Ask HN: Should I learn arch Linux or Debian Linux?

this'd be Debian, more stable, robust, basic

by basic mean more common, a Linux which has many descendant/derivatives eg. Ubunu, MX

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/introduction-to-linux-operatin...

A lot of the big moving and shaking in Arch has already come to pass, so it's not likely you will brick your system from an update.

So if you are really into the latest versions of things, then Arch. If you prefer to remove the risk of breaking your system and limit updates to security patches then go with Debian.

ArchLinux is more work and you may enjoy it. If you do and really want to learn a lot, you can read the book Linux From Scratch, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_From_Scratch , and build your Linux from scratch.

As you suggested purity isn't your top priority, if you decide to go with Debian then you probably want the 'non-free' images, that include blobs for making wifi and such work: https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-in...

I would not recommend arch for a beginner. There's a chance that you need to reinstall drivers after a kernel upgrade, which can be inconvenient if the drivers that no longer work are needed for your wifi connection.

Then Arch is definitely not for you. Look at Ubuntu or Debian.

I’d add Manjaro to this list but I run it and feel it requires more finicking and has more bumps in the upgrade road than the tin says.

So just stick with Ubuntu or Debian.

>I am a practical person so while I appreciate purity I simply don't have time for it.Software is a means to an end.

This describes myself as well, and this is why I have used Debian (stable) for years on my personal servers and desktops. For an example, you can turn on unattended upgrades and not have to think much about it. The Debian maintainers work hard to keep the package repository stable.

Obviously, this is a biased opinion, since I use Debian. I have used Arch in the past, and had some mishaps where I broke things by installing updates. On Arch, you need to vet updates more carefully. I don't want to have to be careful, because I want things to "just work" (as much as is possible in the realm of linux), so I use Debian.

Arch is a Gentoo light experience, from what I understand. I used Gentoo when I was a student, but now have no time to fiddle with operating system compilation for 3 days and use Debian or Debian based.

Debian is probably easier to set up, and will be more likely to have pre-built third party packages if you want something that isn't in the distribution repositories. Some of the software is getting a little old right now, because Debian 10 came out in 2019 (11 will probably be done in a few months). Arch will always have the newest FOSS software, but if you want to install a bunch of proprietary apps, it might be harder (anyone?).

Arch expects more hand holding from the user at install time. You will therefore get to learn how to do things by hand on a CLI like: set the timezone and clock, config and bring up the network, choose and configure your partitions, shell, and gui. This is fussy and time consuming and teaches you how to fix those things by hand in a shell (or remote ssh!). I'm a debian user, and it would take me an afternoon to remember how to bumble through all of that; if you're a newb, clear your weekend.

If you're interested in systems programming or devops or want to know all about the care and feeding of your operating system, this stuff might be worth learning about. Of course you can do the same by hand on other distros if you want. The Arch documentation is second to none, and I use it all the time. The Arch community is... well... the kind of people who run Arch. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

On the other hand, Debian is easy to install and picks sane defaults for just about everything. One under-appreciated result of this is commodity. If something happens to my laptop I can reinstall Debian and unzip a backup of my home folder before I finish my coffee. No product keys, no hardware restrictions, no bullshit, and don't make me think. This is a big deal to me because it means never having my work depend on any particular computer!

A couple of quick pointers if you want to try going this way:

--the text mode installer looks scary but is pretty nice.

--it will set up full disk encryption for you if you select the option.

--Debian (but not ubuntu or most others) annoyingly doesn't install some proprietary wifi firmware by default; you can try to add the firmware during the install, but it's a pain, so just use a cable if you can, then remember to add it after install (e.g. the intel wifi firmware package is called 'firmware-iwlwifi').

--FYI, the Gnome desktop requires that you turn on 'Location Services' to get automatic time/zone updates when you travel (it's lately off by default for privacy).

I'm sure Arch installs can be scripted or automated, but I'm too lazy to figure that out. I haven't done things that way since I was a student, although I'm tempted from time to time because of the newer packages.

You could start installing Arch and see what happens. If you care enough to bother and you get it done before you loose your temper, you're an Arch user.

If you're like "OMFG how many questions do I have to answer about parse trees to install zsh, I still don't have WIFI and it took two days to set my clock, I'm out!", then quit and install Debian.

As for Arch or Debian, I think the answer is Ubuntu.

Most noticeable difference is package manager, and lesser noticeable differences are locations of some system files for which you will need to read documentation anyways.

I would recommend Arch-based Linux distributions like Manjaro, because package manager is way more user-friendly imo.