3 ms·

I develop software that tries to target as many distros as possible, and I really don't see how Manjaro is in any way better than Arch. Botched upgrades aside,

I develop software that tries to target as many distros as possible, and I really don't see how Manjaro is in any way better than Arch. Botched upgrades aside, Manjaro is the only distro that couldn't produce a valid iso to boot on KVM/qemu. It has a very weird kernel config, sometimes users don't seem to have modules that are found on literally any other distro. Which is very sad because Arch just works.

jeroenhd 7y ago
In my experience the Manjaro config tends to work better on some of the hardware I've tried it on, requiring less tweaking to get it to run properly. I'll also admit that I can't for the life of me get Arch to properly install with all the tools and features that are normally built-in to desktop environments to work on first boot. I'm sure I can make it work if I give it another try now that I've gotten more used to using Manjaro, but the Arch installation experience is not something I want to go through again any time soon. I understand that most Arch users will want to decide exactly how they set up their system and all, but for my personal (non-work) machine I just want an operating system that works, allows me to mess with the standard Linux stuff and manages to install itself without me holding its hand. I'd much rather tick a box that says "enable full disk encryption" than manually configure cryptsetup and LUKS parameters. It's just too much effort for what I get out of it.