> Manjaro is strictly worse when it comes to the quality of software. I haven't made this experience with Manjaro on several systems. Setting up Arch isn't j

> Manjaro is strictly worse when it comes to the quality of software. I haven't made this experience with Manjaro on several systems. Setting up Arch isn't just about partitioning and adding a user. That's trivial stuff that I'm simply not talking about. Though somehow Arch's documentation has become significantly worse for complete newbies ever since they got rid of the new user's guide and you end up having to read a bunch of utterly irrelevant stuff in order to find the magic incantation that actually works (and no, it doesn't actually explain anywhere why it works the way it does). I've had to do tons of messing around with settings just to get Arch working properly on different systems. I had problems with resume working properly on my Thinkpad for forever, and less decently supported systems had more issues. I'm just not that kind of user anymore and I don't want to be my own tech support. I have enough to juggle in userland pertaining to my actual job that I simply do. not. want. anything going wrong that I'll have to dig into some obscure config file somewhere to fix. Manjaro gives me most of the benefits of Arch without having to waste my time with setting up an Arch system just perfectly so it simply works. I have access to the AUR and I have reasonably up-to-date packages (and I do run unstable on my laptop, which usually works fine). Some people just want to use Linux, not live and breath Linux, and this constant resistance against users who don't want to wade knee-deep in config bullshit is completely infuriating. You run Arch. Successfully. Congratulations. You're better than everybody else.