My Linux experience is perfect for this article. I started off in highschool using Ubuntu but in my mid 20's realized I wanted to know more about GNU/Linux so I Installed my first Arch distro on an old netbook which compared to what I knew at the time, it was like having my Linux 3rd eye opened. I now knew how to perform almost anything from the command line, so going back to Ubuntu should be a cake walk right? I cannot tell you how hard it was for me to officially install anything on Ubuntu without needing to know file hierarchy structure. Some Debian packages just aren't as well maintained so you build and install on Ubuntu, it doesn't always go as planned.
This is where Ubuntu can now teach you what makes Arch so special. The AUR combined with the necessity of PKG Build files allows you to have the most up to date method to running anything on your system. Basically your biggest comparison you can make between Debian and Arch is that Debian focuses strictly on stability while Arch is truly bleeding edge. That doesn't mean Arch is unstable, you can choose to install stable packages or to only install from tested package repositorys. I'm sure there are ways to do this in Ubuntu, but since Ubuntu adds that extra layer of testing and stability you can expect it to be a while before the most up to date software runs bug free on your system. Especially if you use any of the desktop environment variants Ubuntu has to offer, but that's a whole different conversation
That is my personal experience and I know I have much much more to learn. I don't even know how to properly make my own PKG build files right now, all files I used were found from other users and have at the most been edited by me to work with my system. I think it'll be a huge step in my learning if I can truly comprehend PKG Build files and how they work with Arch's package manager.
My Linux experience is perfect for this article. I started off in highschool using Ubuntu but in my mid 20's realized I wanted to know more about GNU/Linux so I Installed my first Arch distro on an old netbook which compared to what I knew at the time, it was like having my Linux 3rd eye opened. I now knew how to perform almost anything from the command line, so going back to Ubuntu should be a cake walk right? I cannot tell you how hard it was for me to officially install anything on Ubuntu without needing to know file hierarchy structure. Some Debian packages just aren't as well maintained so you build and install on Ubuntu, it doesn't always go as planned.
This is where Ubuntu can now teach you what makes Arch so special. The AUR combined with the necessity of PKG Build files allows you to have the most up to date method to running anything on your system. Basically your biggest comparison you can make between Debian and Arch is that Debian focuses strictly on stability while Arch is truly bleeding edge. That doesn't mean Arch is unstable, you can choose to install stable packages or to only install from tested package repositorys. I'm sure there are ways to do this in Ubuntu, but since Ubuntu adds that extra layer of testing and stability you can expect it to be a while before the most up to date software runs bug free on your system. Especially if you use any of the desktop environment variants Ubuntu has to offer, but that's a whole different conversation
That is my personal experience and I know I have much much more to learn. I don't even know how to properly make my own PKG build files right now, all files I used were found from other users and have at the most been edited by me to work with my system. I think it'll be a huge step in my learning if I can truly comprehend PKG Build files and how they work with Arch's package manager.
That doesn't mean Arch is unstable, you can choose to install stable packages or to only install from tested package repositorys.
This is the biggest argument/excuse that Debian/Ubuntu users seems to always use to say Arch isn't stable. You nailed it on this one.