3 ms·

Manjaro is fine, but I preferred Antergos because it used the Arch Linux packages, meaning I always had the latest ones. AFAIK, Manjaro is behind by like a mont

Manjaro is fine, but I preferred Antergos because it used the Arch Linux packages, meaning I always had the latest ones. AFAIK, Manjaro is behind by like a month? In which case, why even bother with rolling release?

pizzapill 7y ago
Manjaro stable is behind Arch ca. 2 weeks. Unstable a day or two. Some packages get fast tracked. For example the Firefox update came yesterday, hours after release.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
narimiran 7y ago
> used the Arch Linux packages, meaning I always had the latest ones. This is provably false, as I can witness from my recent experience where Arch has 14 month old, long superseded, version of a package, while other Linux distros (including Manjaro, but also Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, openSuse, etc.) use the most/more recent version. ---- > AFAIK, Manjaro is behind by like a month? In which case, why even bother with rolling release? Even if this were true (and it isn't, see the sibling comment), I've seen responses like yours and I don't understand them. Where would you draw the line when it comes to rolling? You say that one month behind is too long. Is 2 weeks ok? One week? 3 days? 1 day? 12 hours? Why does it even matter? To answer you from my perspective: I "bother" with Manjaro because I like the rolling distro philosophy, but I also value stability. If those two weeks of delay will bring me packages which are better tested and more stability overall - I'm all for it. Oh and I don't even update as soon as an update hits the stable channel, I regularly decide to wait at least a day or two to see if others have any problems with the update. For other people, who are more impatient (and more adventurous), Manjaro offers two other channels: testing and unstable.
- cosarara 7y ago
  > This is provably false, as I can witness from my recent experience where Arch has 14 month old, long superseded, version of a package, while other Linux distros (including Manjaro, but also Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, openSuse, etc.) use the most/more recent version. Would you mind telling us what package that is?
- jplayer01 7y ago
  My line is that I want the latest upstream packages with as little delay as possible while not breaking things. It’s a vague line, but that’s how it is. Arch Linux has generally managed to hit that line consistently and I haven’t experienced any breakages in years. Most of the issues I’ve had were due to Antergos screw-ups. Unfortunately, I have seen out of date (1+ month) packages without any response from the maintainer, so I guess it’s just something that happens. My reasonable expectation is that I do have the latest ones, and I’m annoyed if I don’t.
bashwizard 7y ago
Rolling release =/= bleeding edge.

pizzapill 7y ago

Manjaro stable is behind Arch ca. 2 weeks. Unstable a day or two. Some packages get fast tracked. For example the Firefox update came yesterday, hours after release.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

narimiran 7y ago

> used the Arch Linux packages, meaning I always had the latest ones. This is provably false, as I can witness from my recent experience where Arch has 14 month old, long superseded, version of a package, while other Linux distros (including Manjaro, but also Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, openSuse, etc.) use the most/more recent version. ---- > AFAIK, Manjaro is behind by like a month? In which case, why even bother with rolling release? Even if this were true (and it isn't, see the sibling comment), I've seen responses like yours and I don't understand them. Where would you draw the line when it comes to rolling? You say that one month behind is too long. Is 2 weeks ok? One week? 3 days? 1 day? 12 hours? Why does it even matter? To answer you from my perspective: I "bother" with Manjaro because I like the rolling distro philosophy, but I also value stability. If those two weeks of delay will bring me packages which are better tested and more stability overall - I'm all for it. Oh and I don't even update as soon as an update hits the stable channel, I regularly decide to wait at least a day or two to see if others have any problems with the update. For other people, who are more impatient (and more adventurous), Manjaro offers two other channels: testing and unstable.

cosarara 7y ago
> This is provably false, as I can witness from my recent experience where Arch has 14 month old, long superseded, version of a package, while other Linux distros (including Manjaro, but also Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, openSuse, etc.) use the most/more recent version. Would you mind telling us what package that is?
jplayer01 7y ago
My line is that I want the latest upstream packages with as little delay as possible while not breaking things. It’s a vague line, but that’s how it is. Arch Linux has generally managed to hit that line consistently and I haven’t experienced any breakages in years. Most of the issues I’ve had were due to Antergos screw-ups. Unfortunately, I have seen out of date (1+ month) packages without any response from the maintainer, so I guess it’s just something that happens. My reasonable expectation is that I do have the latest ones, and I’m annoyed if I don’t.

bashwizard 7y ago

Rolling release =/= bleeding edge.