I used to be a Ubuntu and Debian user but lately I started to feel the need to have more up to date packages so I switched to Arch. It really isn't all that bad. Its quite stable and I get the latest releases too.
Debian can be as up to date as any other distribution. Users wanting to use the latest software can simply switch to Debian Testing or, if they're feeling like living on the edge, they can use Debian Sid which is not all that different than running Arch.
I've tried Sid for a while and actually found it to be much less stable than arch, nearly unusably so. That's likely because the expectation with Sid is that things are going to be unstable with devs testing shit, whereas Arch just ships actual releases. Sid I couldn't finish setting up sway back then. With arch I've only managed to brick my system once, by using an out of date static kernel module that shouldve been dkms, without an lts boot fallback.
I have used Arch, Debian, and Fedora. I prefer Arch. Once you install it, I find packages are just easier to install. Mostly everything you want to install is in the AUR.
I'm absolutely team Arch for the desktop. The stability issues of Arch are not that bad, perhaps it was unstable in the past but modern Arch is really stable with its updates and there's also the option of using Manjaro for a more stable Arch-based experience (which is what I personally recommend). It's definitely not server material and never will be, but for a personal desktop computer the occasional upkeep is more than worth it in exchange for having the latest versions of every software and the convenience of the AUR is absolutely incredible.
manjaro is not more stable, it's a security nightmare, all your packages are two weeks late, which supposedly makes them more stable, but infact are just worse at reacting, shipping broken updates, they let their ssl certificates run out on multiple occasions and suggested setting system clock to the wrong time as a workaround (really bad idea...) Arch is much better, and if you really want a noob friendly experience go for something like EndevourOS
You are missing something. There is a reason why Debian is very conservative when it comes to their package updates for a good reason. The Arch team on the other hand, commits package updates even if they contain something broken. Arch has commited broken versions of packages a few times in the past. Like, it happened a few times updating packages like GRUB has resulted next time an error message saying "No bootloader found". This should be considered a potential inconvenience and you need to understand how Linux is set up in order to fix this. For new Linux users, this is actually terrible. Which is why Debian is highly reliable when it comes to stability, especially for new Linux users.
Honestly both are very good options. I prefer Debian because I really don't feel the need to have cutting edge stuff and prefer the stability. Also I'm a big fan of the free software movement, and have become suspicious of companies such as Red Hat and Canonical. Arch is community made too though, so that's not a factor in the choice between Debian and Arch. I like that they both exist.
Much Ado About Nothing - the comedy continues with the Debian VS Arch Linux debate. Sooner or later in your GNU/Linux experience, you will realize how easy it is to change a distro to your liking, then it simply doesn't matter.
Installing Nvidia drivers is a pain, and the wiki is wrong even. Didn't install on an 5 year old Lenovo box. Otherwise it's great. Zypper is the best packet manager right after Portage.
I used to be a Ubuntu and Debian user but lately I started to feel the need to have more up to date packages so I switched to Arch. It really isn't all that bad. Its quite stable and I get the latest releases too.
Debian can be as up to date as any other distribution. Users wanting to use the latest software can simply switch to Debian Testing or, if they're feeling like living on the edge, they can use Debian Sid which is not all that different than running Arch.
I've tried Sid for a while and actually found it to be much less stable than arch, nearly unusably so. That's likely because the expectation with Sid is that things are going to be unstable with devs testing shit, whereas Arch just ships actual releases.
Sid I couldn't finish setting up sway back then. With arch I've only managed to brick my system once, by using an out of date static kernel module that shouldve been dkms, without an lts boot fallback.
This is consistent with my experience. If I wanted rolling, I would use Arch and not Debian Sid.
Debian has a steep learning curve compared to Arch? What?
after a couple of distro-hopping, i've been satisfied with debian 12 running xfce. it's light, stable and just works.
I prefer Debian because Arch takes too much time and I want something that works more or less.
I have used Arch, Debian, and Fedora. I prefer Arch. Once you install it, I find packages are just easier to install. Mostly everything you want to install is in the AUR.
I use Arch by the way
I use Debian btw.
I'm absolutely team Arch for the desktop. The stability issues of Arch are not that bad, perhaps it was unstable in the past but modern Arch is really stable with its updates and there's also the option of using Manjaro for a more stable Arch-based experience (which is what I personally recommend).
It's definitely not server material and never will be, but for a personal desktop computer the occasional upkeep is more than worth it in exchange for having the latest versions of every software and the convenience of the AUR is absolutely incredible.
manjaro is not more stable, it's a security nightmare, all your packages are two weeks late, which supposedly makes them more stable, but infact are just worse at reacting, shipping broken updates, they let their ssl certificates run out on multiple occasions and suggested setting system clock to the wrong time as a workaround (really bad idea...) Arch is much better, and if you really want a noob friendly experience go for something like EndevourOS
You are missing something. There is a reason why Debian is very conservative when it comes to their package updates for a good reason. The Arch team on the other hand, commits package updates even if they contain something broken. Arch has commited broken versions of packages a few times in the past. Like, it happened a few times updating packages like GRUB has resulted next time an error message saying "No bootloader found". This should be considered a potential inconvenience and you need to understand how Linux is set up in order to fix this. For new Linux users, this is actually terrible. Which is why Debian is highly reliable when it comes to stability, especially for new Linux users.
Plot twist - Debian with Arch via distrobox for all those new packages
I always end up preferring distros built upon Debian, or Ubuntu, or both!
Ubuntu is based on debian
@@atcatpl Indeed
Honestly both are very good options. I prefer Debian because I really don't feel the need to have cutting edge stuff and prefer the stability. Also I'm a big fan of the free software movement, and have become suspicious of companies such as Red Hat and Canonical. Arch is community made too though, so that's not a factor in the choice between Debian and Arch. I like that they both exist.
DEBIAN ....theres your answer!
I started as an Ubuntu user a decade ago and feel more comfortable around the Debian/Ubuntu and family side of things.
Nice comparison... crystal clear❤
After trying many distros I use Debian/Ubuntu on servers and Kubuntu/Ubuntu/Xubuntu/Mint on desktops and laptops.
Debian is the choice unless you have a very specific reason to choose Arch. That's basically true for any distro that isn't Debian.
Much Ado About Nothing - the comedy continues with the Debian VS Arch Linux debate. Sooner or later in your GNU/Linux experience, you will realize how easy it is to change a distro to your liking, then it simply doesn't matter.
So debian has a learning curv but Arch is user friendly lol..
Honestly the best distros for most ppl are somewhere in the middle.
I don't want to contradict you there. :-)
Better is an opinion.
Both are the BEST.
Older hardware - Debian. If its not supported by the kernel, arch
Arch helpers are the best
It depends if you are an contemptuous, or not.
😄
Suse?
Installing Nvidia drivers is a pain, and the wiki is wrong even. Didn't install on an 5 year old Lenovo box. Otherwise it's great. Zypper is the best packet manager right after Portage.