> From a technical PoV I don't see what Arch does different
I can't speak for everyone, but here are some things I see:
- Arch minimizes modification of code in packages, which is nice in reducing bugs or idiosyncrasies introduced via distros.
- Pacman (and its surroundings) is far more convenient, far more robust, and generally far less of a headache to deal with than apt. Hell, even figuring out what flags apt-get install accepts is an ordeal (--help? you must be joking?), let alone the nightmare it is every time you need it to do a serious job.
Not sure if these qualify as "technical" to you, but they're important. (Unless they don't and you consider anything nontechnical to be unimportant.)
I can't speak for everyone, but here are some things I see:
- Arch minimizes modification of code in packages, which is nice in reducing bugs or idiosyncrasies introduced via distros.
- Pacman (and its surroundings) is far more convenient, far more robust, and generally far less of a headache to deal with than apt. Hell, even figuring out what flags apt-get install accepts is an ordeal (--help? you must be joking?), let alone the nightmare it is every time you need it to do a serious job.
Not sure if these qualify as "technical" to you, but they're important. (Unless they don't and you consider anything nontechnical to be unimportant.)