If you did not know any better you would think that distributions like Gentoo and Arch Linux have people hacking away and porting and modifying all their own software. Like with code flying down their screens 24/7 like they are in a Matrix movie.

Yet those same distributions have a multitude of easy to compile-and-install interesting new programs that we on Debian are forced to compile from source the hard way. Speaking of the hard way, boy you better know everything there is to software development to compile something like pcsx2 on a Debian distribution.

One difference is that software on Arch, Gentoo, and the BSDs are meant to actually compile without errors and it is an anomaly when they give errors. On Debian, you always expect compilations to fail. It is devastating when I learn I have to compile something with Debian.

In fact I made this post after finding out that Arch Linux has a "1 click" install for compiling the latest builds of the pcsx2 emulator. It actually is easier than installing on Windows.

On the other hand, I am in the midst of the hardest technology battle of my life trying to get pcsx2 installed on a Debian distribution.

In short - The "hard" distributions are the easiest and the "easy" distributions are by far the hardest. People like myself - we don't get to be super hackers and watch code flying down screens all day long. All we get to do is google for errors day in and day out. Not very glamorous, but that is the real hard work and the reality of using Debian.

Arch isn't a "hacker" distro. You have to use Kali to be a L33T haxor.

From the front page
It has large official repos, and a large AUR. Then there is the ABS where you can make what you wish. And pacman that will keep tract of it all.

I agree with you that using arch has some advantages. That's why I keep on using it.

I assumed the OP was using the term hack "as an inelegant but effective solution to a specific problem" and that Arch was easier to modify then debian versus cracking.

It is probably due to the developers not using use standard kernels and standard configurations so that programs intended to be installed only from their source code may not work without changing their "make" compiler configuration settings.

You seem to be answering your own question.

You may want to try Slackware. Slackware includes by default the full suite of developer tools, libraries, and headers. Out-of-the-box, Slackware can rebuild itself. New applications have a reasonable chance of compiling successfully (if not, usually only a few libraries need to be added).

In contrast, the base Debian installation is designed for most users who will only run pre-compiled binaries. Getting a usable development environment requires hundreds of packages to be installed. Debian's practice of separating libraries into compiled binaries, headers, common files, documentation, and executables multiplies the package count by 5x.

Once one has installed a usable development environment, the list of packages can be saved so that they can be re-installed later if needed. The next applications will be easier to compile.
Ed

Debian is easy to use, probably easier than most. But 'use' and 'install' are not synonymous. Debian is harder to install because of its core philosophy of providing only free and open source software. That means that it will not work correctly on all hardware, especially newer hardware, which requires drivers that are not always free and open source. They are available, but not by default, in the default installation .iso files. Getting them can be difficult for those new to Linux. That is the only reason Debian is considered hard to install. Debian is also a conservative distro, meaning it is slow to adopt new software, doing so only after it is thoroughly tested. If you're addicted to new and shiny stuff, then Debian is not the distro for you. There are lots of distros that only care about new and shiny, so go there if that's your preference. Debian's strength is that it is stable, never breaks unless you run Unstable, or worse Testing. There are hundreds of Debian maintainers and developers, versus a small group or even only one for some distros. So one must ask oneself, what is more important? New and shiny, or just working. The answer is different for everyone. Choose wisely.

I guess it's all personal. Debian and Endeavour (Arch w/ an installer) are my favorite 2 OS's. I think they're both very easy to install, and use. I even think Arch is easy to install the Arch way, just too annoying and slow so I'm unwilling to do it (I reinstall a LOT due to wanting to test different OS's on different hardware). I've never had issues installing anything on either one, even if it was something I had to compile (which I'm loathe to do, and will do anything I can to find an alternative that's available via repos).

Installing Debian these days is very easy, for most people. The liveDVD works well, and it it runs okay from the live boot, it will work after the install. What confuses most new users is disk partitioning, and they should just accept the offered simplified partitioning. The problem comes when they want to dual-boot, and keep Windows on the drive. But just a simple Debian install is simple and easy. Installing on the newest hardware can be problematic, because the newest hardware may not have support in the default kernel. i ran into that when installing on my 10th generation Intel CPU system, but I knew going in that there would be issues, and was prepared for them. The operation was mostly painless, just finding the right firmware and drivers and having it available. If the hardware is a couple of years old, though, it's not at all difficult. Installation of any Linux distro can be an adventure if you've never done it before, though.

Because Arch is aimed at hobbyists and Debian is aimed at professional system administrators.

Not entirely true, and certainly not true in practice. I see tons of people who start on Linux with Debian. I have no hard numbers, though.

But "aimed at" and "used by" are not synonymous. What Dugan wrote is not not entirely true, (but it's not the entire truth either).

Debian is aimed at people who want a stable system - which includes sysadmins and beginners (and others).

Arch is aimed at "competent users who enjoy its 'do-it-yourself' nature" - i.e. hobbyists and hackers (in the original/MIT sense).

Hackers can still use Debian, and sysadmins can still use Arch ...if they're sadists.

Different people can have different experiences regarding what is difficult or easy on any particular software, whether it's aimed at them or not.