Fedora gives you a secure and functional desktop distro out of the box while with Arch, you can get that as well but have to invest more configuration time, since you have to configure things like Secure Boot, SELinux, disk encryption, firewalls, AppArmor and other security stuff by yourself, it’s not going to have all that jazz by default, since Arch is a minimalistic and modular DIY-like distro, so it’s up to the user to configure this. Arch doesn’t put obstacles in the way of the user but also doesn’t just preconfigure this stuff. But it’s all there if you need it. Arch also offers a linux-hardened kernel variant which uses various hardening patches of the GrapheneOS project for the kernel (not sure if Fedora offers this as well). Experienced Linux users tend to like Arch’s approach because of more flexibility, modularity and minimalism while still offering everything necessary, but the less experienced of a user you are the more you probably will have problems with this approach, and the more you want more things to be pre-configured out of the box, so that you as the user have to configure less stuff. The more you view it that way, the less suitable Arch is for you.

But both are excellent and modern distros. Fedora is generally for people who want to generally spend less time configuring their desktop distro. Arch is for people looking for either a more universal distro or something more modular, technically simple and customizable.

The RedHat backing of Fedora can be a blessing (lots of great stuff came from RedHat so far) but also could become a curse soon due to IBM’s influence (which bought RedHat some time ago, and IBM isn’t such a great company, and this can negatively impact RedHat as well) and current US politics (it’s a US-based company). Arch, on the other hand, is even more independent than Fedora is and it’s a fully community-run distro, and from all community-run distros, it’s of very high quality, similar to Debian. Both Debian and Arch are also quite democratic in nature. If IBM hadn’t bought RedHat, and US wouldn’t be like it is today, I’d maybe view this differently but as it is I’d rather use a community-run distro than a US-corporation backed one. Even if Fedora is still very independent as a project, or so it seems.

If you’re very well familiar with Arch there’s really no need to switch to Fedora, but it can save you some time or configuration trouble overall in some cases, while it could also mean more potential trouble with major upgrades than with Arch with its frequent but lightweight updates all the time and never a big major version upgrade because Arch has no versions at all, it’s purely rolling, whereas Fedora is a mixture of rolling and point release. That said, if you update your Arch very infrequently (e.g. only once every couple of weeks), you will also have a higher chance of update troubles (though these are often easy to solve for an experienced Arch user, but can be crippling for a newbie). To benefit from Arch’s update mechanisms, you have to update frequently, as in every couple of days, at the very least once a week. And you really should set up a fallback mechanism, e.g. via filesystem snapshots, so you can revert an update which went wrong. Although so far, one of my Arch installations here is like 7 years old and there were only very minor update issues during that whole time, all of which were solvable via downgrading a specific package, waiting 1-3 days for the fix and then upgrading that package. So I’d say Arch is much more stable than its reputation, but still, even objectively small update issues can be devastating for you if you don’t know how to solve them, so it again depends on the user.

Another factor is probably going to be whether the AUR or Fedora’s community repos have more of the additional packages that you need for your use cases, from the packages that aren’t in the default repos.

Which of the two distros makes more sense depends highly on the user, the user’s familiarity with Linux basics, the user’s available time, and general use cases. I’d say both choices are excellent for a desktop distro, and Fedora would immediately become my daily driver if I ever became unhappy with Arch. Which so far hasn’t happened.

Another option if you still can’t decide between those two excellent distros would be an Arch derivative like EndeavourOS or CachyOS, which pre-configure more of Arch for an easier desktop use out of the box. So they are more like Arch of course (based on it) but trade away some of Arch’s subjective “weaknesses” for Fedora’s subjective “strengths”. I say “subjective” because those weaknesses and strengths can be different for each user and use case. Sometimes this gets forgotten in discussions like this. It’s not a clearly defined drawback if your distro doesn’t preconfigure most stuff out of the box. Whether that is a drawback or not depends on the user. However I’d assume that most users probably prefer more pre-configuration. But still, one size doesn’t fit all.

Well this got longer than intended but I hope it helps for decision making.

It’s the other way around. In general, you should choose Linux over Windows, and only if you really need it, use Windows. Also, if you need Windows just temporarily for some things, consider running it in a VM inside Linux just for those occasions.

Why - well, to keep it short, Linux’ main weaknesses for common users (difficulty, compatibility) are gradually fading away (they are already almost non-existent these days if you have mainstream hardware and a mainstream desktop distro like Mint, Fedora, Ubuntu) while Windows’ main disadvantages (forced stuff like cloud/AI integrations/ads, complete disregard of user’s privacy, increasing security issues due to outdated stuff being kept in the OS for backwards compatibility reasons, and many more things) keep on increasing at a rapid rate. Microsoft has a big business interest in getting all users locked into their cloud ecosystem, locked into a subscription with ever-increasing monthly fees, and give up control over their own computer and their digital privacy. They want users to pay them with their data AND monthly subscription fees. MS Office, for example, will probably not have a pure locally runnable version after 2029 (or around that year) anymore. This Microsoft train is heading towards that wall. And the speed is increasing. And tons of users are still inside that train. And Windows itself likely won’t be spared either. They want you to pay monthly for M365 and they will get their customers there, eventually.

Furthermore, by supporting Microsoft you’re supporting a very unethical company. They partner with big surveillance companies like Palantir and they are an active participant in the despicable ad-tech-industry (the industry that’s spying on literally everyone and buying/selling/storing tons of intimate user data even though it’s illegal in most countries), they partner with the military, law enforcement and other things. Also, they are a US company, and we all know how US politics is like these days, and this can have a big influence on how “trustworthy” US-based proprietary software will become in the near future. Since 2020, arguably no US-based proprietary software or online service is trustworthy anymore anyway, because of the CLOUD act, which is current law in the US - it means that the US government has access to any customer data stored by a US-based company, regardless of where on Earth they are storing it. This means the often-used claim “my data stored by that US company is safe because it’s in a European-based datacenter!!!11” is false since at least 2020, because MS is forced by US law to grant technical access to customer data to their government. Also, all previous “data transfer privacy agreements” between EU and US like Privacy Shield were all a joke and were dismantled in courts already. So there’s currently zero legal data protection - any data you send to a US company is theirs to do with as they please, essentially. And even if there were any meaningful legal data protections left, those big tech companies might still simply ignore that data protection law and only face minor or no fines at all.

So this is not a baseless claim. Just because I might keep some statements short doesn’t mean that there are no backing arguments. It’s a very good idea to reduce your dependency on Microsoft’s (or in general, US-based) proprietary software and services. For multiple reasons. Digital sovereignty has never been more important than these days. It has always been important but it was maybe too abstract in the past for many common users to realize. They are slowly starting to realize now that dependencies on proprietary software from any rogue regime (and the current US regime also falls into that category now) are not great to have. Plus, there is Microsoft on its own already putting ever-increasing user- and customer-hostile features into their products. It’s like being in an abusive relationship (as the one being abused). It’s just not good for you long-term.

So as a user, you should instead choose software which allows you to retain your digital sovereignty and control over your own computing, and simply not take all that abuse. Linux- or *BSD-based OSes with their open/transparent development models, fork-able/modifiable code bases, permissive licensing and essentially zero unwanted crap like adware, spyware, bloatware etc. offer exactly that. And because mainstream Linux distros have already become so easy to use these days, there are almost no reasons not to start using them.

Obviously Linux is the correct choice but I fear most will simply continue to suck it up and update to W11.

1. False promises early on

We desktop Linux users are partly to blame for this. In ~1998 there was massive hype and media attention towards Linux being this viable alternative to Windows on the desktop. A lot of magazines and websites claimed that. Well, in 1998 I can safely say that Linux could be seen as an alternative, but not a mainstream compatible one. 25 years later, it’s much easier to argue that it is, because it truly is easy to use nowadays, but back then, it certainly wasn’t yet. The sad thing is, that we Linux users kind of caused a lot of people to think negatively about desktop Linux, just because we tried pushing them towards it too early on. A common problem in tech I think, where tech which isn’t quite ready yet is being hyped as ready. Which leads to the second point:

2. FUD / lack of information / lack of access to good, up to date information

People see low adoption rates, hear about “problems” or think it’s a “toy for nerds”, or still have an outdated view on desktop Linux. These things stick, and probably also cause people to think “oh yeah I’ve heard about that, it’s probably nothing for me”

3. Preinstallations / OEM partnerships

MS has a huge advantage here, and a lot of the like really casual ordinary users out there will just use whatever comes preinstalled on their devices, which is in almost 100% of all cases Windows.

4. Schools / education

They still sometimes or even often(?) teach MS product usage, to “better prepare the students for their later work life where they almost certainly use ‘industry standard’ software like MS Office”. This gets them used to the combo MS Windows+Office at an early age. A massive problem, and a huge failure of the education system to not be neutral in that regard.

5. Hardware and software devs ALWAYS ensure that their stuff is compatible with Windows due to its market share, but don’t often ensure this for Linux, and whether 3rd party drivers are 100% feature complete or even working at all, is not sure

So you still need to be a bit careful about what you use (hardware & software) on Linux, while for Windows it’s pretty much “turn your brain off, pick anything, it’ll work”. Just a problem of adoption rate though, as Linux grew, its compatibility grew as well, so this problem decreased by a lot already, but of course until everything will also automatically work on Linux, and until most devs will port their stuff to Linux as well as Windows and OS X, it will still need even more market share for desktop Linux. Since this is a known chicken-egg-effect (Linux has low adoption because software isn’t available, but for software to become available, Linux marketshare needs to grow), we need to do it anyway, just to get out of that “dilemma”. Just like Valve did when they said one day “ok f*ck this, we might have problems for our main business model when Microsoft becomes a direct competitor to Steam, so we must push towards neutral technologies, which is Linux”. And then they did, and it worked out well for them, and the Linux community as a whole benefited from this due to having more choice now on which platforms their stuff can run. Even if we’re talking about a proprietary application here, it’s still a big milestone when you can run so many more applications/games suddenly on Linux, than before, and it drives adoption rates higher as well. So there you have a company who just did it, despite market share dictating that they shouldn’t have done that. More companies need to follow, because that will also automatically increase desktop Linux marketshare, and this is all inter-connected. More marketshare, more devs, more compatibility, more apps available, and so on. Just start doing it, goddamnit. Staying on Windows means supporting the status quo and not helping to make any positive progress.

6. Either the general public needs to become more familiar with CLI usage (I’d prefer that), or Linux desktop applications need to become more feature-complete so that almost everything a regular user needs can be done via GUI as well

This is still not the case yet, but it’s gotten better. Generally speaking: If you’re afraid of the CLI, Linux is not something for you probably. But you shouldn’t be afraid of it. You also aren’t afraid of chat prompts. Most commands are easy to understand.

7. The amount of choice the user is confronted with (multiple distros, desktop environments, and so on) can lead to option paralysis

So people think they either have to research each option (extra effort required), or are likely to “choose wrong”, and then don’t choose at all. This is just an education issue though. People need to realize that this choice isn’t bad, but actually good, and a consequence of an open environment where multiple projects “compete” for the same spot. Often, there are only a few viable options anyway. So it’s not like you have to check out a lot. But we have to make sure that potential new users know which options are a great starting point for them, and not have them get lost in researching some niche distros/projects which they shouldn’t start out with generally.

8. “Convenience is a drug”

Which means a lot of people, even smart ones, will not care about any negatives as long as the stuff they’re using works without any perceived user-relevant issues. Which means: they’ll continue to use Windows even after it comes bundled with spyware, because they value the stuff “working” more than things like user control/agency, privacy, security and other more abstract things. This is problematic, because they position themselves in an absolute dependency where they can’t get out of anymore and where all sorts of data about their work, private life, behavior, and so on is being leaked to external 3rd parties. This also presents a high barrier of convincing them to start becoming more technically independent: why should they make an effort to switch away from something that works in their eyes? This is a huge problem. It’s the same with Twitter/X or Reddit, not enough people switch away from those, even though it’s easy to do nowadays. Even after so much negative press lately most still stick around. It’s so hard to get the general population moving to something better once they’ve kind of stuck with one thing already. But thankfully, at least on Windows, the process of “enshittification” (forced spyware, bloatware, adware, cloud integrations, MS accounts) continues at a fast pace, which means many users won’t need to be convinced to use Linux, but rather they will at some point be annoyed by Windows/Microsoft itself. Linux becoming easier to use and Windows becoming more annoying and user-hostile at the same time will thankfully accelerate the “organic” Linux growth process, but it’ll still take a couple of years.

9. “Peer pressure” / feeling of being left alone

As a desktop Linux user, chances are high that you’re an “outsider” among your peers who probably use Windows. Not everyone can feel comfortable in such a role over a longer period of time. Just a matter of market share, again, but still can pose a psychological issue maybe in some cases. Or it can lead to peer pressure, like when some Windows game or something isn’t working fully for the Linux guy, that there will be peer pressure to move to Windows just to get that one working. As one example.

10. Following the hype of new software releases and thinking that you always need the most features or that you need the “industry standard” when you don’t really need it.

A lot of users probably prefer something like MS Office with its massive feature set and “industry standard” label over the libre/free office suites. Because something that has less features could be interpreted as being worse. But here it’s important to educate such users that it really only matters whether all features they NEED are present. And if so, it wouldn’t matter for them which they use. MS Office for example has a multi-year lead in development (it was already dominating the office suite market world-wide when Linux was still being born so to say) so of course it has more features accumulated over this long time, but most users actually don’t need them. Sure, everyone uses a different subset of features, but it’s at least likely that the libre office suites contain everything most users need. So it’s just about getting used to them. Which is also hard, to make a switch, to change your workflows, etc., so it would be better if MS Office could work on Linux so that people could at least be able to continue to use that even though it’s not recommended to do so (proprietary, spyware, MS cloud integrations). But since I’m all for having more options, it would at least be better in general for it to be available as well. But until that happens, we need to tell potential new users that they probably can also live with the alternatives just fine.