3 ms·

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

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.

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.