Arch is supposedly a good distribution to learn Linux under the hood, but I learned a lot about Linux and the CLI when Arch did not even exist (back then you ha

Arch is supposedly a good distribution to learn Linux under the hood, but I learned a lot about Linux and the CLI when Arch did not even exist (back then you had Slackware which was all about DIY, later on Gentoo had all the rice, ...). I frankly don't understand the hype. If you want a rolling release, you can also run Debian Testing or Unstable or any BSD-CURRENT. From a technical PoV I don't see what Arch does different (in contrast to an OS like NixOS, QubesOS, Tails, or Kali). The Arch wiki is excellent, so perhaps that is what Arch brings to the table, AUR being the other (its huge). Fragmentation, when it makes sense (such as the examples I mentioned) is OK but all these thirteen in a dozen distributions won't be missed by me. Isn't it bloody annoying already when you're a Debian person and work at a RedHat shop? Why would I add another factor to that? And a rolling release OS is great on your main primary desktop. It isn't on a server, nor on a secondary computer on the side. Hence instead of Arch I recommend to play around with both Debian and RedHat based OSes to get familiar with both. As both of these are the standard in the industry (not Arch). That and a distribution tailored for a purpose, such as the ones I mentioned. The other distribution I never understood the popularity about is Manjaro. It used to be top on Distrowatch (its #2 now). Why though? I don't know anyone who uses that. It has no market penetration in the server space AFAIK. That being said, we are talking in a thread for and by Arch users. It ain't nice to break their party. I'll end my post wishing all to enjoy Arch Conf 2020!