Quote:
Originally Posted by
Shrak 
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jrl1357
(shrak too
jk. Anyone can have bad luck. Sorry it soured debian to ya) and this comes from a non-arch user.
And you're right. Anyone can have bad luck, and many have with even the most "stable" of distro's. I still have my Debian install ( on this laptop ), but never really boot into it often, and honestly haven't had any issues with it since then when I do decide to boot into it. But then again neither does Arch for me ( aside from me being drunk and --force'ing the glibc update by accident, which was fixed within 5 minutes of waking up before my first cup of coffee was done ).
So for me, I see no reason to use another distro. Arch draws me to it for a number of reasons. Mainly Pacman, as it is the simplest and imo one of the best package managers out there. Being straight forward, powerful in it's own right ( while not suffisticated to install packages in the proper order such as this glibc incident demonstrates ). I know the file system, where all of the configs are for all of my files, where a lot are the same on others, there still is differences. All of the package names for packages I use ( another big factor, trying to figure the proper package name for another distro can be a pain sometimes, especially when you're using newer packages that may be merged or modified in a way that the others aren't. ). I just don't see a point to re learn the older packages/drivers and go through their headaches again that I went through with Arch 2+ years prior ( my main issue with broadcom ( wl and sta ) on my debian install, on Arch I went through the flaky drivers 2 years ago that would drop signals constantly, but ever since they were updated and merged with the B43 drivers and included in the kernel, they've been flawless and painless to set up. )
Sounds like me and arch. It seemed everything I touched broke, and required I bunch of hours digging thou the wiki and getting yelled at by forum members until it was fixed. Part of this was because I used an outdated core install and had to back log though a ton of updates, the later ones (manual changes, that is) thinking you had done the first ones. Things could have gone better if id done a netinstall but at the time I used wifi and linux never played nice with my nic. Plus an patched kernal bug sent my sustem crashing every 12 hours, requiring me to recompile my kernal with a patch being devoloped in debian sid, of all places. Then i remembered starting debian. If smaller and less active, the forum was more inviting, the netinstall gave me the kind of control I wanted without taking hours to install (maybe my own suckage, but whatever) aptitude, well not pacman, wasn't far, all online images were up to date, and I had zero problems whatsoever. But thats not archs fault, just my own bad luck. But debian had something for me arch didn't, as arch has something for its users debian dosn't. Arch did teach me alot about linux in general, being yelled at on the forums improved my later and fewer help posts alot, so I respect and like arch, but perfer debian.
This guy thou, angred me at first, now he makes me chuckel. You don't like debian, arch, or ubuntu? What on earth do you use? Thats like half of everything!
