I hate Arch. I immediately lose respect for anyone who runs it, and especially those who advocate it. Here’s why:

Name 20 features, release-for-release or year-for-year that have not come from Ubuntu. Ubuntu basically runs the show when it comes to Linux. This includes things like NetworkManager, Unity, Xorg, GCC, glibc, LVM, KVM, kernel, file systems et al. Ubuntu has developers making significant contributions to the entire FOSS software stack upstream.
Arch on the other hand pulls most of the heavy weight packaging from compiling binaries manually. They then perform minor patching and testing. It generally lags behind Fedora by a release or two in parts of the software stack. I never see @arch email addresses in upstream changelogs.
So tell me again, how exactly does Arch innovate? They even struggle to release a new, even somehow more broken version of pacman with each release, and being a hipster is about the only original thing in Arch.
Yes, Arch is unstable because they are standing on the shoulders of giants. Most of the hard work is hashed out before they ever import software into their repositories. This is fine, and what FOSS is all about, but I prefer to be in with the leaders rather than the followers.
What really irks me and what has really brewed my hatred are Arch users. They seem to think Arch makes them a super elite secret hacker straight out of the Matrix. I have just proven how false this is. In my experience, Arch support mechanisms (IRC, mailing lists, forums, wiki) are much less helpful than the alternative.
If you want a nice desktop distro, run Fedora or Ubuntu. If you like control, run Gentoo. If you need stability, run RHEL/CentOS or Debian. But please, don’t feed the hipster magnet that is Arch!

"Why the fuck Arch migrated to systemd instead of rc.conf? rc.conf was to simple."

The funny thing is all the devs/TU/users (forum and ML wise) bragged about this for so fucking long but as soon as they switch over, anyone who mentions about how rc.conf was a main selling point risks getting banned and at the least a shit tonne of abuse. Not sure why you would be want to be par of the arch userbase OP, unless you are a dick sucking, shit eating asshole.

"They also bragged about "omg parallelized startup" and then forgot that you need startup dependencies for that.
Now netcfg, which is Arch-specific software even, tries to to bring up network profile no matter if the corresponding hardware interface is actually up yet. Which makes it unreliable on headless boxes."

Really the dev team is a bunch of fucking retards. They're even worse than gentoo devs at this point.

And that's saying a lot. They don't even accept any criticism at all, they just ban you.

Name 20 features, release-for-release or year-for-year that have not come from Ubuntu. Ubuntu basically runs the show when it comes to Linux. This includes things like NetworkManager, Unity, Xorg, GCC, glibc, LVM, KVM, kernel, file systems et al. Ubuntu has developers making significant contributions to the entire FOSS software stack upstream.
Arch on the other hand pulls most of the heavy weight packaging from compiling binaries manually. They then perform minor patching and testing. It generally lags behind Fedora by a release or two in parts of the software stack. I never see @arch email addresses in upstream changelogs.
So tell me again, how exactly does Arch innovate? They even struggle to release a new, even somehow more broken version of pacman with each release, and being a hipster is about the only original thing in Arch.
Yes, Arch is unstable because they are standing on the shoulders of giants. Most of the hard work is hashed out before they ever import software into their repositories. This is fine, and what FOSS is all about, but I prefer to be in with the leaders rather than the followers.
What really irks me and what has really brewed my hatred are Arch users. They seem to think Arch makes them a super elite secret hacker straight out of the Matrix. I have just proven how false this is. In my experience, Arch support mechanisms (IRC, mailing lists, forums, wiki) are much less helpful than the alternative.
If you want a nice desktop distro, run Fedora or Ubuntu. If you like control, run Gentoo. If you need stability, run RHEL/CentOS or Debian. But please, don’t feed the hipster magnet that is Arch!

spinnythings wrote:Name 20 features, release-for-release or year-for-year that have not come from Ubuntu. Ubuntu basically runs the show when it comes to Linux. This includes things like NetworkManager, Unity, Xorg, GCC, glibc, LVM, KVM, kernel, file systems et al. Ubuntu has developers making significant contributions to the entire FOSS software stack upstream.
Arch on the other hand pulls most of the heavy weight packaging from compiling binaries manually. They then perform minor patching and testing. It generally lags behind Fedora by a release or two in parts of the software stack. I never see @arch email addresses in upstream changelogs.
So tell me again, how exactly does Arch innovate? They even struggle to release a new, even somehow more broken version of pacman with each release, and being a hipster is about the only original thing in Arch.
Yes, Arch is unstable because they are standing on the shoulders of giants. Most of the hard work is hashed out before they ever import software into their repositories. This is fine, and what FOSS is all about, but I prefer to be in with the leaders rather than the followers.
What really irks me and what has really brewed my hatred are Arch users. They seem to think Arch makes them a super elite secret hacker straight out of the Matrix. I have just proven how false this is. In my experience, Arch support mechanisms (IRC, mailing lists, forums, wiki) are much less helpful than the alternative.
If you want a nice desktop distro, run Fedora or Ubuntu. If you like control, run Gentoo. If you need stability, run RHEL/CentOS or Debian. But please, don’t feed the hipster magnet that is Arch!

quality fucking post nerd