Of all the main stream distros, I never liked Arch. I've been a big fan of and have used Debian and Fedora for years for different uses, I love all the work openSuse does for their GUI configuration, and I respect Slackware and Gentoo for what they are, though I've never use them myself.
Arch always gave me the impression that its fiddly, fragile, and highly opinionated. I think the AUR is a bandaid; its explicitly not supported, yet everyone says its the best reason to use Arch. If I want packages built from source, it just seems that Gentoo does it native to the whole OS and package manager. Nix does too. If I wanted closed-source binaries, flatpak seems like the way the ecosystem is moving and is pretty seemless for my uses. Keeping them with static libraries independent of the OS makes sense to me for something like Spotify, especially since disk space concerns are irrelevant to me.
Opinions on and around Arch are everywhere, both good and bad. I just have never found a situation where I see any benefit to using Arch over Debian for its stability, Alpine for its size, Gentoo for its source building support, or Nix for its declarative approach. So I have grown to loathe its atmosphere.
I am very conflicted about Arch. I similarly disliked it for actual use, because it's so unstable. On the other hand, the arch docs are a goldmine.
I think it just depends on what you want to do with your system. Do you like to tinker? Arch (and similar distros) are great. Do you just want things to work mostly out of the box? Use an Ubuntu flavor or an Ubuntu derivative.
Interesting that you feel Arch is opinionated. After using several distros I finally settled on Arch because I felt it was not opinionated compared to e.g. Ubuntu. I have to choose and install every part of the system myself, and I like how that gives me a clean system. I like to use the Awesome window manager, and with other distros I would always end up with a different desktop installed next to Awesome.
Can you say how you feel Arch is opinionated?
I feel it is highly opinionated because they only officially support a fairly small amount of packages. They're not particularly more up-to-date than say openSuse Tumbleweed. A Debian netinstall is equally a barebones system I can install exactly what I am looking for, and don't need to fiddle with third party repo's like the AUR. As far as I know, almost every distro will let you do a barebones headless install, then build up your system yourself. Arch is certainly less opinionated than Ubuntu, but that's not a big accomplishment these days.
If I were to desire a highly specific environment where I wanted to exactly manage each program's dependency chain myself, Gentoo seems like a much better tool for the job. For example, Arch officially requires systemD, Gentoo does not. As far as I know Gentoo makes no assumptions on how your system is setup, from preboot to Wayland session.
I could just be out of date, as I use NixOS as my workstation and server OS, using Debian for some older servers I haven't migrated yet. I get the impression from Arch, the few times I have used it, is that its niche is appealing to a particular kind of user, rather than being a good solution to a particular kind of problem. That's not bad, its huge reason why its popular. Other distros do the same thing as Arch, sometimes better sometimes worse, but Arch is selling an aesthetic, rather than a tool.
I never realized how small the number of official Arch packages is compared to Debian (13751 vs 171937 according to wikipedia ).
And I see your point about Arch being opinionated. Thanks.
Of all the main stream distros, I never liked Arch. I've been a big fan of and have used Debian and Fedora for years for different uses, I love all the work openSuse does for their GUI configuration, and I respect Slackware and Gentoo for what they are, though I've never use them myself.
Arch always gave me the impression that its fiddly, fragile, and highly opinionated. I think the AUR is a bandaid; its explicitly not supported, yet everyone says its the best reason to use Arch. If I want packages built from source, it just seems that Gentoo does it native to the whole OS and package manager. Nix does too. If I wanted closed-source binaries, flatpak seems like the way the ecosystem is moving and is pretty seemless for my uses. Keeping them with static libraries independent of the OS makes sense to me for something like Spotify, especially since disk space concerns are irrelevant to me.
Opinions on and around Arch are everywhere, both good and bad. I just have never found a situation where I see any benefit to using Arch over Debian for its stability, Alpine for its size, Gentoo for its source building support, or Nix for its declarative approach. So I have grown to loathe its atmosphere.
I am very conflicted about Arch. I similarly disliked it for actual use, because it's so unstable. On the other hand, the arch docs are a goldmine.
I think it just depends on what you want to do with your system. Do you like to tinker? Arch (and similar distros) are great. Do you just want things to work mostly out of the box? Use an Ubuntu flavor or an Ubuntu derivative.
Interesting that you feel Arch is opinionated. After using several distros I finally settled on Arch because I felt it was not opinionated compared to e.g. Ubuntu. I have to choose and install every part of the system myself, and I like how that gives me a clean system. I like to use the Awesome window manager, and with other distros I would always end up with a different desktop installed next to Awesome. Can you say how you feel Arch is opinionated?
I feel it is highly opinionated because they only officially support a fairly small amount of packages. They're not particularly more up-to-date than say openSuse Tumbleweed. A Debian netinstall is equally a barebones system I can install exactly what I am looking for, and don't need to fiddle with third party repo's like the AUR. As far as I know, almost every distro will let you do a barebones headless install, then build up your system yourself. Arch is certainly less opinionated than Ubuntu, but that's not a big accomplishment these days.
If I were to desire a highly specific environment where I wanted to exactly manage each program's dependency chain myself, Gentoo seems like a much better tool for the job. For example, Arch officially requires systemD, Gentoo does not. As far as I know Gentoo makes no assumptions on how your system is setup, from preboot to Wayland session.
I could just be out of date, as I use NixOS as my workstation and server OS, using Debian for some older servers I haven't migrated yet. I get the impression from Arch, the few times I have used it, is that its niche is appealing to a particular kind of user, rather than being a good solution to a particular kind of problem. That's not bad, its huge reason why its popular. Other distros do the same thing as Arch, sometimes better sometimes worse, but Arch is selling an aesthetic, rather than a tool.
I never realized how small the number of official Arch packages is compared to Debian (13751 vs 171937 according to wikipedia ). And I see your point about Arch being opinionated. Thanks.