What can you guys (or anyone else) tell me that'll sell me on trying Arch? I've read that the package manager is really first class and I like that.
With Arch, you only install the software you actually need. A pure base install includes the kernel, toolchain, and a handful of utilities. No X server, no desktop, no window manager. You have complete control over what additional software you install.
I have Arch on two machines: a small server and my main laptop. On the server, I have the base install, plus CUPS, Apache, iscan (for my Epson scanner), SSH, postfix, ntpd, dovecot, and nfs. I run it headless, so no X server, etc.
On my laptop I have Xmonad as window manager, plus the usual stuff: Firefox, mplayer, etc. I think tiling window managers are brilliant, so that's what I installed. If I liked Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Awesome, etc., I could have installed those instead of, or in addition to, Xmonad. With Arch, you decide, and sit back and just shake your head at the Ubuntards whining about the current state of Gnome, Unity, and whatnot.
Secondly, Arch stresses simplicity. Its configuration files are very straightforward. There is no complicated init.d system for daemons, or multiple run levels, like Ubuntu, Fedora, and other distros have. You configure the entire system yourself by editing a handful of files in /etc. Most users can accept 99% of the defaults, but the installation walks you through every file, so you understand its function, and can tweak it later, if the need arises.
Because of the transparency and simplicity of the configuration, the fact that the installation walks you through the configuration files, and the fact that you only install precisely the software you need, you will understand your system very well. Because it is simpler than other Linux distros, there is less that can go wrong, and because it is simple and you understand it well, if something does go wrong, you will likely be able to diagnose the error quickly and fix it. Furthermore, even if you get stuck, as eerok mentioned, most Arch users actually know what they are doing. If you ask a question on the Arch forums, rather than getting 50 responses from people taking wild guesses at the answer (as is de rigueur on the Ubuntu forums), you will likely get a knowledgeable response, often from one of the developers. This assumes that the answer isn't in the extremely thorough Wiki, which it probably is.
Finally, package management and dependency handling are outstanding. Official packages are normally installed as binaries; however, in the rare case that you want to tweak something at compile time, you can download the source code instead, using the Arch Build System, which will still pull in the dependencies for you. Community contributed packages are compiled from source, again, using a system that takes care of dependencies and avoids conflicts.
Arch is a great distro for anyone with a modest amount of Linux experience, who doesn't mind getting their hands a little dirty in exchange for a flexible, well-maintained system that they have full control over and can tailor to their exact needs.
Jay
