now that i have decided to get myself a new os, i m much confused between pacman based arch linux and debian based deepin linux.
i loved the level of customization in arch linux but i havent been really used to a pacman based os whereas, i liked the look and feel of deepin os and its debian based. i just want to know is pacman based os drastically different in terms of commands compared to a debian based os?
if yes, to what extent is the difference?

This article is a quite interesting comparison of package managers (notice that Debian is a distribution while Pacman is a package manager so you're comparing apples and pears):

https://fusion809.github.io/comparis...kage-managers/

Drastically different? No. In terms of package manager commands, pacman is different from Debian's default package manager apt (but once you've learned the basic commands, it's fine and very quick), but in terms of everything else, no.

If you decide to install Arch you may want to install into a VM first.

Beyond the obvious package management, no, there's not a lot of difference. Debian & Arch have both adopted systemd as their init, they have the same base management files. Main thing you'll find is that Arch is MUCH, much, much newer than Debian (off my head I'm not familiar with what branch Deepin is based off, so I'll assume stable), and so some config files may be changed. The other much less obvious difference is that Debians repositories are much larger than Arch's, so if you're looking for some slightly uncommon software, you have a better chance of finding it in Debians repos than Arch's. However, Arch has the AUR, and if you enable it, makes it pretty close to even.

If you decide to go Arch, consider Antergos. Installs a near-vanilla Arch, but without having to print out an installation manual to remember what you need to do next in order to install.

1 members found this post helpful.

Why not just install Debian and customise it? Or, if you're wanting more up-to-date packages then something like Linux Mint Debian Edition gives you more up to date packages, some useful drivers and CODECs and you can customise it to your heart's content -- as you can Deepin, I suppose...

Debian is available as the Stable version: very conservative and fixed for 2 years. Arch is a rolling release, constantly updated: very different! The Arch documentation is better: I don't use Arch, but I often consult their wiki.

The thing to remember with Arch is that you must read the latest notes at the website before doing an update, as it will warn if the latest revisions have any known potential problems. If you do that, you shouldn't have problems, but there is no guarantee that you won't. Sometimes there will be a bad update and you need to know how to recover.

Another thing about Arch is that there is no installer: just a set of instructions on what commands to use! The first time I installed Arch, it took a couple of hours. The second time, I lost internet access before I'd installed a GUI and I never got it back If you want to try Arch (and it is good, if not for the fainthearted), there are re-spins that do the installation for you: Bridge or Archbang.

Another option, if you want to go down the Arch route, is to take Manjaro (https://manjaro.org/) for a spin. In its own words, it "provides all the benefits of the Arch operating system combined with a focus on user-friendliness and accessibility." (and that includes an installer ).

1 members found this post helpful.

Bridge appears to have been abandoned. If you go to their page, there are no downloads, there are basically no posts in their forums for the last 6 months, etc. Having used Bridge, Antergos and Archbang previously, I wholeheartedly would recommend Antergos over the other 2 anyway. Archbang starts out with too much installed to be considered a netinstall, but if it's not stuff you want, then you have to remove it. Bridge I've never gotten to work. I can install Arch proper but have never gotten bridge to be bootable. Antergos is, IMO, the best choice. Gives you choices of what you want to install, and walks you through installing Arch, making it easy. Just my opinion.

I was surprised actually at how much I disliked Manjaro. I thought it should be great, but ended up being thoroughly unimpressed.

Between the two, my preference would be Debian. Debian is rock-solid stable.

Also I'm no fan of bleeding edge--I've have not yet run into a situation where I had to have the absolutely latest version of a package to get done what I want to get done. I you want bleeding edge, Arch is a good choice.

thank you so much guys.....I ve opted for the deepin Linux.

Like metric versus "Standard" tools.

you would put it like that...
I love the "English Units" explanation here as it does show CNN up:
http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/

Cable vs. Dial-Up?

I'd go with Petrol Vs Diesel or some such, I think.

well... that escalated quickly