I used Debian for a long time, later Mint. Nowadays, I find myself using Debian machines less and less, as opposed to Manjaro, Antergos, and now EOS.I wonder who you think about this.
Depend, but most linux users have also multiple distro"s installed, debian should be rocksolid depend which environment you need to be.
Arch is binary and more on the edge side. sometimes cutting edge other time bleeding edge…
sometimes i think on purpose they pass by i think, things are sometimes hard to bugfix by creating sometimes. but arch does not patch stuf like debian do. Even rock solid debian can have also issues , but understand packages are older and on security and bugs you need to patch stuf indeed.
But distro market are constantly in movement. some people has 4 distro’s;
personal i dont care, prefer to stay on one and learn the full thing of it. it is then easier to bug fix or find a issue to fix on your own distro. You dont learn 100% if you have multiple distro’s sometomes things are unique.
Like Manjaro is an Arch-like system based on arch, why i said is arch-like. There stuf are also unique, using same packages but how they controlling the gui stack and namings of kernels and how you manage is also different then other arch-based distributions.
had always a fun time on xubuntu. But i think with the 19.10 there will be a group of users that gona move to debian and a arch-based system or arch-like system like manjaro. Probably they have to swallow new users because snaps gona be standard to there apt-get stuf. like sudo apt install chromium you wil get chromium from snap store, i dont think users get comfortable of it. but big distro’s like ubuntu does create controversy at the end, thats what development goes. is like manjaro did with the freeoffice, at the end they choose the middleground. the 19.10 is stil a experimental stuf probably with the 20.04 the snap wil go out again if they see lot people fleed from that
For me, Arch-based distros feel snappier on the desktop, and I enjoy having access to the aur.
what should i say here ?
For me Archlinux is all about freedom of choice and have all these choices with a iron stable system in the back.
Today there are a lot of users with inc readable hardware want to run this on latest software and latest features. That’s may a main reason that archbased getting that much attention nowadays.
I think there’s 3 reasons for this - one is people have experienced that this whole “arch is unstable” is a myth - probably from the early years. The other reason is that most Linux users have got their feet wet and gained some experience within apt land and are ready to take the next step. The last one is ofc archbased disrtos - a GUI installer is more appealling for most users. There is nothing to be “scared” of. Even those who don’t like using a terminal can just “roll on”
I’ve reached an age where I only have a few years left and can’t be using apps from 2012.
For me there are two minor things that attracted me to arch and stick to it:
- barebone OS with no bloatware whatsoever
- rolling release model (Fedora made me sick with 6-months release schedule)
Most “Debian”-based Distros are more Ubuntu-based and Ubuntu made some decisions that are logical for a company but the avergage FOSS-User dislikes for obvious reasons.
MXLinux for example is Debian-based with a good installer and preconfigured setup and it seems that a lot of users have been waiting for something like that.
For me back in the days it was that Arch was optimised for 686 processors and rolling release model. Today it’s the efficient packagemanagement and the AUR.
For me i think it is the rolling release methodology, the customize-ability, the enormous amount of software available, freedom from bloatware, and the performance. I also like the package management and the ability to use more than one package tool. I also think it suits newer hardware more so than some others.
I think the question is misleading. Arch based distros are not more popular than Debian based distros. Just because I run an Arch based distro and spend time in Arch related forums does not mean Arch is becoming more popular. Debian based distros, Ubuntu in particular, is far and away the most popular base for the most widely used distros. If I spend too much time in Arch, my perception will be skewed and I may think Arch is becoming more popular, but that is not really the case.
I think a big gros if reviewers has somethinh like arch installed, but lot linux users got dual triple or multiboot of distros that is hard to tell
I’d be leaning towards it, too. Besides, e.g. the top ten of a certain known ranking or even more precisely the top five, tell us something different. Personally, for a long time now, Arch (EOS, form. Antergos) has always been the choice, altough on the other hand, e.g. Mint has never let me down.
I assume you are talking of DW? I would put a lot more stock in Google Trends to paint a more accurate picture (it ain’t perfect, but it sure beats DW).
Yes. But, as I wrote, this is just an example, the first from shore.
I think this is correct - Archbased distros is becoming more popular - but no way near Debian/Ubuntu based distros
I think there is a difference in “becoming more popular” versus “popular”. Kind of like acceleration versus speed.
I’d believe the “acceleration” nod would go to Arch based, though I have no data to back that up.
Debian used to be hard for me to install. Now it is easy. Just download the ISO including non-free.
Arch used to be hard to install. It still is! Arch based distros that are easy to install and have a graphical package manager are great!
Ironically I use both Arch and Debian: EndeavourOS is installed on my main desktop. My 12-year-old desktop and my 19-year-old laptop run Sparky Linux, a lightweight Debian distro. The laptop also runs i3 WM. It’s too slow to be useful; it can’t play videos or surf the Web with a modern browser. It exists because I can. Debian can be made lightweight enough to run on a 900 MHz Celeron and I can still install a Debian as a 32-bit OS.