Comment by noirscape
7 days ago
To be fair, the advice very rarely is for people to jump onto Arch based distros.
The problem is more that the Arch value proposition kinda presupposes the sort of user that's going to "feel superior" about having it installed[0]. It leads to people that have no business installing Arch Linux (as it doesn't match their usecase) installing Arch Linux because it makes them feel cool.
I don't have a good answer for this, besides making it more apparent what people should expect from having Arch installed. My recommendation usually goes something like this:
* Do you want to have the latest version of all software, regardless of the question if it's well-tested beforehand?
* Do you want to have all software distributed in an as-close-to-upstream approach as possible? Be aware that "upstream" configuration can sometimes significantly differ from defaults most people expect. (Sometimes there's reasons for this, sometimes upstream are a bunch of obstinate jerks.)
* Are you comfortable with a terminal?
* Are you comfortable with needing to suddenly learn how to troubleshoot a broken system after a routine update?
Only if the answer to all of those is "yes", then Arch is suitable for you.
And finally, more specific to servers, where the answer should be "no" if you want to use arch:
* Do you have the expectation to never have to touch the OS after it's been configured correctly besides routine maintenance (ie. installing security updates) and maybe a big update twice a year?
I used to use Arch, before realizing that my system was gradually morphing into a bespoke mess that didn't really serve my needs and that while doing something very specific was possible, I also had to configure a bunch of mundane stuff you aren't normally required to think about - there's never a "just install, activate and adjust as needed" with Arch. All I actually wanted was a distro with more recent software than "3 years old" (Debian/Ubuntu's sluggish package inclusion is not really useful for desktops).
So I looked around and realized Fedora worked better for me: professional, clean, recent software (every 9 months updates, feature freezes are smart enough to account for ie. New Python releases) and not prone to sudden surprises.
[0]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_Linux is a good example of it.
To be honest, it took me way too long to figure the Arch etc crowd are hobbyists who enjoy having something which always 'needs maintenance' over the weekend. (And maybe they don't want to admit they are hobbyists because what they are doing seems Very Important.)
Sorta like 'car guys' who recommend some old thing you can wrench on.
For what it is worth, while I'm sure it is right on target for some, I think that's incorrect model of a mean arch user. Updates are once a month thing for me (and the maintenance for that rarely exceeds 10m if that). I barely do any distro level tinkering, after all, I need to spare some time to improve my emacs config ;).
Basically, my model of a mean arch user would be closer to a DIYer -- likes to follow clear manual instructions, likes sturdy and non-ephemeral things, likes to know what the sausage is made of, but prefers if maintenance costs are minimized (since they will be bearing those costs and are responsible for the thing), so makes choices according to that.
Hey, your response improves my opinion of 'car guys'. Because the analogy is thin and they are looking directly at what is coming out of the 'sausage machine'. And if the result is good, they could sell the machine for profits! (Unlike computer nerds.)
I'm sticking with "hobbyists/dabblers" here, because almost nobody runs Arch in real production scenarios. Its just a fun high-touch thing people can enjoy fucking around with. Nothing wrong with that.
(That is why someone could trivially trojan hundreds of packages and it's NBD. Because "Nobody Cares." Wipe it and start over, funguy.)