Interesting idea, didn't think about this before. Still you could argue because of the sandboxed nature, those outdated libraries should'nt be much of a problem?
Totally agree that Archwiki is handsdown the best wiki for Linux. But Debian doesn't deserve this flak imo. It has its place and use cases. Also depending on your requirements as a user can be fine for desktop.
Users not being aware of what kind of package they install on their system and how AUR packages can conflict with normal repo packages. Additionally its a big security risk if you cannot/don't read the code.
AUR is basically like installing software from some kind of online source which is not supervised by anyone.
Do you have any arguments on why you think Arch is easier to use than Debian? Common sense tells me there is none, despite the obvious "well any package is available in AUR so I can install it easypeezy" yolo.
I totally agree being a contrarian outcast, but not because of what I commented earlier. Why would I use flatpak thunderbird when there is version in my repos which just needs to be updated?
AUR is kind of the worst feature Arch offers and I am not actively using Arch right now anyway. Because its used for the wrong purpose: "install any app you need/want". Thats dangerous and creates problems by itself.
I'd rather rely on flatpak/appimages, but open for counter arguments.
Arch doesn't "break" you are doing shit you have no clue about which in turn creates problems, which you then have to fix. Still if you plainly install and update it, I doubt you will notice much difference from an Arch install compared to any other distro.
Using Fedora at home because you have to use Red Hat at work? NOPE, thanks.
Also I wonder if that RHEL focus is mostly american companies? Because here in europe I rarely see RHEL used from my limited perspective.
Very reasonable and insightful write up. Thanks for sharing!