After spending years messing with RPM packages in the sysadmin world, I now breathe a sigh of relief with Arch/pacman. Building/maintaining/installing RPMs is painful compared to Arch or Debian's dpkg.
I thought dnf was the new hotness in the package management world. Is apt still superior?
You can also revert multiple transactions at once, e.g. restore the package versions to what they were three months ago.
There's nothing remotely like this in apt -- if you install a lot of packages on your system, and then want to remove them, the common solution is something like "parse the (text) apt logs, learn manually what's changed, and revert it yourself".
Some other niceties:
* package groups: `dnf install @'c development'` instead of `apt install binutils gcc make bison yacc whatever-else`. Somewhat mitigated by metapackages, but they rarely cover the whole groups of functionality, i.e. they are often more low-level.
* package streams: `dnf install node-8`, or `node-9`, or one of the other supported versions;
* dnf downloads many packages in parallel, and the level of parallelism is configurable. This greatly helps with upgrades from slow mirrors. I believe it can also utilize multiple mirrors at once, though I haven't tried it.
* dnf supports plugins and you can install them with a simple command. For example, there's a plugin to automatically create btrfs snapshots on every package upgrade.
* COPR saved my skin a couple of times, though it's basically the same thing as Ubuntu's PPAs. This is more of a problem for Debian.