Pros and cons, but marginal difference IMO... I have a special place in my heart for Arch, and I love that you can find anything under the sun in AUR. However, I don't want to spend hours every time I update packages reading up what changes happened, or worse figuring out why my system broke. I much prefer dnf/yum over apt (why are there so many different apt tools? Why do I search with apt cache?). Ubuntu offers LTS. PPA tends to be better than Copr in terms of available extras IMO, but neither is as good as AUR....
But as long as you have solid configs that are portable, the most important thing IMO is how quickly you can get back up to speed on a new setup... I keep as much as possible in the user level: pyenv for python version(s) nvm for node, emacs, user level systemd files, i3 with a bunch of scripts. Ultimately, most (mainstream) distros are running on about the same technologies so it's not that bad.
Feel sorry for the forced Centos/RH guys out there... Great distros for servers, not so great for developers. Even when I was working at RH, most of us used Fedora (or another distro)
Arch was great as a challenge, but simply not reliable. I happen to do a lot of java mobile and desktop, and javafx with SceneBuilder is fantastic. Unfortunately Gluon only offers .deb & .rpm for Linux.
The aur builds of SceneBuilder all failed, so I tried deptap, which also failed.
I don't have the patience or time to slog through build files to fix them & I shouldn't have to.
And I can't agree about dnf either. Apt is the most reliable and logical package manager out there.
Ubuntu has all the strengths of Debian and none of it's quirks.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Pros and cons, but marginal difference IMO... I have a special place in my heart for Arch, and I love that you can find anything under the sun in AUR. However, I don't want to spend hours every time I update packages reading up what changes happened, or worse figuring out why my system broke. I much prefer dnf/yum over apt (why are there so many different apt tools? Why do I search with apt cache?). Ubuntu offers LTS. PPA tends to be better than Copr in terms of available extras IMO, but neither is as good as AUR....
But as long as you have solid configs that are portable, the most important thing IMO is how quickly you can get back up to speed on a new setup... I keep as much as possible in the user level: pyenv for python version(s) nvm for node, emacs, user level systemd files, i3 with a bunch of scripts. Ultimately, most (mainstream) distros are running on about the same technologies so it's not that bad.
Feel sorry for the forced Centos/RH guys out there... Great distros for servers, not so great for developers. Even when I was working at RH, most of us used Fedora (or another distro)
Arch was great as a challenge, but simply not reliable. I happen to do a lot of java mobile and desktop, and javafx with SceneBuilder is fantastic. Unfortunately Gluon only offers .deb & .rpm for Linux.
The aur builds of SceneBuilder all failed, so I tried deptap, which also failed.
I don't have the patience or time to slog through build files to fix them & I shouldn't have to.
And I can't agree about dnf either. Apt is the most reliable and logical package manager out there.
Ubuntu has all the strengths of Debian and none of it's quirks.