Arch is aimed at people who know their shit so they can build their own distro based on how they imagine their distro to be. It is not a good distro for beginners and non power users, no matter how often you try to make your own repository, and how many GUI installers you make for it. There's a good reason why there is no GUI installer in arch (aside from being able to load it into ram). That being that to use Arch, you need to have a basic understanding of the terminal. It is in no way hard to boot arch and type in archinstall. However, if you don't even know how to do that, your experience in whatever distro, no matter how arch based it is or not, will only last until you have a dependency error or some utter and total Arch bullshit® happens on your system and you have to run to the forums because you don't understand how a wiki works.
You want a bleeding edge distro? Use goddamn Opensuse Tumbleweed for all I care, it is on par with arch, and it has none of the arch stuff.
You have this one package that is only available on arch repos? Use goddamn flatpak and stop crying about flatpak being bloated, you probably don't even know what bloat means if you can't set up arch. And no, it dosent run worse. Those 0,0001 seconds don't matter.
You really want arch so you can be cool? Read the goddamn 50 page install guide and set it up, then we'll talk about those arch forks.
(Also, most arch forks that don't use arch repos break the aur, so you don't even have the one thing you want from arch)
Debian is the best distro for newbies, it may require setup and reading some documentation but afterwards you get a stable distro.
Stable doesn't mean what you think it means. Stable means not updated.
I‘d rather have a system that is stable and a few months out of date than a system that is so up to date that it breaks. Because then I cannot, in a good conscience, use that system on a device that I need to just work every time I start it.
Again, stable doesn't mean what you think it means. An unstable system is not one that breaks, but one that doesn't keep a stable base. For example, Debian will not update a major version of almost anything, since that could potentially break dependencies, so it is stable even if it released patches as fast as Arch. On the other hand Arch is unstable, even if upgrading your system never broke anything because it can at any point change the version of any library you have installed.
That’s still exactly what I meant? Sure, arch may never break even though it’s unstable but it being unstable heightens the risk of it (or some program) breaking due to changing library versions breaking dependencies.
Dependency issues happen much more rarely on stable systems. That’s why it’s called stable. And I very much prefer a system that isn’t likely to create dependency issues and thus break something when I update anything.
No, you're still not understanding, say libX current version is 1.2.3 and we have two distros A (a stable distro) and B (an unstable distro). libX now releases 2.0.0, A remains on 1.2.3 B moves to 2.0.0. libX now releases 1.2.4 which despite being just a patch breaks everything. A update and breaks, B does not.
Stable just means stable API, it says nothing about system breakage. System breakage can happen regardless of stable API, and it's up to distro managers to not release a package that breaks their diatro, and the Arch ones are excellent at their job. An update breaking Arch is as likely to happen as on Ubuntu, but an upgrade on Arch can break other stuff which on Ubuntu can only happen when doing a version upgrade.
Ok, so arch doesn’t break because it’s unstable, it just breaks anyways. And it doesn’t break more in general, it just breaks worse more often. Got it.
I’ll still stay away from the bleeding edge.
If you want to talk about breakage we can, as long as you understand that's not what people mean when they say stable. About breakages Arch doesn't break that often, or at all, I can't recall a single time my system broke for an update or for something that was not entirely my fault.
Oh no! I haven't got the latest push from 30 seconds ago. My operating system is so out of date and I'm so uncool!!11
Nope, you're missing the point entirely. It's about versions not frequency. For example Ubuntu 16.04 used python 2, despite python 3 having been released for 8 years at that time and other distros like Arch having migrated to python 3 years before. Now, Python 2 still got regular updates that Ubuntu released, but Ubuntu 16.04 was maintained until 2021, whereas python 2 reached EOL in 2020, that means that for 1 year Ubuntu was using a deprecated and unmaintained version of python.
One could also make the argument that Arch broke a lot of stuff when they did that upgrade, and there's an argument there, but it's not as simple as receiving less frequent updates.
You're going to be horrified to discover the software versions the military use.
i wouldn't wish apt on my enemies. terrible habits with all the ppas and piping curl to bash in every forum post
I literally consider Debian to be less functionally stable than arch because of Apt. I've had apt completely eviscerate systems and then just bail out leaving you with a system that has a completely empty /bin with seemingly no easy way to recover.
Meanwhile pacman has literally never done that, and even on systems that became horrifically broken due to literal data corruption I was able to just chroot in, download a static built pacman, and reinstall all native packages with a single command... It's nuts how much more reliable and repairable arch ia but people act like it's frail just because it gets updates more than once every century
Debian doesn't support PPAs. That's an Ubuntu feature. Even if you somehow managed to enable a PPA on Debian, the packages will be for Ubuntu and are likely not install or work correctly.
ahh its been so long since I used regular Debian in school I thought it had ppa since raspbian does
Debian stable is always outdated and testing is not stable enough. I think Debian is good for servers but not for desktop.
Newbies can not handle apt and just random deb they find in the internet and wonder why linux is so tedious to update
Most noobs I know did not understand what repo management means and are just copy pasting terminal cammands like a madlad or running random bash script with sudo because the developer thought it was the easiest way to get noobs to add their repo
I prefer giving noobs a single place of truth, if no flatpak available, like:
https://software.opensuse.org/packages
Or
AUR
That very setup is why I do not recommend it to newbies who don't have someone experienced around. Debian, even Debian 12, is not holding your hand and directing you. You'll have to figure a lot out by yourself, and this adds to the steep learning curve.
Also, a very slow update cycle means the newbie will be stuck with outdated packages (sure, flatpaks are there, but the base system will be old, like, very old). And new hardware might face issues.
To me, the perfect pipeline is something like Linux Mint, then Fedora, then either Arch derivatives or Debian, depending on what serves you best. Alternatively, if you don't mind some challenge after an easy entry, start out with Manjaro and then get another Arch. But that one's more controversial.
I use Debian on a regular basis and have for years, but I wouldn't recommend it as the starting distro unless I knew that the user would have very ordinary hardware and no special software needs. It's just annoying if you have to learn how to install Chrome, or your wireless drivers, for example.
It's almost simple enough, but not quite, in my view. But if I were helping them get it installed, then after that they would probably be good to go.