[fsflover]

So don't use Arch. Use Debian.

[pjmlp]

In 30 years the "you are using the wrong distribution" never gets old it seems.

[seanw444]

Because it's still relevant, and there will never be a one-size-fits-all distro that satisfies everyone?

[pjmlp]

It works for the desktop OSes that actually matter and are worth selling software to, the fact that it is still relevant is the issue.

[Koshkin]

That's a great advice! On the other hand, what is it that Arch offers and Debian does not? (Asking this as a long time Slackware fan.)

[jorgemf]

What offer debian that arch doesn't offer? Arch it is really stable and with latest packages. I see debian as a pain in the ass when you want a new packages or you have to upgrade to a new version. I don't have those issues in arch.

[timbit42]

Better package management. More stability.

[jorgemf]

I think pacman is one of the best package managers. And as I said, arch it is quite stable, a little less than debian, which stops me from using it in production, but good enough to use it daily.

[nix23]

Newer packages? A rolling release?

[breakfastduck]

Or if you really don't want to have to deal with the overhead, choose macOS or Windows.

[paulsmal]

or Fedora