• LeFantome@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    I used Manjaro and did not experience at all that it was more stable. For one thing, the packages do not get changed, just delayed. You are just as bleeding edge just not as current. The delay caused wrong packages to be installed, or unable to be installed, from the AUR sometimes. Also, mostly for governance reasons, Manjaro just plain broke more often than Arch.

    EndeavourOS just is Arch once it is installed ( especially if you remove eos-hooks which is what makes EOS report as EOS ). Everything on your system ( including the kernel ) comes from the Arch repos. Even the “unique” EOS configuration choices like dracut and systemd-boot come from the Arch repos. EOS adds a handful of optional utilities on top of Arch ( that you may never use ), some theming, and enables the AUR by default ( by installing yay and paru ). Of course, lots is people use these in Arch too.

    • Allero@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’d argue that Manjaro just doesn’t implement similar procedures with AUR because it’s insanely labor-intensive, all while repos are doing great.

      As per the delay - the packages that cause troubles within this 2-week window are not updated until they’re fixed, that’s why this period exists in the first place.

      I’ve heard a lot of negative experiences around Manjaro, but most commonly they refer to an experience that has been long ago. As a 1,5-year Linux enjoyer who started with Manjaro and keeps to it for the desktop (though I played around with Arch, Endeavour, and currently have Debian on my laptop), I had no serious issues with the distro - except one time Pamac updated the kernel while I turned off PC. For that, yeah, some guardrails wouldn’t hurt.