> I align more with arch

Could you briefly outline why? :)

These are not perfectly sensical reasons:

- old arch single config file, with '@' syntax for parallelism got me hooked; sure it's different in systemd days

- early problem free systemd adoption

- simplified, close to upstream distribution (don't want to dig for src, dev, docs etc)

- their wiki is the one that speaks the most to my mind, I try to be gentle and objective, but every time, I find solutions in a short amount of time, and even more ideas. They hit a very very sweet spot to me. (gentoo was like that before the data loss)

- no installer, might seem stupid but it's a bit easier to reason with it; I don't have to learn an install framework, it's very bare and unixy.

- very thin tooling from arch, debian does a lot, but it's too heavy for my mind. Things might have changed since I last live in debian but I run a few debian live isos and derivatives and it always feels like "too much", administrative (as the debian documentation)

- rolling by default, debian has testing but it feels riskier

- AUR felt simpler (again) than custom apt repos

Also I might add that I distanced myself from the OS quest (or if I could I'd run a lisp or smalltalk fork or something similar). I'd be happy to hear your suggestions about my points if you have time for that.

> their wiki is the one that speaks the most to my mind

I'm a debian user, and I love the arch wiki. The debian wiki is often stale and/or incomplete, and usually you're told to go to the mailing lists (which are an awkward way to get info). The arch wiki is great at being clear and concise and I find arch's mediawiki to be more easily legible than debian's bare html.

Not only debian, but all distros so far.

Something I'd add (as Arch user, but also as a Debian user for projects).

I found Arch has quicker updates to the kernal and overall is super quick to adopt the latest tech. What made me completely switch to Arch for every day use, was the day the GTX 1080 came out, I could set it up on Arch with the beta drivers. If I wanted to do the same on Debian, I had to figure out how to update the kernal to a version not typically used, then find or figure out how to install the beta drivers, etc. Etc.

Debian is more stable, so when I need to do something where I don't need the latest drivers, I like to use it.

Typically, my servers, my company laptop(s), etc.

The AUR community packages repo (with Yaourt tool) is definitely the biggest draw for me. It has basically everything you'd ever want as a linux desktop user, whenever you come across a program online it's almost always already available in AUR if it's not in the main package repo (which often mirrors Debians package availability).

A common issue with Debian style distros is that you can install packages easily but it often comes with lots of configuration afterwards. It doesn't "just work"

AUR community scripts are like APT but for less popular programs that aren't supported in the main repos and, more importantly, packages that come with more complete installation scripts with necessary configs and supporting tooling.

Like any OSS community it's benefited most from a lively active community.

ArchLinux is easily the best experience you will find for desktop Linux usage. Plus the Wiki is the best around for Linux.

It's the only distro where using GRSecurity is as simple as installing a package. That's just not possible on Debian.

I'd still use Debian for servers as most VPS companies don't support ArchLinux natively, the set-up process for Arch is a bit intense, and if anyone else needs to get access it's better for portability.

What do you mean re: lisp / smalltalk?

There was a time i cared about Linux, distros, etc. Now i don't. I tend to want a different paradigm altogether. One where the os is a library.

I'm 100% with you. Been getting into Smalltalk over the past year. Bought all the books, played with Pharo/Squeak/Cuis, listened to a ton of Kay lectures. Let me know if you come across anything especially interesting.

I'll try to keep in mind. Do you follow the proof of concept OSes in rust and golang ? it's tempting.

I know nothing about it. Can you link me to some good examples?

Redox is the rust os. I forgot the other. It was on HN not long ago.

Not the OP. But also in the same case, Debian was my first distro, these days I align more with Arch.

The ArchWiki is a gift to all the community. Rolling releases, not testing. With Arch there's a feeling of owning your OS without going full LFS. I am currently planning a summer reformatting for a laptop and I can't imagine not using Arch.

But those are concerns only for my personal computers. On my servers or quick VMs I still prefer Debian.

I was writing my answer while you did so, you summarized my views quite nicely. It's funny that we were attracted by very similar, implicit traits.

Not original poster, but similar position.

I've used Debian privately and professionally on servers and desktop since the 90's, altogether several hundred systems. I've also used Slackware and LFS years ago. My personal laptop runs Arch the last few years (with Debian stable as backup partition); my work computer runs Debian unstable or testing (depending on release cycle).

The reason I like Arch is that it's close to the source. Debian often adds more patches and layers, policies and complexity to the building process. In Arch I can get an updated package in hours straight from the source origin, either built by the maintainer or built and packaged myself. It's very helpful if you are tracking, fixing or reporting bugs to upstream developers. True rolling release model is handy if you'd like to be part of open-source development or need to get something working at the bleeding edge.

Note that Debian's added complexity and stability is much appreciated for all other systems, it's just a bit more difficult to pull straight from the source for many packages. I do not need and would not want to run bleeding edge on most systems.

Edit: and thanks!

I thought I'd answer despite not being the person you asked.

I run Arch because it's so bare by default, without an installer. As a power user, the fact that I know exactly how my whole system is wired together and what is there means when things go wrong or need to change, I know where to go.

That and I often want to be on the bleeding edge, and the rolling release and AUR makes that super easy.

Not OP, but mostly in the same boat, except I still use Debian for my servers.

My biggest gripe with debian is apt. Compared to pacman, it is just so much worse in just about everything. I realize that it has a slightly more difficult job, but still.

I have found myself too often in situations, where I simply couldn't fix whatever apt was complaining about. With pacman you just specify -d and you're fine (or --force if there's a file conflict).

Also, I've never managed to successfully create my own debian package. With Arch PKGBUILD system, it's a breeze.

Just my 2 cents.

Could you be more specific?

I use apt and it works fine for me (I can't say the same about yum on Redhats).

I'm not sure what you mean, could you give some examples?

It's hard to be very specific here - since I obviously don't remember the exact problems I have encountered.

However here are two examples[0][1] of the sort of problems I mean. Both are non-issues with pacman, I can simply choose to ignore dependencies entirely and fix the problem.

Also I just realized I wrote "apt" before, but I really meant the packaging system itself, not just apt. Which also begs the question, why are there at least 4 seperate programs for package management (apt, apt-get, aptitude, dpkg)?

[0] https://askubuntu.com/questions/612593/

[1] https://askubuntu.com/questions/223237/

also not op, but share same thoughts largely.

for me makepkg/PKGBUILD and abs keep me coming back to arch.