I switched from Ubuntu to Debian, and it’s basically the same thing, just faster since it uses native packages instead of Snaps. Ubuntu might as well run all it’s apps in Docker containers.
You could rebrand Debian to Ubuntu and most users wouldn’t even notice.
The shortest answer -
Arch has really good documentation and a release style that works for a lot of people.
Ubuntu is coorporitized and less reliable Debian with features that many people dont need or want.
Can you elaborate a bit on don’t need or want software?
The biggest one: Snaps.
I switched from Ubuntu to Debian, and it’s basically the same thing, just faster since it uses native packages instead of Snaps. Ubuntu might as well run all it’s apps in Docker containers.
You could rebrand Debian to Ubuntu and most users wouldn’t even notice.
I agree, I switched from Ubuntu to MX Linux in 2016 or so, MX is based on Debian, always up to date, just works, Xfce, .deb, no snap, etc
These days it’s mainly snap and how you can type apt install and the system will do snap install instead, for firefox for example.
like forcing snap or amazon search ads back in the day
Or mir, or pulseaudio before it was ready, or deprecating ffmpeg for half a year… Etc etc
In some release they removed gdebi package installer so it made unavailable to install deb files with gui
“Bloat” the less system there is (while still working as a modern system) the better. If i need something i can install it myself.