It's all about jokes, funny pics...

... I have to agree, so I corrected the branding accordingly:

View attachment 14380
Back to Mozilla? ;)
1657292039800.png

1657292262489.png

The 'Mo' part can very well be mangled to mean 'Monster' ;)
 

Crivens

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Warning: site is NSFW.

https://www . oglaf.com / collider/

Remove the spaces, they disable prefetching by your browser and may save you a trip to HR.
 

Crivens

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
That depends on the type of industry you're working in - I guess :D
Not in the webcam centric women dominated home office industrie of negociable affection ;) High time someone demands a 50:50 quota there.
 

Crivens

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Looks like you want to volunteer for an in-depth investigation :D - for scientific reasons, you know ;)
 
I think Alain De Vos is smarter than I am, I gave up on labwc, couldn't get it to read my rc.xml. And, Arch's install seems to have gotten more complicated and less well documented than it used to be. But, I usually keep a copy around as they don't usually mangle an upstream package, and I *used* (haven't tried for a long time) to be easily able to install it on an empty partition from a running system. You probably still can, and most of the time, if I find a doc on the Arch Wiki, it's pretty good. A lot of times I choose their wiki over the handbook for some applications.

Back to jokes, an Emo Philips line that cracked me up, possibly because I live in NYC and have run into nasty librarians.

I went to the library to get a card. He said, Prove you live in New York City. So, I stabbed him.

And another Arch joke. It's a drawing, which I can't find, and in the original, the guy's line is I'm a vegetarian. At any rate, in a men's room, there's a long line of empty urinals. A guy is at one in the middle and someone comes to use the one right next to him, and says,

Y'know, I use ArchLinux.

One more comment on them. Back when Judd Vinet, its creator, was in charge, they were much nicer. I realize their forums are busy so they have to keep some things in line, but I see them close posts with something like, it's been asked, do a web search, with no other help. In many ways, it seems like a bunch of angsty teen agers these days.
I don't like to judge---aww, who am I kidding, I love to judge, it's one way we old people amuse ourselves.

Ok, to end with a joke,

Mitch Hedberg line.

I don't know if it's a hippopotamus or just a really cool potamus.
 
Note, EndeavourOS forum, Arch-clone, is a friendly environment. It's not "elitair" at all.
But I switched to gentoo-linux & freebsd for configuration reasons. (eg make config /// USE-flags )
 
I tried two times to install arch from scratch and failed two times. :)
Arch is for installer heroes.
I've always found Arch Linux easier to install than FreeBSD. Ok, the very first part is easier on FreeBSD, but there are tutorials for Arch that take relatively little time and are very simple. Once you get through this very first part you get to the graphics component and everything else that is a bit easier on Arch. Especially if you avoid the AUR as much as possible Arch is very simple.

It is true that many of their forum members can act elitist and will not help you if they feel that you have done little of your own work to solve the problem.

But if you use Arch Linux for a week and have at least average intelligence you will find that there is next to nothing difficult about most things, and it is well documented like FreeBSD.

As someone new to Linux, is Arch really as hard to install and run as an OS as people make it out to be?

I've ran "simpler" disros in the past and then not been able to find what to do when shit hits the fan. You get used to it very quickly and probably won't look back after a few weeks.

Absolutely not. If you can read and understand documentation it's pretty straightforward.

IT's really easy if you follow the beginner';s guide on the wiki. Just don't mess with the bootloader. EVen then.. It's repairable.

I know it's literally alomst a decade later, so maybe when this was asked it was that hard and everyone else is right, but to me it was super easy, you just use fdisk to partition your disk, format it how it says in the wiki, install stuff with a pacstrap command, set up your hostname and password, create a new root user and give it a password, run like two commands to install grub, and install your DE, after that you just restart and everything's there.
I took way too long to install arch just because people kept saying it's super hard, and I heard a youtuber say they kept a notebook of notes on how to install arch and all of that just sounds super intimidating and kept me off for a long time, i've found it's actually much easier than ubuntu because with ubuntu I kept having small problems I couldn't find how to fix, and for arch there's just such a huge amount of resources, guides and documentation to help with almost everything you would want or need to do, the AUR has way more packages than apt and it's just much easier and gives you a lot more piece of mind than other distros.
 
Before moving to FreeBSD I used Arch exclusively for several years. Within the scope of Linux, it was not a bad experience at all.
It was just too unstable , not in anyways comparable to BSDs. And there was systemd . But i find artix too be a good alternative its lighter and boots real fast with runnit .
 
It was just too unstable , not in anyways comparable to BSDs.
Hence I wrote "within the scope of Linux" ;)

And there was systemd .
I was "lucky" enough to experience Arch before the move to systemd.
It's more of a coincidence but I stopped using Arch (and all of Linux) pretty much at the rise of systemd.

We should probably not get too off-topic tho :p
 
1666897776054.png


I think Arch has become so popular because its very easy to use and the KISS principles. Contrary to what is said about Arch sometimes.
Systemd, pulse-audio/ALSA, AUR, bleeding-edge are some of the things that make Arch less good than FreeBSD in my case.
It has very few default packages, fewer than FreeBSD. So you do have to use the AUR and the AUR is Arch's biggest weakness in my experience
 
Top