With Archinstall its really easy. You still need to be familiar with the Wiki, but its not hard. Tedious maybe. And running all vanilla software is nice. No distro modification.

I like learning and having control over my pc. But it's mainly the learning part for me, followed the wiki a second time installing arch on my Thinkpad last week and felt just as satisfied as the first time. But no shame in using archinstall.

After trying Ubuntu for a few days I decided to jump in head first and install Arch on my daily driver, it's been a struggle but I learned so much about Linux I decided to work as a Sysadmin.

Isn't bazzite Arch based? I like it cause I can throw it on almost any laptop and it just works. I've been slowly converting my family, and it is just a nice of of the box experience.

rolling release is a big plus for me, also the modularity and choice of what packages i want on my machine

it's also not really any harder to use than any debian/ubuntu based distro i've used

in ~3 years since i've switched to arch i've only broken it once and it took 15 minutes to fix

I use Garuda. Yes, it's Arch based, but it's also all set up for gaming and newbie friendly. I started on Bazzite, then switched to Garuda, it's just as easy.

It works well for me.

Actually, I am a long-term Debian user (for 15 years) and use it in parallel with Arch, since about ten years, and I had less trouble with Arch: When upgrading from Debian 10 to 12, GNOME broke for me so that I could not log in any more. I spent a day or so to search for the cause - it is related to the user configuration but I could not figure out what it was and I had to time-box the effort, and switched to StumpWM (a tiling window manager, which I had been using before). I had no such problem with Arch, and on top of that I could just install GNOME's PaperWM extension just to give it a try.

You could argue that my failure to upgrade was GNOME's fault, not Debians, and in a way this is true. Especially, GNOME should not hide configuration in inscrutinable unreadable files, and of course it should parse for errors coming from backwards-compatible breaking changes.

But the thing is, for software making many small changes is very often much easier than a few big changes. For example because it is far easier to narrow down the source of a problem. So, it is likely that GNOME on Arch had the same problem between minor upgrades, and fixed it without much fuss.

But you also need to see that Arch is primarily a Desktop/end user system, while Debian is, for example, also a server system. Debian is designed for a far larger range of applications and purposes, and having many small breaking upgrades would likely not work well for these.

I've tried Arch - it allows you to make a system that is exactly what you want. So no bloat installing stuff you never need or use. It also gives you absolute control.

On other distros like Fedora, you get a pre configured system set up for a wide range of users. You can reduce down the packages somewhat but you will often have core stuff installed that is more than you'll need as it caters to everyone.

Arch allows you to build it yourself, and only install exactly the things you actually want, and configure then exactly how you want.

Also you learn an awful lot about Linux building your system in this way.

I liked building an arch system in a virtual machine, but I don't think I could commit to maintaining an arch install on my host. I'm happy to trade bloat for a "standard" experience that means I can get generic support. The more unique your system the more unique your problems can be I think. But I can see the appeal of arch - "I made this" is a powerful feeling.

I saw a gif about some cool hyprland dotfiles and i fell in love.

Instructions said it was designed for arch.

There are many more other reasons i stayed. Its great to actually feel in charge of my system.

Debian/ubuntu has its uses in server reliability but its missing snap for daily use.

Fedora is to close to corporate for my personal interest.

A rolling release means you get new versions of software almost as soon as þey're released, instead of waiting for 6 mos for þe distribution to package and release it.

Even Arch's LTS kernel is updated more frequently þan Debian's. Þe trade-off is rebooting more frequently. I have personally also experienced less breakage upgrading software frequently þan big, all-in-one-shot upgrades. I won't claim þis is þe common experience, but "dependency hell" for me was always Redhat, and þen Debian.

It's not really trouble. I use it since 2012 with a few intermediate installs of Debian and Fedora, but I really don't have many issues I can't solve in a few minutes. Rolling release means I never have to do huge upgrades.

Then again, I'm a studied CS expert with 20 years of Linux experience. Wouldn't recommend Arch to people who don't want to exactly know how their system works.

You need a complex system to do something simple. To simply press the gas pedal and fucking go you need an internal combustion engine that is nasty to look at, this confangled monstrosity, harder to manufacture than the batteries that will replace it. When you just drive your car you never have an inkling of the whole mechanism