Arch Linux

You learn more about the components of your system, and therefore learn more about fixing things or debugging what could be wrong. Arch is only difficult once.

I think there's benefits with more recent packages, the package manager (pacman) and the AUR. But if you're new or don't have much experience then something like Ubuntu or Mint is a more sensible distro to begin with. At least they start with some applications and such so you know what's out there and how some things work.

If you just want to fire up your system with arguably sane defaults and use it, no there really isn't. Where Arch shines is in providing a mostly blank slate for people with opinions about how their system should be set up. It provides the tools and documentation then mostly stays out of the admin's way.

Archwiki is probably the best Linux documentation in existance. It greatly lowers the barrier of entry.

Arch is a rolling release that gets the newest software once it's available. Ubuntus is Debian-based and it's also following the principle of stability over modernity so there's a big difference between how recent software you're gonna run on those two types of distros. But if you want to try the rolling approach you doesn't have to go directly for arch, you can use some Arch-based distro like M*****o (not recommended due to justified controversy). I know there are also Arco, Artix and Garuda that are arch based but I didn't test them. You could use them, experience pacman and aur but without struggle of setting up arch and once you get comfortable you may want to give arch a try

Seems like you answered your own question. Arch is not for people who want something that works out of box. If you want a GUI, suspend on lid close, sleep on idle, etc. by default, don't do Arch. You have to be prepared to debug issues, configure lower level OS features, and read a lot through the wiki and web searches of you are going to use Arch.

Nothing is enabled after installation. While it can be a daunting task to manually hook up your PC to the wifi manually, this philosophy lets you hand-pick the services which you actually want to run, catering for a very personalised and clearly defined system.

I always say I started using arch for the "nerd cred" and stuck with it because of the package manager.

My main reasons for me to use arch are:

1. I can configure my system as I want it and if something breaks later I know how things fit together so I can fix them. Arch taught me a lot about Linux in general
2. The rolling release getting you new packages quite fast and not requiring you to do one big possibly breaking update once every year/two years (Ubuntu updates used to break for me a lot, I know that's much better now)
3. The package manager makes sense to me in so many ways. Especially compared with the apt-get, apt-cache, apt-key ... stuff you used to need. These days just using "apt" makes stuff much easier on Ubuntu as well.

If your new is still recommend Ubuntu as a starting point since installation is quite hassle free and most "Linux" tutorials online are geared toward Ubuntu. And then once you learned some Linux and you know what annoys you in ubuntu you can still switch "fixing" those things in your arch install. If you do go with arch were sure all happy to help.

I'm new to Arch, and one of the standout features is it's a lights out Linux distribution option. I've learnt more on Linux in a few days because of switching to Arch for my next PC. Linux Mint affords far less involvement for example.

It depends what you want out of your system. If you just want a "plug and play" machine that will do most things reasonably well, by all means stick with Ubuntu.

If you want complete knowledge of exactly what you've got installed (and just as importantly what's not been installed) and how it's been set up, and tuned and tweaked to your ideal requirements, Arch is a great choice.