[Oni]

I'm just going to assume you guys meant BlackArch and not DarkArch for the remainder of this post.

Yeah that's my bad I meant BlackArch, dunno why I put Dark, dunno why no one pointed it out earlier either.

Need me to rename the thread?

[Inori]

It's more like comparing Arch and Debian, if we're focused on the actual OS.

This is the bottom line with Linux distros geared towards a specific audience. The reason there's no "programmer's distro" is simply because you could write a shell script to do all of the necessary modification after the base system is installed. I personally think distros like Kali (actually, especially Kali, since Debian requires minimal effort in the first place) and BlackArch (and ArchAnywhere, for that matter, if you're just refusing to do it the hard way and have the time and resources) are kind of lazy.

Yeah, I wouldn't choose Arch because of the updates every now and then, one update can mess up the system beyond repair. While Kali is stable.

Just to make my following point clear, I did a full system upgrade while writing this. Any package in the official repos (e.g. core, extra, multilib, etc...) is extremely stable and highly unlikely to break anything (unless you're running a custom kernel, which is your job to maintain anyway). Even the majority (probably 9/10) of AUR packages I've ever installed have caused problems, and even the ones that did were easy fixes.
If there's a package breaking after upgrade, it was probably built against an old version of a dependency (e.g. VLC and Qt4), so upgrading the whole system fixes things more often than not.

Rolling release also provides near-immediate updates to patch high priority vulnerabilities (like the kernel or sudo, for recent examples), so if you're worried about your pentesting/hacking machine getting hit with 0days (which is a little irrational, but whatever), having access to patches ASAP is in your best interest.

[Inori]

Another bonus with Arch (and maybe Gentoo, but I'm not touching that with a 10-foot pole) is the granular control you get over the entire OS. It's an indispensable quality in pretty much all cases, especially in an environment where constant tweaking is the best way to stay ahead of the game.

[Blink]

Another bonus with Arch (and maybe Gentoo, but I'm not touching that with a 10-foot pole) is the granular control you get over the entire OS. It's an indispensable quality in pretty much all cases, especially in an environment where constant tweaking is the best way to stay ahead of the game.

You missed Slackware

---

Yeah, I wouldn't choose Arch because of the updates every now and then, one update can mess up the system beyond repair. While Kali is stable.

I would say the exact opposite. I would choose Arch, because rolling release can lead to BETTER stability. With fixed-release distros, upgrading from one version to the next will always break something because of the massive amount of changes in each upgrade. With rolling release, everything smoothly transitions, allowing developers to update for one change at a time. If you need perfect stability, then don't use AUR, but this is completely unnecessary.

ALSO, if you want stable, don't use Kali. They focus on getting their system to work while live booting, only with the default tools. Any changes or upgrades will likely break a lot of things.

Spoiler: Pro tip

Pro tip: you can make Debian rolling release by changing your release name to "stable" or "testing" in your repository list.

[Anime!]

In reality it's pretty much all the same shit. Even though I used Arch as my daily driver for years, I really don't see why Kali is considered inferior as a pentesting OS. I've never used 'DarkArch' but I'm sure it works fine, just as Kali does.

They do the same shit, so it just comes down to if you want an Arch or Debian based system.

[Anime!]

I would say the exact opposite. I would choose Arch, because rolling release can lead to BETTER stability. With fixed-release distros, upgrading from one version to the next will always break something because of the massive amount of changes in each upgrade. With rolling release, everything smoothly transitions, allowing developers to update for one change at a time. If you need perfect stability, then don't use AUR, but this is completely unnecessary.

ALSO, if you want stable, don't use Kali. They focus on getting their system to work while live booting, only with the default tools. Any changes or upgrades will likely break a lot of things.

Kali has been a rolling release for over a year now... seems your info is a little outdated. And as far as kali being "unstable", I use it everyday for work and rarely have problems with anything crashing/not responding/etc. After all it is essentially Debian...

[Blink]

I would say the exact opposite.  I would choose Arch, because rolling release can lead to BETTER stability.  With fixed-release distros, upgrading from one version to the next will always break something because of the massive amount of changes in each upgrade.  With rolling release, everything smoothly transitions, allowing developers to update for one change at a time.  If you need perfect stability, then don't use AUR, but this is completely unnecessary.

ALSO, if you want stable, don't use Kali.  They focus on getting their system to work while live booting, only with the default tools.  Any changes or upgrades will likely break a lot of things.

Kali has been a rolling release for over a year now... seems your info is a little outdated. And as far as kali being "unstable", I use it everyday for work and rarely have problems with anything crashing/not responding/etc. After all it is essentially Debian...

I know that it is rolling release. I think its been that way since 2.0 (?). I sorta merged two previous posts there, so it might've came out wrong.

It should not be used for normal work, as the kernel security configuration is lower than normal. I have used Kali within the past 5 months, and it broke after upgrading and trying to switch to XFCE.

Like I said earlier, it was MADE to be booted from a live image, not for normal usage.

[Anime!]

I would say the exact opposite.  I would choose Arch, because rolling release can lead to BETTER stability.  With fixed-release distros, upgrading from one version to the next will always break something because of the massive amount of changes in each upgrade.  With rolling release, everything smoothly transitions, allowing developers to update for one change at a time.  If you need perfect stability, then don't use AUR, but this is completely unnecessary.

ALSO, if you want stable, don't use Kali.  They focus on getting their system to work while live booting, only with the default tools.  Any changes or upgrades will likely break a lot of things.

Kali has been a rolling release for over a year now... seems your info is a little outdated. And as far as kali being "unstable", I use it everyday for work and rarely have problems with anything crashing/not responding/etc. After all it is essentially Debian...

I know that it is rolling release. I think its been that way since 2.0 (?). I sorta merged two previous posts there, so it might've came out wrong.

It should not be used for normal work, as the kernel security configuration is lower than normal. I have used Kali within the past 5 months, and it broke after upgrading and trying to switch to XFCE.

Like I said earlier, it was MADE to be booted from a live image, not for normal usage.

Idk what you mean by "Normal work", but for pentesting, Kali linux is the standard. And if you're so worried about "Kernel security" on a pentest machine (not sure why), It's not like it doesn't take two seconds to modify your kernel config or install app armor...

and what's with all this "MADE TO BE BOOTED FROM A LIVE IMAGE"???? While yes, that is a feature, its not like offensive security also didn't intend for it to be installed on HDDs. Why else would the Kali Linux image come with multiple options to install on boot?

To each his own I guess. And it's not even that I don't like Arch - Like I said it was my daily driver for 4+ years. I just think Kali get's a bad rap for no reason because people like to jerk off to the 1337 lunix distros like ARCH and GEN2.

Spoiler:

ha ha u use kali linux skid that is bloatware !! i use sunOS and links for my web browser you know minimalist ftW!!!!

[Blink]

Kali has been a rolling release for over a year now... seems your info is a little outdated. And as far as kali being "unstable", I use it everyday for work and rarely have problems with anything crashing/not responding/etc. After all it is essentially Debian...

I know that it is rolling release. I think its been that way since 2.0 (?). I sorta merged two previous posts there, so it might've came out wrong.

It should not be used for normal work, as the kernel security configuration is lower than normal. I have used Kali within the past 5 months, and it broke after upgrading and trying to switch to XFCE.

Like I said earlier, it was MADE to be booted from a live image, not for normal usage.

Idk what you mean by "Normal work", but for pentesting, Kali linux is the standard. And if you're so worried about "Kernel security" on a pentest machine (not sure why), It's not like it doesn't take two seconds to modify your kernel config or install app armor...

and what's with all this "MADE TO BE BOOTED FROM A LIVE IMAGE"???? While yes, that is a feature, its not like offensive security also didn't intend for it to be installed on HDDs. Why else would the Kali Linux image come with multiple options to install on boot?

Normal work == Daily usage
And yes, it is not intended to be installed on normal drives.

Spoiler:

It's lynx, not links.

[sab2r]

Another bonus with Arch (and maybe Gentoo, but I'm not touching that with a 10-foot pole) is the granular control you get over the entire OS. It's an indispensable quality in pretty much all cases, especially in an environment where constant tweaking is the best way to stay ahead of the game.

I concur.