But Nix and Guix are still very very new. Arch Linux has the best overall package management system, nothing else even comes close. Wrapping it is a way better option than trying to reinvent it from the ground up.
If Arch didn't exist, I'd lean on Debian before going Nix.
Sure, but Nix is very weird, and takes quite a different approach compared to other things. Understanding Linux is both necessary, but not sufficient.
But comparing Arch an NixOS:
- Arch requires more elbow grease than Ubuntu. NixOS requires more elbow grease than Ubuntu. I wouldn't recommend either to beginners.
- On the other hand: NixOS is immutable and pure, whereas Arch is a system that can be beaten into shape. - Or the Arch Linux wiki is fantastic, and Nix documentation is .. all over the place.
(Maybe AUR is better than Nixpkgs; but ultimately nix is a much more powerful tool than pacman strives to be).
Nix is different, but I wouldn't say its _weird_. Nix the language is weird, but the packaging system is pretty straightforward. Imagine that every single thing you install is done in a chroot, so you need to declare exactly what it depends on to have it work. Thats it.
My point is that if you are comfortable with the effort needed for Arch, NixOS is _probably_ a better option because I think it does the same thing but better.
But Nix and Guix are still very very new. Arch Linux has the best overall package management system, nothing else even comes close. Wrapping it is a way better option than trying to reinvent it from the ground up.
If Arch didn't exist, I'd lean on Debian before going Nix.