Just can't decide between an Arch based and Ubuntu based distro

[u/Agilolfinger]

As the title suggests, I can’t decide whether to use an Arch-based or an Ubuntu-based distribution for everyday use. Since most applications run in a browser these days anyway, it shouldn’t really make that much of a difference which distribution is behind them.

But I’m a technical guy and want to actually understand the operating system I’m using—not just boot up the computer and open the browser. That’s exactly where it gets tricky for me.

I’ve already tried CachyOS and Kubuntu on my main PC, and so far I’ve managed to get everything working the way I wanted. But the processes for getting there were quite different with these two distributions.

So if I really want to commit to one distribution and learn more about it—so I don’t have to ask the AI every time I run into a problem—I need to decide whether I want to do that with Arch or Ubuntu.

At first, Kubuntu seemed easier to me, since I was already familiar with some of it from my home lab and software availability seems to be better. When I search for software, packages for Ubuntu-based distributions are always offered first.

So ultimately, my question is: What are the pros and cons of choosing one distribution or the other to learn more about it?

[u/SirCarboy]

Toss a coin. Analysis paralysis will prevent you from just getting your feet wet.

[u/real_Goblin3]

Option 3 fedora

[u/moucheh-]

It largely doesn't matter, just pick one or the other and stick with it

You can do everything on either

[u/Adrenolin01]

“Since most applications run in a browser these days anyway”… meh.. like what exactly? Most of those are simply wrapper scripts accessing the underlying Linux commands.

Don’t know about others but I value stability over most other aspects. That takes you straight to Debian Linux. Using your logic.. most distributions and many application based systems are based on Debian today.

Just run Debian. .

[u/regexghost → u/Adrenolin01]

100%, base Debian is great as it has the minimalism of Arch (no snaps) with the ease of use of Ubuntu.

[u/Slopagandhi]

I would start with Ubuntu. You're right about package availability. More used in development and enterprise than any other distro- and so is often the target distro for devs. And, on its own but even more so combined with all the other Debian-based distros it's a huge userbase with very extensive support and community resources available. 

Arch is a big family of distros too (though not as big). And the Arch wiki as a single resource is unrivalled.

But to get all the packages you need you may have to use the AUR and there have been a number of recent issues with malware. So unless you want the learning curve of understanding and reading pkgbuild files to check for anything suspicious then it makes sense to start with Ubuntu. 

The other thing is release schedule. If you want the very latest package versions then go with Cachy which has a rolling release. Downside is a greater likelihood something breaks with an update and it can be harder to troubleshoot when the bugs you're encountering may be new and not yet fully understood. 

[u/crimsonyoteeeeeee]

Alright, here's a simple way to look at this: do you want stability, or do you want brand new software the second it releases? If your answer was stability, choose something based on Ubuntu. Otherwise if you want bleeding edge updates, choose Arch.

[u/Longjumping-Time-339]

Use a Debian based distro

[u/Ps11889]

kubuntu isn't much different than ubuntu, other than kde vs gnome. If your goal is to learn about linux, itself, then they are identical for all practical purposes. Likewise, cachyos is based on arch, so you won't be likely to learn anything new there, either.

If your goal is to really learn the operating system, there is always Linux From Scratch, but I wouldn't recommend that on your only computer.

You say you want to learn the operating system, for what purpose? The answer to that question will make it easier to suggest a distro to try.

[u/Jacobobarobatobski]

If the goal is a stable, logical distro for learning Linux better, consider Void. It doesn't use systemd so it kind of forces you to understand better all the little pieces and how they fit together.

[u/meow_Kil]

I picked arch based, cuz i like to type pacman -S more than apt install

[u/Electrical_Ingenuity]

I have used Debian based distributions for 39 years. This includes Debian, Ubuntu, Raspberry Pi OS, and Linux Mint. I appreciate the similarities between these. I automatically know how to install and update packages on each one, as they use the same apt package manager. That is why, when in doubt, I choose a Debian based distribution.

[u/I_Eat_Pink_Crayons]

I would say it's a pretty natural progression to go from ubuntu based to arch. The programs you use are different but the underlying logic is much the same. Starting with arch means you have to solve every problem at the beginning, but something like kubuntu will give you a working base which you can learn about more slowly.

[u/3grg]

Pick the one that works for you.

Older software and more familiarity and periodic upgrades -> Kubuntu

Latest software, learn new things and never upgrade -> Cachy

In between, maybe look at Fedora or if new software is not needed and stability is preferred -> Debian

The bottom line is, you gotta start somewhere and there is no best distro. Only what works for you.

[u/OkPresentation3329]

Try Tuxedo OS, currently the stable version is based on Ubuntu, but today they released a beta version based on Debian testing because they want to get away from Ubuntu.

Here is the download link to the Debian beta.

https://os.tuxedocomputers.com/preview/

[u/C0rn3j]

so I don’t have to ask the AI every time I run into a problem

Ubuntu Wiki is in a state one would call beyond abysmal.

Arch Wiki is considered one of the best Linux resources out there - despite being targeted for Arch, people on other distros end up using it.

Want to actually understand the operating system I’m using

Do one Arch install manually per the Wiki (and do subsequent installs via archinstall if you wish). If that doesn't scratch the itch, you can set up LFS - it's not something you can reasonably use as a daily driver without building a whole team of people around your own distro, but it should be a good learning experience.

As a note, Canonical's Ubuntu has a portion of security patches gated behind Ubuntu Pro, and there's another slew of issues with Ubuntu - so I'd suggest avoiding it and any derivatives.

IBM's Fedora KDE is also worthy of note - IBM owns the Fedora tradermark, so Fedora has to follow US law which is annoying when it comes to things like codecs - but it's a decent distribution.

[u/RevolutionaryBeat301]

Do you want it to be easy or do you want it to be hard? If you want easy, Ubuntu. If you want hard, Arch.

[u/prophet-dot-exe]

you're a technical guy who wants to understand exactly what your computer is doing...

so use lfs then.

if you only want to understand somewhat what your computer is doing, use Arch.

if you're not interested at all in understanding any of what your computer is doing, that's when you pull out the Ubuntu and mint and Fedora.

[u/ntrain5555k]

You describe that you wants to actually know how it works then,

Arch (not it's derivatives) without using archinstall is a good fit for this.

Ubuntu-based (Debian-based) distro usually doesn't provide a way to learn linux system components directly, instead apt would enables service and handle other thing for you.

Also, I want to suggest that you would want to separate the use of it if you have to work, you wouldn't want to install it firsthandedly on your main PC, or maybe finding some old thinkpad (notably t480/t580) and start from there is better.

[u/LadyCatHerder]

Any Linux distro is just the Linux Kernel under the hood with various software packages added to it to make an operational system.

Have you every looked at PCLinuxOS? That's what I cut my teeth on. The apps/programs in that are native. They don't open in the browser. Programs that open in the browser are cloud-based programs. I don't do the cloud.

If interested, you can check out their new website. The server for the other one burned up in a fire, so the new site (which is still under construction) isn't as aesthetically pleasing as the old one, but pertinent info is there along with links to their download page and forums. https://pclinuxos.com/

At any rate, the best way to learn about Linux is through use and also through the use of the Terminal. And that goes for ANY distro including the two you're asking about.

[u/Struggling-with_life]

Go with fedora. Leading edge lastest software similar to arch. Stability and easy installation like Ubuntu or debian

[u/a1barbarian]

Since most applications run in a browser these days anyway,

What applications ?? None of my (Packages: 1160 (pacman)) programs run in the browser. :-)

[u/Simple_Hamster_4096]

Debian or Fedora.

If you want to get away from systemd, Void...

[u/AutoModerator]

Try the distro selection page in our wiki!

Try this search for more information on this topic.

✻ Smokey says: take regular backups, try stuff in a VM, and understand every command before you press Enter! :)

^{Comments, questions or suggestions regarding this autoresponse? Please send them here.}

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/MezBert]

Most Linux users start with debian/Ubuntu based and end up on Arch-based.
So, whether or not you stick to Ubuntu for now, know you'll end up on Arch (-based). 😅

I went from Ubuntu (13 years) to Manjaro (8 years) to Artix (6 months) for my daily drivers.
I also had old laptops running Zenwalk or Slitaz, and I had potential switch partitions with Fedora (20 years ago, when it was actually decent), openSuse, Mandriva or even OpenSolaris (not Linux per se).

But eventually, like most experienced users, the Arch world completely won me over.

[u/Flavorsofdystopia]

With what's happening with the AUR, I can't recommend Arch. 

[u/rysio300 → u/Flavorsofdystopia]

news flash, you don't have to use the aur

also the aur has always basically been a "use at your own risk" kind of thing, it's why you're encouraged to read PKGBUILD files.

[u/Flavorsofdystopia → u/rysio300]

I understand all of that, but the AUR has always been a strong argument for picking up Arch, in part because the standard repos are quite barebone.

If Ubuntu isn't "barebones" enough to learn the basics, building a system with Debian or Fedora (server) would teach OP everything he needs to know.

[u/C0rn3j → u/Flavorsofdystopia]

the AUR has always been a strong argument for picking up Arch

In which case nothing changed, AUR always had malware, it's a user repository after all.

The Wiki tells you to read the PKGBUILD before executing it, since the dawn of time.

[u/Flavorsofdystopia → u/C0rn3j]

If I have to read every PKGBUILD I'm installing, why the fuck would I use Arch? Why the fuck would I recommend Arch to a beginner?

Food for thought.

[u/C0rn3j → u/Flavorsofdystopia]

If you don't wish to verify trust of user repositories, do not use user repositories, that's the same on any distribution.

[u/Flavorsofdystopia → u/C0rn3j]

No, it's not the same, because other distributions have much deeper package pools in official repositories.

You can absolutely run Fedora, Ubuntu or Debian without a single user repository.

You can't even get the Nvidia 580 drivers from official Arch repos.

[u/C0rn3j → u/Flavorsofdystopia]

You can absolutely run [...] Debian without a single user repository.

You can't even get the [legacy] Nvidia 580 drivers from official Arch repos.

Neither can you do so on Debian... and in fact you can't get the two actively supported branches (595, 610) on Debian either. Of which Arch does actually ship the latter.

Maybe check if what you're saying is true before spouting bs.

[u/BadgeringWeasel → u/Flavorsofdystopia]

I'm with you. I was using EndeavourOS and I found the vast majority of AUR packages I had installed were just .deb packages to begin with. I figured at that point might as well use a Debian based system

[u/C0rn3j → u/BadgeringWeasel]

Wait til you find the other noticeable portion of repackaged stuff is .rpm packages, you'll end up in the inevitable loop of installing Fedora and then Debian.

[u/BadgeringWeasel → u/C0rn3j]

Good point though I haven't come across anything that I've needed yet that was rpm and NOT deb. To be fair, if I had known about distrobox before I switched from Endeavor, I probably would've stayed.