I am a Linux noobie and have only used Mint for around six months now. While I have definitely learned a lot, I don’t have the time to always be doing crazy power user stuff and just want something that works out of the box. While I love Mint, I want to try out other decently easy to use distros as well, specifically not based on Ubuntu, so no Pop OS. Is Manjaro a possibly good distro for me to check out?

  • LeFantome@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I used to love Manjaro. It looks gorgeous ( to my eye ). Sadly, I now see it as a bit of a low-quality mess with governance issues. Manjaro broke my system more than once. Although I did not believe it when I used Manjaro, getting off of it has shown me that I regularly had AUR compatibility problems as well.

    These days, I would recommend EndevourOS over Manjaro. It is just as easy in practice, I have found it to be far more stable. Once installed, EndevourOS is 99.8% the same as a well configured vanilla Arch. It uses the Arch package repositories natively.

    Even more than Manjaro, I used to love Pamac and graphical package management. Now I think Pamac is garbage. It has caused so many problems for me. I mostly use yay to manage packages now. A really great middle ground between GUI package management and yay or pacman is pacseek. You have to use yay to install it but, for the times I may have missed Pamac, it has been awesome.

  • jman6495@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I used to run Manjaro, and I can’t recommend it for a new user. While the UX is user friendly, the distro itself is not. Ive very often had upgrade and update issues that i have wasted days fixing.

    I’d instead recommend fedora workstation as a non-ubuntu option

    • DNAmaster10@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Second Fedora workstation. Spent almost an entire year distro hopping to find a distro that worked out the box with my laptops touch screen. Fedora has been the one - super polished too!

    • codenul@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just switched to EndeavourOS about a week ago from Manjaro and been liking it so far.

      Biggest reason for the change was my manjaro install was getting cluttered, and moving over to a new distro ( taking all my previous knowledgement with it) has been a blessing.

      Beforehand, my Manjaro install was EFI, whereas my Windows 11 drive ( yes I know) was UEFI so switching on boot was an issue. Now both are on UEFI and show up within Grub.

      Endeavor OS has bluetooth turned off by default. Thought there was an issue but nope.

      So from no issues with updating, even with AUR turned on.

      I just like starting fresh and setting things up with all my previous knowledge.

    • jimmy90@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      thanks to the archinstall tool it’s very easy to install arch the way you want to

      it’s much lighter than Manjaro and has been very stable for me

  • bjornp_@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have used it in the past for a few years. I don’t think you should. Why?

    • The Manjaro devs are idiots. They have broken the AUR on multiple occasions.
    • Their packages break more often than upstream Arch since you get update bundles which they release. This isn’t tested as well as it should and may lead to things breaking.
    • Arch is also easier to install nowadays, if you really want a rolling release distro.

    If you just want something not-Ubuntu and easy to use, I tend to favor Fedora personally.

    • Coldus12@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree completely.

      As a sidenote: If somebody wants something easy-to-use that is arch-based I’d suggest EndevaourOS.

  • ZephrC@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What even is an unbiased opinion? That doesn’t even begin to make sense.

    That being said, my very biased opinion is that it’s a great way to install Arch without learning how Arch works so that when it inevitably breaks you don’t even know how to ask the right questions.

    • zarkony@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I disagree. Not everyone wants to spend the time to completely customize their system. Distros like Manjaro and Endeavor give people a decent “just works” install while still giving them experience with the Arch ecosystem. The forums are usually a good resource, and everything on the arch wiki still applies. It might just be because I had previous linux experience, but I’ve learned a lot running Manjaro.

      The average person is not going to jump straight into vanilla Arch as their first distro, but after a couple years with Manjaro, they might try it.

      • ZephrC@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If you don’t want to spend the time to completely customize your system just don’t use an Arch based system. Seriously. Arch has some neat things about it, but it’s not the magical be all and end all of distros. If you don’t want to use what it’s good at use Mint, or Debian, or PopOS, or Ubuntu, or Fedora, or if you want something bleeding edge use OpenSuse Tumbleweed. You don’t have to use shitty imitation Arch if you don’t want to use Arch. You also don’t need experience with Manjaro to use Arch. I jumped straight into Arch after using Mint for years and it was fine. I still use Mint on my laptop and as a backup on my old drive I moved to my new computer just in case I do something stupid in Arch. Mint is great. I just like playing around with completely customizing my system. Why would you want something Arch based if you don’t care about the main thing it’s actually good at?

        • Coldus12@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          To answer your question: AUR. Aur is something that I love about Arch.

          Also please stop gatekeeping. Installing Arch by hand instead of using something like EndevaourOS doesn’t mean anything. I used EndevaourOS after using arch simply because it was way faster and easier to configure. It still has all the functionality of arch (since essentially it is arch).

          If you don’t want to spend the time to completely customize your system just don’t use an Arch based system

          Thats the thing. You can still customize everything and anything. I mean what’s stopping you from using a tty and changing things? Also even the installer helps you customize a lot of things…

          • ZephrC@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not gatekeeping. Arch isn’t fucking magical. Do whatever you want. I just actually don’t get it. What’s the point? I don’t even use the AUR. It’s not that good. It’s an inconsistent mess of janky conflicting build scripts and trust me bro binaries, and you can get basically anything there in almost any distro nowadays. Hell, most of it’s on Flathub. You can also customize anything you want on any distro. Arch is just the easiest one to start from a very minimal system and build something up that’s totally yours. Why use a distro that only takes that away and adds nothing?

            • Coldus12@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I agree Arch isn’t magical. And I’m more than aware of the issues with the AUR, however i disagree that everything on there can be found by other means. There are several programs (such as optimus-manager for nvidia and integrated video card laptops) which are pretty much only found on the AUR (Not counting Github). Again this is about ease-of-use (Since you could build my example from github as well).

              Obviously you can customize anything anywhere, what sets Arch apart is pacman and aur. And again in the case of Manjaro and EndeavourOS these and the wiki are the main “selling points”.

              Arch is just the easiest one to start from a very minimal system and build something up that’s totally yours

              Minimal ubuntu and fedora exists as well. And if you were to customise them you’d end up with something that you like as well. But i see what you are saying and i agree.

              • ZephrC@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                There are certainly still a few edge cases where the AUR is the least shitty option, and if those apply to you then go for it, but my experience has always been that the more I use it, the worse my experience gets, and everything I need has had better options for a while now, and those edge cases where it even makes sense are rapidly dwindling. But yes, I was exaggerating how bad it is. There are still more than just a few uses for it. EndeavorOS is maybe okay if you want that without having to install Arch, but Manjaro messes with things enough that it’s not as compatible with the AUR as it likes to pretend to be.

                And yeah, I agree, there are lots of ways to build up your own system. You can do it with any distro if you’re determined enough, and there are other decent options besides just Arch. I just find Arch to be the easiest one to do it with, and I like easy. It’s maybe counter-intuitive to say, but I like Arch specifically because it makes the things I want to do easier than any other distro does.

  • Mandy@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Idiot Devs that forgot to renew their certificates twice in a single year. A pm that can break your packages. A treasurer hat gotbfires cause he didnt allow the CEO to buy a 2k gaming laptop. They fiddled with arch so much there is a chance when something goes wrong, its likely manjaros fault.

    They are not to be trusted frankly.

    Use endeavouros, it makes arch actually usable Instead of a KISS nightmare and doesn’t have any of the manjaro baggage.

  • temptest [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    How is anyone supposed to have an unbiased opinion?

    What features of Manjaro would make it something you prefer? A different DE? Mint offers more than just one.

  • foobarijk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve installed Arch, Arcos and Manjaro (from the Arch based distros). Manjaro and Arcos are faster and easier to install and setup compared to Arch. Manjaro has nice GUI to select kernel, GPU drivers and install software (and does not automatically move you to the newest kernel, as opposed to Arch or Arcos). They had fucked up (I think 3 times) with renewing their SSL certificate, and for a short while their ISOs were unverifiable (not that big of an issue if you ask me). Since they delay their packages’ updates, running them in testing for a few months for extra stability, installing from AUR is bound to break.

    I’ve installed Manjaro on 3 computers, and worked with it extensively for about 3 years. It’s a decent distro that doesn’t deserve all the hate it gets.

  • yum13241@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nope. Countless stories of updates breaking everything, developer incompetency (pamac, their GUI pacman wrapper, took the AUR down twice) and a lot more.

    https://youtu.be/5KNK3e9ScPo (keep in mind that the treasury thing never happened)

    For a more successful attempt at a stable rolling release, try openSUSE tumbleweed. For an arch based solution, try EndeavorOS or Garuda.

    Fedora does do a point release model but not nearly as bad as Ubuntu’s.

  • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    TBH, if you don’t have bleeding edge hardware just stay with OPENSUSE Leap, Debian Stable, Linux Mint or LMDE. If you are feeling adventurous, even Slackware will cover your back most of the time and gives you more bragging rights than Arch. Even if you have bleeding edge hardware, you are better off with OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, Fedora and Arch.

    Manjaro is just not that stable. It once was the only way to install an Arch-ish system without having to go through the hassle of the official Arch installation guide, but currently there are several options to avoid this guide and still have a vanilla Arch system. That’s how I used Manjaro for a brief period. The tools I remember they provide, or even better alternatives, are in the Arch User Repo (AUR) anyway, available for all Arch-like distro users. Maybe the only exception to this is the wide catalog of kernels that Manjaro provides, but an equally extensive catalog is available for Arch users through official and third-party repos and the AUR.

    Manjaro is not quite exciting but also not quite stable. I think it’s a distro most people get by accident.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Debian sid/unstable isn’t even a real distro, it is just a staging area for testing. No care is taken to keep packages added to it compatible, that is literally where packages go to achieve that compatibility before they go to Debian testing and/or stable. It does not get security updates either.

        • Gush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know about security updates, but what you just described in the first sentences is literally the definition of an unstable release

          • taladar@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, unstable just means it isn’t tested, not that people literally do not pay attention to version constraints when assembling a collection of packages.

        • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t need security updates when you are using the latest version of a package. That’s the security model that all rolling release distros use. Security comes from upstream development, from devs patching their software as soon as they find vulnerabilities. If this is more or less secure than the Debian Stable approach is up for your use case.

          • taladar@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Packages with fixes are often in Debian Security before they are in unstable though because nobody cares about security fixes for unstable. They just update the packages there when they need a new version as part of their regular workflow. It is not like a rolling release distro.

            • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I didn’t say it was a rolling release distro. The security model of their packages is one of a rolling release distro but the distribution is unstable, not rolling. The thing I find plainly absurd is to ask a security repo from the unstable branch of a distro, or from a rolling release distro.

  • Commiunism@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not really an opinion but I guess an experience - Manjaro was my first ever Linux distro.

    I switched to it around 4 years ago and everything seemed to work except that I had this issue where if a game was running for 30 minutes or longer, it would progressively run worse and worse until it either crashed or I would just restart it. Didn’t really find any solution online, the issue didn’t happen on windows so I just switched back after 2 weeks.

    Half a year later I decided to give it another shot, but I had a completely different issue I couldn’t figure out how to fix, so I switched away from it 3 days later to Mint. Switched back to Windows a day later because I wasn’t much of a fan of apt when compared to pacman, and arch (what Manjaro is based on) is this mythical distro that’s very hard to install and use, so I didn’t bother.

    Then another half a year later I switched to arch and stuck to it, with minor distro hopping here and there but always came back to arch. Thanks to Manjaro, I knew pacman commands and had overcome the fear of the terminal, which did make the switch to arch much easier.

    That being said, my opinion is that you should at the very least try it. If the distro gives you no problems - fantastic, but if gives you major issues like in my case, then at least you get to familiarize yourself with arch-based distributions and maybe try EndeavourOS or Arch in the future.