Why don’t people just use Arch directly instead of using derivatives? Well… I can understand using something like CachyOS as it has a different kernel with optimisations but Manjaro feels very irrelevant. If you just want Arch Linux with simple installation, just use the archinstall script. Regardless of which derivative you use, Arch based distros are going to be heavy maintenance than something like Bazzite, Mint or Ubuntu.
I used Manjaro for a few years before switching to Arch. Manjaro finds a nice sweespot for “Arch but also nice”. Furthermore, Arch has gotten much more user friendly in the last 5 years or so. Back in late 2010s, Manjaro was adding a lot of value on top of Arch.
What really bothered me about Manjaro was the “forum cops” they employ, who are super aggressive to newcomers and unhelpful. It was not a nice experience to seek help. Say what you will about Arch people, they are at least helpful.
I finally switched to Arch when I got my new machine. I recommend the same.
If someone still wants “Arch but also nice,” I’d point them at Garuda tbh. I really liked it but the rolling updates kept breaking my NVIDIA drivers. If not for that I might still be using it.
Manjaro differs from Arch in terms of update cycles. They are not rolling like Arch but adhere to some monthly-ish release cycle. Which i love by the way.
Then why not just update vanilla Arch itself on a monthly basis? Or just use something like Fedora or Bazzite. Using Manjaro kinda defeats the whole purpose of using Arch Linux. It is like getting someone to select your custom PC parts and letting them build your PC. You technically still have a custom PC but is it really?
Those cycles are meant for testing a coherent set of versions. If you update Arch on a monthly basis I’m not quite sure you got the same testing. I’ve been running Manjaro for 8 years now (laptop for business and family stuff) and I can’t remember any issue with it. I also have Endeavour and Debian on my desktop (gaming / casual) and server.
Yeah but Manjaro’s stable repo is around 2 weeks behind Arch’s. So basically any package in the AUR that has newer dependencies might not work well with packages from Manjaro’s repository. So basically you leave out Arch’s main feature half-broken. Thus, usually, people recommend to run pacman+flatpak instead of AUR. Vanilla Arch has worked flawlessly for me. Once an update borked my system but it took like 10mins to rollback and restore to a working snapshot with Timeshift. And has been running flawlessly since then.
Arch is pretty rock stable when you have minimal packages and not the most bleeding edge hardware.
Manjaro has always sold the illusion of “vibes based” stability. It worked well and even some laptops shipped with it. It’s self evident why it’s not an actual improvement but people want whatever value they assign to using arch.
All you said is factually correct but I never had any issue with aur and Manjaro. It seems the issue is more theoretical than anything. On the other side, there are plenty of situations where I don’t want to have frequent 1Gb updates that don’t bring many benefits.
I had Debian and was not satisfied with the fact that I had to wait ages for updates of stuff like KDE Plasma. I wanted something with shorter update intervals.
I decided against Ubuntu because of the company behind it.
I decided against Mint, because it’s on level 3 in the derivate tree, so more places where something can go wrong.
Then I found Manjaro and liked it from the beginning. Very easy to install (no script necessary), awesome custom Plasma theme, short update intervals, …
Arch can be scary. I wanted a reliable, easy OS for private use and I knew, I get that with Manjaro. With Arch, I was not sure whether I might FCK something up.
from what ive heard of manjaro, they do less testing on new packages than arch. also, nothing on arch ever broke my pc except for the clock, which was probably because i configured it wrong (didn’t use archinstall).
only time an update has ever done anything bad was like a week ago when plasma 6.6 launched and the login freezed the pc, but that was on cachyos, not main arch.
Arch derivatives that don’t do anything to the core packages or the root system seem very pointless to me. Because you can setup Vanilla Arch to be exactly like that derivative if you wanted to since Arch being a DIY distro. Arch based derivatives create unnecessary fragmentation in already fragmented Linux world. Arch itself is targeted for intermediate to advanced users to build a system from base.
It makes sense to make derivatives from Debian or Fedora because they have a lot of stuff packed in them for them to be user friendly and work out-of-the-box experience — then derivatives can add from or reduce from to make a distro designed for a specific use which can take much longer time than if the user did it by themselves since those parent distros are usually targeted for non tech enthusiasts.
Back in 2015 for gaming PC: Steam and Nvidia driver updates via package manager, Xfce (used it before on multiple laptops), promise to be more stable than vanilla arch.
Why don’t people just use Arch directly instead of using derivatives? Well… I can understand using something like CachyOS as it has a different kernel with optimisations but Manjaro feels very irrelevant. If you just want Arch Linux with simple installation, just use the
archinstallscript. Regardless of which derivative you use, Arch based distros are going to be heavy maintenance than something like Bazzite, Mint or Ubuntu.I used Manjaro for a few years before switching to Arch. Manjaro finds a nice sweespot for “Arch but also nice”. Furthermore, Arch has gotten much more user friendly in the last 5 years or so. Back in late 2010s, Manjaro was adding a lot of value on top of Arch.
What really bothered me about Manjaro was the “forum cops” they employ, who are super aggressive to newcomers and unhelpful. It was not a nice experience to seek help. Say what you will about Arch people, they are at least helpful.
I finally switched to Arch when I got my new machine. I recommend the same.
If someone still wants “Arch but also nice,” I’d point them at Garuda tbh. I really liked it but the rolling updates kept breaking my NVIDIA drivers. If not for that I might still be using it.
Manjaro differs from Arch in terms of update cycles. They are not rolling like Arch but adhere to some monthly-ish release cycle. Which i love by the way.
Then why not just update vanilla Arch itself on a monthly basis? Or just use something like Fedora or Bazzite. Using Manjaro kinda defeats the whole purpose of using Arch Linux. It is like getting someone to select your custom PC parts and letting them build your PC. You technically still have a custom PC but is it really?
Those cycles are meant for testing a coherent set of versions. If you update Arch on a monthly basis I’m not quite sure you got the same testing. I’ve been running Manjaro for 8 years now (laptop for business and family stuff) and I can’t remember any issue with it. I also have Endeavour and Debian on my desktop (gaming / casual) and server.
Yeah but Manjaro’s stable repo is around 2 weeks behind Arch’s. So basically any package in the AUR that has newer dependencies might not work well with packages from Manjaro’s repository. So basically you leave out Arch’s main feature half-broken. Thus, usually, people recommend to run pacman+flatpak instead of AUR. Vanilla Arch has worked flawlessly for me. Once an update borked my system but it took like 10mins to rollback and restore to a working snapshot with Timeshift. And has been running flawlessly since then.
Arch is pretty rock stable when you have minimal packages and not the most bleeding edge hardware.
Manjaro has always sold the illusion of “vibes based” stability. It worked well and even some laptops shipped with it. It’s self evident why it’s not an actual improvement but people want whatever value they assign to using arch.
All you said is factually correct but I never had any issue with aur and Manjaro. It seems the issue is more theoretical than anything. On the other side, there are plenty of situations where I don’t want to have frequent 1Gb updates that don’t bring many benefits.
My thinking process years ago was:
I had Debian and was not satisfied with the fact that I had to wait ages for updates of stuff like KDE Plasma. I wanted something with shorter update intervals.
I decided against Ubuntu because of the company behind it.
I decided against Mint, because it’s on level 3 in the derivate tree, so more places where something can go wrong.
Then I found Manjaro and liked it from the beginning. Very easy to install (no script necessary), awesome custom Plasma theme, short update intervals, …
Arch can be scary. I wanted a reliable, easy OS for private use and I knew, I get that with Manjaro. With Arch, I was not sure whether I might FCK something up.
from what ive heard of manjaro, they do less testing on new packages than arch. also, nothing on arch ever broke my pc except for the clock, which was probably because i configured it wrong (didn’t use archinstall).
only time an update has ever done anything bad was like a week ago when plasma 6.6 launched and the login freezed the pc, but that was on cachyos, not main arch.
I think, I haven’t had any mentionable problem with Manjaro over multiple years.
Arch derivatives that don’t do anything to the core packages or the root system seem very pointless to me. Because you can setup Vanilla Arch to be exactly like that derivative if you wanted to since Arch being a DIY distro. Arch based derivatives create unnecessary fragmentation in already fragmented Linux world. Arch itself is targeted for intermediate to advanced users to build a system from base.
It makes sense to make derivatives from Debian or Fedora because they have a lot of stuff packed in them for them to be user friendly and work out-of-the-box experience — then derivatives can add from or reduce from to make a distro designed for a specific use which can take much longer time than if the user did it by themselves since those parent distros are usually targeted for non tech enthusiasts.
Back in 2015 for gaming PC: Steam and Nvidia driver updates via package manager, Xfce (used it before on multiple laptops), promise to be more stable than vanilla arch.