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.
“Why do people buy a car if they can make one themselves” type of argument. I’m a little shocked someone can walk so close to the point and not get it. It’s practically stabbing them in their face.
More like the manufacturer has stated that this car is meant to be built by the user themselves so they can understand it and maintain it by themselves, but then the user outsources it to a car builder who thinks one specific way of doing things is better (nothing wrong with it) instead and they slap their own branding on it. Then if the car breaks down due to a part incompatibility, the user doesn’t know what shit to do.
Sure, but the user knowing how to fix something or not wasn’t the problem or related to anything you said. It’s that you said they seem pointless to you and went on to describe their exact point of existence.
To be very clear, I’m not trying to make an argument for or against Arch derivatives, I just thought it was funny that you said they’re pointless because you can customize them when people use them specifically because they don’t want to bother with doing those customizations themselves.
I would consider using Endeavor OS because I just want something that can do basic work once it’s installed (I use CachyOS which is also an Arch derivative, but it modifies core packages which is different from what you’re talking about). Manjaro has separate criticisms, I’m not saying it’s “good.” I’m just saying it shouldn’t be surprising that someone wants to use Arch and wants customization on a bleeding edge, rolling release, but wants a system that isn’t quite so minimal once they’re done installing.
(I should try to install Arch to a VM or something and use this archinstall script. Because if it works as well as everyone says then my opinion might be different.)
I mean I get it. I am not an Arch elitist or something. Manjaro is doing something nobel. But it just goes against Arch’s philosophy of building and maintaining your own system and being responsible for it. That’s why I don’t see the point of Manjaro other than beginners saying “I use Arch btw”.
i wouldn’t call myself a Linux newbie, and I use CachyOS out of necessity (I have an ASUS laptop), and I’m perfectly content to introduce myself as way too lazy to do it the “proper” Arch way. Maybe someday.
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.
There’s the difference, you don’t have to set the derivative up.
“Why do people buy a car if they can make one themselves” type of argument. I’m a little shocked someone can walk so close to the point and not get it. It’s practically stabbing them in their face.
More like the manufacturer has stated that this car is meant to be built by the user themselves so they can understand it and maintain it by themselves, but then the user outsources it to a car builder who thinks one specific way of doing things is better (nothing wrong with it) instead and they slap their own branding on it. Then if the car breaks down due to a part incompatibility, the user doesn’t know what shit to do.
Sure, but the user knowing how to fix something or not wasn’t the problem or related to anything you said. It’s that you said they seem pointless to you and went on to describe their exact point of existence.
To be very clear, I’m not trying to make an argument for or against Arch derivatives, I just thought it was funny that you said they’re pointless because you can customize them when people use them specifically because they don’t want to bother with doing those customizations themselves.
I would consider using Endeavor OS because I just want something that can do basic work once it’s installed (I use CachyOS which is also an Arch derivative, but it modifies core packages which is different from what you’re talking about). Manjaro has separate criticisms, I’m not saying it’s “good.” I’m just saying it shouldn’t be surprising that someone wants to use Arch and wants customization on a bleeding edge, rolling release, but wants a system that isn’t quite so minimal once they’re done installing.
(I should try to install Arch to a VM or something and use this archinstall script. Because if it works as well as everyone says then my opinion might be different.)
I mean I get it. I am not an Arch elitist or something. Manjaro is doing something nobel. But it just goes against Arch’s philosophy of building and maintaining your own system and being responsible for it. That’s why I don’t see the point of Manjaro other than beginners saying “I use Arch btw”.
i wouldn’t call myself a Linux newbie, and I use CachyOS out of necessity (I have an ASUS laptop), and I’m perfectly content to introduce myself as way too lazy to do it the “proper” Arch way. Maybe someday.