Arch vs Ubuntu

[ClickXT]

I am thinking about giving Arch a serious look after some things that I have been reading.

For people that use Arch and Ubuntu -- any advice or words of caution?
I use my Dell XPS13 (i7, 16GB RAM, SSD) for home office use but also to learn Linux while I am at home. (IT, System Admin - in 95% Windows environment otherwise)

Is Arch more "serious business" as I have seen it worded somewhere else or is that just elitist speak?

I realize that the typical answer is "try it for yourself and see if it's for you." But any information or input from those who are using or have I'd love to hear it from your perspectives.

Thanks-
CXT

[TheFu]

Arch is not business friendly. It is for people who want the latest and broken stuff ASAP. Serious businesses need computers that work EVERY DAY. I ran Arch for about a month. The install felt like Slackware from 1995 - too many questions. Then it broke 2 times because some core libraries were updated and some dependent projects took a few days to recompile and catch up. If that is acceptable to you, great!

IMHO, Arch is for bleeding edge developers and nobody else.
If you want complete control, either build your own distro or use gentoo.
If you want great stability with good patch management, use Debian-Stable, Ubuntu LTS or CentOS/RHEL.
If you want bleeding edge, use Fedora or Arch or Debian testing/unstable. Expect occasional problems - probably 4x a year.

IMHO.

I used to be bleeding edge when younger. That was in the mid-1990s. Had to compile everything manually and manually handle all the dependencies. It was a hassle - huge hassle.

But you really should put it into a VM and see if you like it? What is the risk? 20G of storage for a week? Not really a big deal.

[ajgreeny]

I have heard of users simply getting fed up with the need to keep working on their OS rather than just doing their work when using the OS, Arch.

With Ubuntu the hard work of OS maintenance is largely done by all the devs who create .deb packages for installation, and the general ease of using the system, which makes life so simple for us, ie, we Ubuntu users, who seldom if ever need to mess around compiling source code and installing that way.

If you want a bleeding edge OS that uses the Arch packages and its general system but is also made a lot easier for users, have a good look at Antergos. I am running it as a "look-see" in VBox and it is a lot easier to use than I understand Arch to be, though I admit I have never tried Arch proper, and doubt I ever will.

Without knowing your Linux competence it is impossible for us to tell you which will be best for you; for me and my uses it is definitely Ubuntu, well, Xubuntu actually, and it would take a lot to move me away from that.

[ClickXT]

I appreciate the feedback you two. I think I am going to just stick with Ubuntu/Xubuntu. Thanks.

[TheFu]

I appreciate the feedback you two. I think I am going to just stick with Ubuntu/Xubuntu. Thanks.

Hopefully, you've posted the same question on the Arch forums to get their views as well. Clearly, by posting here, you are getting biased responses.

[ClickXT]

Hopefully, you've posted the same question on the Arch forums to get their views as well. Clearly, by posting here, you are getting biased responses.

Fair enough. I'll do that.

[Cope57]

I would suggest an Arch based distribution such as Manjaro.

[ClickXT]

I would suggest an Arch based distribution such as Manjaro.

Interesting. I'll check it out. Thanks for the tip.

[ajgreeny]

I would suggest an Arch based distribution such as Manjaro.

Exactly my point when I suggested you look at Antergos, another Arch based distro.

[vasa1]

..., have a good look at Antergos. I am running it as a "look-see" in VBox ...

Which option have you gone with?

The installer boots into a GNOME desktop, but during installation gives the options to choose between GNOME 3, Cinnamon, Mate, KDE Plasma 5, Xfce and Openbox desktop environments.