Linus saying why he prefers Fedora instead of Debian. The reason? Simple: Fedora is much easier to install. Now if you tell me Linus is some kind of trivial dev I would say you have no logic. But he actually chose something because he thought it made life easier for him. Choosing something over something else because it's faster and easier is not something to be ashamed of, provided that it does it works properly. And arch as a desktop OS is not something that will make your life easier.
  • 1
    @aggelalex I have never said it was easier I said it was piss easy. Doing "sudo pacman -S discord" to install discord is piss easy. Upgrading your system by typing "yay" and then your password is also, piss easy.

    "Might" is also a very very vague keyword to use. Might also mean 1 in every 10000 packages.
  • 1
    Can't you set your repos in pacman to use older software?
  • 1
    @aggelalex @aggelalex at no point in my comments or post did I say that everyone should use arch.

    What I did say was that most devs shouldn't use windows.

    And I also said that arch is nowhere near as hard as people make it to be. In fact, I described it as intermediate level.

    Like I said to fast-nop and I'll add emphasis this time, if people wants to use a friendlier distro, I'm DOWN with that. That is way better than keep using windows.

    You saying that arch won't make your life easier sounds like you talking from non-experience. It sure is making my life easier, otherwise I wouldn't use it.

    every single argument you're adding seems to be based on non-experience or just lack of personal skill, so I really lost interest in responding to you.
  • 0
    @jesustricks I don't overly care about the OS. I don't even care about the computer. I care about what I can do with this machine. I've switched between Windows and Linux multiple times, whatever was less crappy at the time.

    I certainly won't use an OS that requires more reading up in wikis how to install in 2019 just to show how dev I am. Being a dev doesn't mean I'd use shitty and unfinished installers.

    Also, I'm so dev and my dick is so big that I can develop even on Windows.
  • 1
    @aggelalex and stop spreading that idea that "arch linux is extremely cutting edge".

    a comment from the arch linux sub

    "For the umpteenth time(no offence), arch isn't bleeding edge. It's cutting edge. We test the packages in [Testing] before we actually put them in the main repo, that means you aren't on the bleeding edge."

    I use the stable repo for example.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop yeah I don't care about your unprofessional "I don't care" mentality either, in fact most comments I read from you scream of poor ethics or skills. so not interested in your feedback really.

    is your reference to your dick funny? maybe, but it sure makes you just another edgy shitty dev/sysadmin.

    you didn't reply my question of "do you rather powershell than bash?"
  • 1
    @jesustricks You're suffering from Dunning Kruger. You wouldn't recognise competence even if someone shat it in your face. Go on with your stupid teenage arch fanboy mentality - maybe you'll grow up some day.

    I also don't care about bash or even Windows cmd batch files. I can get shit done on both, which I have to anyway when I cross-develop stuff both for Windows and Linux.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop that's the exactly type of tone you seem to have in most of your comments, you disgusting presumptuous fuck.

    you don't care about using either because you don't really have taste or ability to tell between good and shitty software.
  • 1
    @jesustricks Only for people who deserve it, honey.
  • 1
    @jesustricks Seems like our views are similar on the matter.
Add Comment