(05-13-2014, 08:56 AM)LeoTheLone Wrote: That's a badass background.

(05-13-2014, 03:12 PM)w00t Wrote: Any distro can be seen as "Linux for kids" if you never do anything but use the gui.

(05-13-2014, 08:56 AM)LeoTheLone Wrote: That's a badass background.

(05-13-2014, 03:44 PM)Aurora Wrote: Vouch.


Yeah, but it's mostly pretty much impossible to keep away from the terminal when running Linux. Yes, there are some exceptions.

• Rolling Release
  
• AUR
  
• Great Community and Documentation
  
• Very easy to keep an updated system (Kernels, Packages, Etc)
  

(05-14-2014, 12:27 AM)Duubz Wrote: Could send it to you guys if you want it. Yay or nay?

(05-14-2014, 11:10 AM)LeoTheLone Wrote: Yay! please yay. x3

(05-14-2014, 12:13 PM)Duubz Wrote: http://i.imgur.com/mZISIBa.jpg

(05-14-2014, 12:45 AM)Dyme Wrote: I've talked a lot about this before so I'll try to make it brief. I use Arch (grsec) with XFCE as my DE.

Why?

• Rolling Release
  
• AUR
  
• Great Community and Documentation
  
• Very easy to keep an updated system (Kernels, Packages, Etc)
  

And no, I'm not one of those dudes who uses Arch with DWM and pisses on every other distro because "minimalism is best bruh u guise have bloatware hahhahah kids". I simply use it (and love it) for the reasons above. I definitely recommend it.

(05-15-2014, 12:13 AM)IcanFLY Wrote: It's nice, if you want an unstable system. For just casual use or where stability is key, I would say Debian rules. Great for when you are running servers, that need to stay up 24/7.

(05-15-2014, 12:26 AM)Dyme Wrote: People always say that, yet I have experienced no "instability" whatsoever. Have you? If so, what kind? I think that it's a huge misconception that just because something is new means it's unstable. For some reason it's been drilled into people's head that the tradeoff for an updated system is an unstable one.

Before arch I was using Debian 7 for a little over a year, and I have not noticed any stability differences between the two since I switched 6 months ago.