Sometimes people tell me I should have gone with either Linux Mint or EndeavourOS, and otherwise don’t really tell me why it’s bad, just that it’s bad. So far I only could find one thing, which is that their repo isn’t 100% rolling for stability, and sometimes it does not guarantee stability.
I just went to https://manjaro.org/ to look up reasons to install manjaro. I couldn’t find anything on their site. Literally nothing.
What is in your opinion / experience / knowledge the advantage of manjaro compared to arch and/or endeavour?
And if not, why would you choose it over fedora? What is the advantage for you to choose an arch base?
Package manager with aur is no reason anymore since distrobox exists.
Btw, I use opensuse.
There is nothing. They hold back updates and say it’s more stable. The thing is, if you set up Arch with btrfs snapshots, which is literally included in archinstall, you already have a system that’s basically unbreakable. (Although their setup is not perfect imo, but you can easily fix that as well.)
@illusionist @ZILtoid1991 more stable builds, less frequent updates but security issues solved.
When I used arch for a couple of months, everything was stable. I’ve never heard anyone complaining about it. What exactly did you face? (So that I can learn)
What’s the advantage of the lower update frequency? It’s your choice how often you update. You don’t have to update 3 times a day.
Security issues resolved? Do you mean the RAT incident? It is aur.
This is aur’s disclaimer. When taking the disclaimer seriously, I read: do not use it for a security critical usage. And I’d consider my personal web browsing habit as security critical. Hence, I don’t use it for critical stuff like banking. Besides, I probably should install user apps with flatpak like on other distros.
If I use the same method like I would on any other distro, you have to compare other stuff besides that. Likewise, if you really want to install the stuff from aur, you don’t have to use arch, you can use another base with distrobox.