I love Arch Linux

Why do people seem to project all of their insecurities upon Arch Linux? It's not used by people trying to look cool; it's used because it's a very sensible distro with good documentation.

spend 1 week on /g/ and you'll understand

I visit /g/ constantly and I don't know what you're talking about. If you can't explain it yourself then don't even bother.

Let's start with the fact that AUR is a big, gaping security hole and then move on to what a bad idea unsigned packages are.  Next stop, skiddie land.  Arch seems to have a huge draw of kids that think they're cool because they use a more obscure distro than Ubuntu.  If they're looking for a well-documented and sensible distro, then why aren't they using Slackware?  Because using untested, bleeding edge, pre-beta packages makes you more l337, amirite?


Saying negative things about something you like doesn't make it wrong and it doesn't mean anyone's "projecting".  Besides, that last part doesn't even make sense.

I never installed anything off of the AUR.

Arch was fun, it got me better at linuxing and had a tinyass footprint for running it on a shitty system and I watched pirated trailer park boys and it was fun.

For a "serious system", No fucking way.

I agree with the OP.
I haven't installed anything off of the AUR, for the already mentioned reason.
I have everything I need, web browsing, music, video, development tools, everything. And it is pretty. Using Openbox, it has a very small footprint.

Setting it up taught me quite a bit about the environment, and what I learned from that has proved invaluable to me when using other distros.

These are my opinions and experiences, make of them what you will.

how good is debian?

>>7
The big thing about Debian is that there is no "self-appointed benevolent dictator for life" that most other distros have.  It's also not run to make money like others (RHEL).  Instead it's just a community of people who want to make a good system that they want to use.  Changes get voted on, leaders get regularly changed and voted on, and the stable/testing/unstable method of releases and software repositories is well documented and created a very stable platform.

There's several spins of Debian.  Try the LXDE one, it uses less than 70MB of RAM of default boot unlike many other popular distros.

God. If you basement-dwellers spent half your actually researching or doing shit instead of yammering on about things you think you know, the world would be a better way.

Gaping security hole?  Find me one fucking example.  Just one.  I'll wait.

Unsigned packages?  Find me one fucking example where this has bitten someone.

Not ready for serious systems?  Check the top news article on archlinux.org.  Oh cool, real package signing with GPG.

Ah, well-documented and sensible like Slackware?  Well, Slack *is* both of those things.  Now, can you enumerate the reasons why Arch isn't, or is this just more unsubstantiated, unsolicited opinion?  From the sentiment on the Internets, it sounds like Arch has some of the best docs out there.

Go here and tell me what #2 is on the list.  Is it Slack?
http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/linux-unix-bsd-documentations.html

Seriously, if you don't like it, that's fucking awesome.  Keep using Ubuntu - it's good too.  But find a new hobby that isn't bashing things you don't understand.  Or at least do some fucking research.  It will add some credit to your yammering.

Out.

people here trying to look smart saying how insecure is AUR...
most pkgbuild scripts have less than 30 lines, also it's like using any other software on the net

>>4
Let's start with the fact that AUR is a big, gaping security hole and then move on to what a bad idea unsigned packages are.
Pacman 4 supports signed packages and was to [core] a few days ago.

I switched to Arch in 2007 because it was ultimately easier to use than Ubuntu. With Ubuntu, my shit would inevitably break every six months. Arch's rolling releases and simple configuration + excellent binary package management with a portage option were exactly what I was looking for. In my five years of use, I've had to edit my xorg.conf once to fix a bug after a -Syu. Other than that, it's been smooth sailing.

The majority of Arch users are not ricers and wannabes; it just an incredibly simple yet robust distro.