5 ms·

Nothing kills my interest faster than seeing Manjaro. What a bad choice of distro, for users, and/or as a partner. To me, it shows they don't get it. SBCs can b

by k8svet 3y ago

Nothing kills my interest faster than seeing Manjaro. What a bad choice of distro, for users, and/or as a partner. To me, it shows they don't get it. SBCs can be such a nightmare.

pas 3y ago
what's wrong with Manjaro?
- arcanemachiner 3y ago
  https://github.com/arindas/manjarno https://github.com/arindas/manjarno
- Levitating 3y ago
  The developers are incompetent. In general it's better to just stick with a distribution with a large userbase and developer community. Something stable that has proven itself over the years. With Manjaro you are basically using ArchLinux with its many developers and contributors, except that a few extra developers are messing with the packages and delay the updates. Whenever you encounter a bug in Manjaro, you don't know if it's from the source, introduced by Manjaro or an issue with ArchLinux. You can't rely on the ArchLinux wiki and the ArchLinux forums or irc will refuse to help you. And the Manjaro developers have outright said in their forums that they are not responsible for users having a broken system after an upgrade. It's just a waste of everyones time.
  - exceptione 3y ago
    To be fair, Manjaro filled a gap for users looking for a beginner friendly Arch. I understood Arch only recently got a decent UI-based installer and Endeavouros was non-existent back then. I am pretty sure Manjaro has quite a large userbase. Since Arch stable is indeed stable these days, the Manjaro approach to package delaying does not make sense, I agree with that.
    - mort96 3y ago
      Manjaro is a decent-ish "beginner-friendly Arch". I mean the fact that they have their own separate repo and hold packages does confuse users who think they're running Arch, and I recall having an issue with AUR builds sometimes failing because the kernel name contained MANJARO where the build script expected ARCH, and their SSL issues are amateurish, but it's overall an alright "beginner-friendly Arch" which works out of the box. But hopefully these projects aren't beginners; hopefully they have people who would have no problem putting together a sane Arch system that's as usable as the one Manjaro provides. So even if you want to use Arch Linux on these sorts of embedded Linux systems, why wouldn't you just put together your own Arch system? What benefit does Manjaro provide there?
    - Levitating 3y ago
      > Arch only recently got a decent UI-based installer There's still no UI installer. There's now an official install script. But install scripts have been around for as long as Arch has. Including UI ones. EndeavourOS isn't just installing Arch, it also unnecessarily installs a firewall and uses things like Dracut. > Since Arch stable is indeed stable these days What do you mean "Arch stable"? Arch has testing repositories but those are just for testing. Besides Arch has always been as stable as a rolling release distribution can be.
      - pas 3y ago
        > it also unnecessarily installs a firewall and uses things like Dracut ... having a fw by default seems like a good idea to me. (also Dracut, it just works, no? IMHO better than a ton of legacy shell scripts. what's the problem with it?)
        Levitating 3y ago
        > having a fw by default seems like a good idea to me. One of the few principles of Arch is to not have any. > also Dracut, it just works, no? But it's not the Arch default. It's something new to keep in consideration whenever you're viewing Arch specific instructions like on the Wiki. Arch has is own tool for creating ramdisks, mkinitcpio. That's not a legacy she'll script.
  - throawayb 3y ago
    Geez someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed
  - aitchnyu 3y ago
    Why is an Arch base preferred anyway?
    - Levitating 3y ago
      The official Arch repositories are enormous. And all packages are unaltered from upstream, with default configuration and few backported patches. And for many people I think rolling release is just preferred. Your software will always be at the newest version. This is especially relevant for people who play games or software developers. Arch has the biggest rolling release repositories with fast updates and good tooling. Arch also has the AUR which holds package build recipes creates by regular users. You can manually build/install nearly any software from the AUR. Though as a Manjaro users there's no guarantee AUR packages work. The way Arch maintaines that many packages, is that most packages are maintained by Package Maintainers (formerly Trusted Users). They are responsible for keeping their dedicated packages up-to-date and working. You can view the build recipes at https://gitlab.archlinux.org https://gitlab.archlinux.org.
exceptione 3y ago
Then you switch to any other Arch flavor?
matheusmoreira 3y ago
What is it about Manjaro anyway that makes these corporations adopt it? I don't get it. I remember at least one Linux phone burned a ton of community good will by adopting Manjaro.
- k8svet 3y ago
  Yes, I had them in mind. I have to check my own biases because I think [my distro] is of course better suited and more mature, but I really don't get it. I personally think the community management, and XDA-forum-esque development ecosystem really ties into the conditions leading to the "crisis" that affected a certain first gen SBC/phone device. I'm absolutely convinced that the first SBC manufacture that embraces tow-boot/nixos is going to find themselves with a dedicated, loud fanbase. NixOS or Guix on these stupid SBCs is end-game. Whether it's vendor BSP or upstream, it's trivial to share work and share output images. And, it makes it trivial to side-by-side vendor+mainline configurations, thereby further putting pressure on the SBC manufacturers to actually upstream their work or contract Collabora to do so (see: rock5b).

by k8svet 3y ago

Nothing kills my interest faster than seeing Manjaro. What a bad choice of distro, for users, and/or as a partner. To me, it shows they don't get it. SBCs can be such a nightmare.

pas 3y ago

what's wrong with Manjaro?

arcanemachiner 3y ago
https://github.com/arindas/manjarno https://github.com/arindas/manjarno
Levitating 3y ago
The developers are incompetent. In general it's better to just stick with a distribution with a large userbase and developer community. Something stable that has proven itself over the years. With Manjaro you are basically using ArchLinux with its many developers and contributors, except that a few extra developers are messing with the packages and delay the updates. Whenever you encounter a bug in Manjaro, you don't know if it's from the source, introduced by Manjaro or an issue with ArchLinux. You can't rely on the ArchLinux wiki and the ArchLinux forums or irc will refuse to help you. And the Manjaro developers have outright said in their forums that they are not responsible for users having a broken system after an upgrade. It's just a waste of everyones time.
- exceptione 3y ago
  To be fair, Manjaro filled a gap for users looking for a beginner friendly Arch. I understood Arch only recently got a decent UI-based installer and Endeavouros was non-existent back then. I am pretty sure Manjaro has quite a large userbase. Since Arch stable is indeed stable these days, the Manjaro approach to package delaying does not make sense, I agree with that.
  - mort96 3y ago
    Manjaro is a decent-ish "beginner-friendly Arch". I mean the fact that they have their own separate repo and hold packages does confuse users who think they're running Arch, and I recall having an issue with AUR builds sometimes failing because the kernel name contained MANJARO where the build script expected ARCH, and their SSL issues are amateurish, but it's overall an alright "beginner-friendly Arch" which works out of the box. But hopefully these projects aren't beginners; hopefully they have people who would have no problem putting together a sane Arch system that's as usable as the one Manjaro provides. So even if you want to use Arch Linux on these sorts of embedded Linux systems, why wouldn't you just put together your own Arch system? What benefit does Manjaro provide there?
  - Levitating 3y ago
    > Arch only recently got a decent UI-based installer There's still no UI installer. There's now an official install script. But install scripts have been around for as long as Arch has. Including UI ones. EndeavourOS isn't just installing Arch, it also unnecessarily installs a firewall and uses things like Dracut. > Since Arch stable is indeed stable these days What do you mean "Arch stable"? Arch has testing repositories but those are just for testing. Besides Arch has always been as stable as a rolling release distribution can be.
    - pas 3y ago
      > it also unnecessarily installs a firewall and uses things like Dracut ... having a fw by default seems like a good idea to me. (also Dracut, it just works, no? IMHO better than a ton of legacy shell scripts. what's the problem with it?)
      - Levitating 3y ago
        > having a fw by default seems like a good idea to me. One of the few principles of Arch is to not have any. > also Dracut, it just works, no? But it's not the Arch default. It's something new to keep in consideration whenever you're viewing Arch specific instructions like on the Wiki. Arch has is own tool for creating ramdisks, mkinitcpio. That's not a legacy she'll script.
- throawayb 3y ago
  Geez someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed
- aitchnyu 3y ago
  Why is an Arch base preferred anyway?
  - Levitating 3y ago
    The official Arch repositories are enormous. And all packages are unaltered from upstream, with default configuration and few backported patches. And for many people I think rolling release is just preferred. Your software will always be at the newest version. This is especially relevant for people who play games or software developers. Arch has the biggest rolling release repositories with fast updates and good tooling. Arch also has the AUR which holds package build recipes creates by regular users. You can manually build/install nearly any software from the AUR. Though as a Manjaro users there's no guarantee AUR packages work. The way Arch maintaines that many packages, is that most packages are maintained by Package Maintainers (formerly Trusted Users). They are responsible for keeping their dedicated packages up-to-date and working. You can view the build recipes at https://gitlab.archlinux.org https://gitlab.archlinux.org.

exceptione 3y ago

Then you switch to any other Arch flavor?

matheusmoreira 3y ago

What is it about Manjaro anyway that makes these corporations adopt it? I don't get it. I remember at least one Linux phone burned a ton of community good will by adopting Manjaro.

k8svet 3y ago
Yes, I had them in mind. I have to check my own biases because I think [my distro] is of course better suited and more mature, but I really don't get it. I personally think the community management, and XDA-forum-esque development ecosystem really ties into the conditions leading to the "crisis" that affected a certain first gen SBC/phone device. I'm absolutely convinced that the first SBC manufacture that embraces tow-boot/nixos is going to find themselves with a dedicated, loud fanbase. NixOS or Guix on these stupid SBCs is end-game. Whether it's vendor BSP or upstream, it's trivial to share work and share output images. And, it makes it trivial to side-by-side vendor+mainline configurations, thereby further putting pressure on the SBC manufacturers to actually upstream their work or contract Collabora to do so (see: rock5b).