Arch is very high-maintenance. Try Debian 13, it just came out this week. Ubuntu is okay but it has a lot of crapware compared to Debian. If your Wi-Fi and GPU work on Debian you do not need Ubuntu.

I’m an experienced Linux desktop user of about 15 years and I switched from Arch to Debian and I don’t miss Arch. If you need bleeding-edge software you can use a combo of Nix, language package managers, and building from source. Arch doesn’t add much plus I frequently ran the wrong pacman command and soft-locked myself out of the OS. Debian doesn’t do that to me.

GLIBC

Debian because it’s like Ubuntu (one of the most popular distros, with tons of software targeting it) minus the Canonical stuff I don’t need. And newer Debians even have Wi-Fi out of the box

xfce or KDE because GNOME is just too far-out for me. They wanted to get rid of tray icons and stuff. They keep moving things around, seemingly for the sake of moving things around, or maybe to look more like phones. I don’t need my desktop to be a phone.

apt isn’t the greatest package manager but, there’s a lot to be said for popularity, and no matter how many times someone said “Don’t upgrade Arch the wrong way” I kept breaking my Arch install. Debian works because apt doesn’t let me accidentally break it. (I think I was doing the pacman equivalent of apt update and then apt install. I don’t know why the fuck that breaks a PM. The point of a PM is to keep yourself from breaking stuff. If I wanted broken shit I wouldn’t use the PM. On two occasions Arch also soft-bricked itself because I updated pacman into a state where it could no longer run. This seems like one of the simplest things a good PM should prevent. Whereas with apt, I’m not sure it’s been updated ever. It ain’t perfect but it’s predictable.)