Oh, Manjaro had version numbers? Interesting.
this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
47951 readers
1508 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Always had - they even have names!
But the numbering is fairly arbitrary, as you can guess, and number normally changes with bigger updates.
No matter what version you start with, a pacman -Syu brings you to the same point. But they update the install media from time to time and that is what the version numbers are capturing. How else would they track it? There are sometimes changes to how the system is installed. I have not used Manjaro in a while so I do not have any examples.
EndeavourOS is the same and also has versions and names. As an example of installer differences, they moved to KDE by default instead of Xfce just recently. Not long before that they moved to Dracut and systemd-boot. Id you installed a year ago, you would still be using GRUB and Xfce even after doing a full update as package updates do not force that kind of change.
I'm as surprised to learn this as you seem to be.
Download latest version here!
I get the joke, but it is kind of a phishing attempt.
Arch is just as easy to install with a smaller ISO and a faster installer. Advertising EndeavourOS to inexperienced users will also lead to issues due to incompatibilities with the wiki due to dracut, the systemd firewall, and potentially systemd-boot.
First of all: it's a joke.
Second of all: no, Arch is not as easy to install, specially for someone who is looking at Manjaro as a possibility.
And believe me, I was once a Manjaro user.
And for 99% of Manjaro users, what they really wanted was Arch with an installer. Which is what Endeavour OS is. (Although I'll never understand why Endeavour people didn't just develop the tools FOR Arch instead of wrapping it all up as their own).
Current (1,5 years in) Manjaro user here. If I'd want just an installer for Arch, I'd go with Archinstall. And I doubt I'm 1%, though nice installer might be a selling point for absolute Linux noobs.
There is plenty of experienced people using Manjaro and recognizing its strong and weak sides.
And yes, I don't understand EndeavourOS as a separate distribution either.
How would Arch have implemented the default installer within Arch itself?
I would argue that EOS in fact did work within Arch as they use the entire Arch repo system ( including even the kernel ). EOS adds a few utilities some of which are not even unique to EOS ( like yay and paru ).
EOS has become more opinionated about the install such as using Dracut and systemd-boot but even those come from the Arch repos.
The other thing that EOS brings is the much friendlier community.
Sorry I don't understand your first question.
What I mean is that anyone (in fact there were projects that did this) could make an image with an installer GUI for Arch Linux that installed Arch Linux and some opinionated software like Endeavour does. But at the end you just got an easy Arch installation. What bothers me is that instead of pushing for Arch Linux's brand, Endeavour created their own, virtually wrapping Arch Linux as theirs, and I don't believe it is enough work to consider it a different distro, because it is LITERALLY ARCH with a couple of extra packages (that could be on the main repos or the AUR).
And I am saying all this as an Endeavour user myself!
FWIW I've read an Arch dev complain that folks using any 3rd party installer are not in fact "running Arch" and should not claim to be doing so.
I would say that does apply in the case of Endeavour OS but shouldn't for a custom install with 100 % Arch+AUR packages.
Arch has an installer
upgraded here. no problems. didn't even notice the version increment until i went looking for it.
Yeah, it's never visible. I normally figure it out when I go check if Timeshift is operational (it always is, I just love double checking).
Interesting that manjaro got kernel 6.9 before arch.
Nice
I don't like Manjaro or almost all arch bases distros because they just kinda suck and if you get mad I don't care
The arch bases distros I like are steam is that's it
Edit for people that don't know how to read I use arch I just don't like arch based distros except steam os
ok
Can you elaborate on why you think they suck? IMO most of the Arch derivates fill very good roles. Arch itself is a nice distro but you can never suit every user, and the derivates do things that Arch itself would never do.
Most importantly I believe there are lots of people who would have never used Arch vanilla but they get to enjoy "second hand Arch" and that's a good thing, isn't it?
My take on the most prominent Arch derivates (forgive me if I forget any, it's off the top of my head):
- Endeavour has a rapid GUI installer. It may seem like a small thing but sometimes you don't want to go through an uber-customizable multi-hour install process. It's not a beginner vs advanced thing; seasoned users can also want to save time. This installer goes against the Arch goal of providing full install customization so it will probably never be in Arch, but it is useful.
- Garuda goes one step further and offers lots of optimizations out of the box. As great as it is to have complete freedom to configure your system sometimes you want a distro to step in and do it for you.
- Manjaro goes in another direction and attempts to be "stable Arch". That may sound like a wierd thing to do with a rolling distro but it works suprisingly well. The catch is that in doing so it sacrifices a lot of what makes Arch Arch; it has a "mommy knows best" approach and tells the user to not customize their system too much. This of course is complete Arch heresy (which probably explains all the rage against it). But I think it has struck a good niche as "Arch for the lazy" – people who would like a rolling distro but are afraid of bleeding edge.
Endeavour is ok I just did like it that much I like that wallpapers
Garuda gave up on it in the installer like the look those jelly window should never be on by default and my ThinkPad Just Said No when I tried to install it I have a t480 I was testing it on there before I put it on my main pc
Manjaro I never got it to work properly just unstable there package installer is worse then discover (discover is not bad I just can't get it working when I install it)
I'm fine with people using arch bases distros I just don't use them and I won't force backs arch on anyone
Can you elaborate what didn't work on Manjaro? Just curious, I've been using it on my gaming rig for over 5 years without problems.
This is not a comment on you as it is a reasonable question but I have wasted too much time arguing with Manjaro fans and I do not want to go down that road again.
To answer the question partially, there were two classes of problem:
1 - governance - this includes the stuff like not renewing certs and not testing core packages. My system became unbootable more than once and one of those times I was not knowledgeable enough to recover and ended up reinstalling ( mostly a skill issue in retrospect ).
2 - package delays - I found more than once that the delay in releasing packages caused problems with the AUR. First, it sometimes meant I could not use AUR stuff because of missing dependencies ( like when that was the only place you could get dotnet - now in extras ). That was frustrating but not destructive. Worse, delays sometimes caused AUR dependencies to get installed instead of ones from extras or community ( because they were not there yet ). This happened with newish software or with packages that had been renamed or refactored. Once the AUR packages had been installed, they would sometimes stay even after the packages appeared in Manjaro repos. Then sometimes the AUR packages would disappear ( be abandoned as they had been moved into the core repos ) and I would end up with packages that would not update because of dependencies or where I would end up using source packages that took forever to build ( because git versions were the only ones available ). I thought all this was just the nature of the AUR until I switched to Arch it stopped happening. I have installed Manjaro since and had it happen again. I do use the AUR heavily.
Sorry, I ended up saying more than I wanted to. I wanted to answer your question but I do not want to argue. Honestly, if Manjaro works for you, I am very happy. If you think I am wrong, that is ok. I wish you luck.
As an outside reader (and Manjaro fan), this absolutely came off as as opinion that doesn't call for arguments.
You did a great job sharing your experience. Heavy AUR users should definitely NOT use Manjaro - even Manjaro devs warn against it.
Hope mainline Arch serves you well!
Thank you for explaining and sharing your journey.
Regarding 1: A system not booting anymore really is a major issue. Maybe I was lucky to not have encountered that, maybe didn't happen because I use a custom kernel. Regarding the certs: Honestly I don't really care about the Manjaro website. The certs of the package repositories are important to me though.
Regarding 2: I'm using the AUR to install some third-party applications like "gpu-screen-recorder". If you use it for system packages it will cause problems, because the Manjaro repos are delayed on purpose. One would encounter the same problem when using Debian stable and installing system stuff from a PPA.
Not liking Arch is exclusively a skill issue. You may prefer stable release distros, but you won't find a rolling release distro better than Arch.
Except Tumbleweed
Tumbleweed is way worse, zypper is very bad, it's backed by a corporation, no AUR, it's honestly quite mediocre.
It's not bad, just not exceptional (like Arch).