Which is more stable Manjaro or Arch?

[Mair]

7 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

If your avoiding any "nerdy work" than linux is not for you even if your using a distro like ubuntu. Once in a while your going to have to use the command line to configure and fix stuff. Any distro can be just "as powerful" as Arch. The only thing that makes Arch fundamentally different from other distros is that it gives you a clean underlying base to install and configure things only you want to have on your machine. Other distros like say Ubuntu come with many tools, bloatware(not gnome stuff) that you will probably never use. The next level above Arch would be Gentoo and then ultimately LFS. 

 

Not true, if your using manjaro or any arch based distro than you should know the risks. AUR packages by the Manjaro team are discouraged so it's the user's problem.

If you don't beliveve than look at there first line on the manjaro wiki AUR page: https://wiki.manjaro.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository. The reason it breaks so often is that new users are too lazy to read documentation, they do not know how the manjaro repository works, and most importantly they don't think before they type. 

Manjaro can be fixed with a backup such as timeshift and "good technical knowledge."

 

You can download from the AUR you just have to be more cautious.

Manjaro advertises itself as being a beginner-friendly way to use Arch, and despite the documentation saying otherwise; the actual experience of using the distro doesn't discourage AUR usage enough. If a target demographic is capable of consistently misusing a distro: it's a design problem.

 

From my experience distros like Debian and Fedora simply require less terminal work, less time spent dealing with Linux busywork and can be configured more easily from GUI menus than Arch. Arguing that every single Linux distro requires remotely the same amount of this type of action (that I called Nerd work (because it is lol)) as Arch isn't reasonable. Another important factor that makes Arch more "powerful" at the expense of immediate usability is the rolling release schedule: which exposes users to less well tested software. This by its inherent nature puts a larger burden on the user to vet their own packages for compatibility with their setup.

 

From my experience of Manjaro: it is the only distro I have used that has completely nuked itself multiple times (Linus Pop OS style). The way it is pitched makes it out to be a friendly, powerful and accessible distro: it is definitely powerful, but its design makes it very easy for the new users it attracts to take missteps and butcher their installation.

[goatedpenguin]

41 minutes ago, Mair said:

Manjaro advertises itself as being a beginner-friendly way to use Arch, and despite the documentation saying otherwise; the actual experience of using the distro doesn't discourage AUR usage enough. If a target demographic is capable of consistently misusing a distro: it's a design problem.

 

From my experience distros like Debian and Fedora simply require less terminal work,

It advertises itself as a way for new people coming to arch not for new ppl coming to Linux. Debian and Fedora offer less terminal work simply because of the fact that arch based distros are more for advanced users, imo you should not download any arch based disto such as manjaro or guruda if you don’t have prior experience with another  “easier” distro.

[Mair]

10 hours ago, goatedpenguin said:

It advertises itself as a way for new people coming to arch not for new ppl coming to Linux. Debian and Fedora offer less terminal work simply because of the fact that arch based distros are more for advanced users, imo you should not download any arch based disto such as manjaro or guruda if you don’t have prior experience with another  “easier” distro.

Yes, I totally agree with you: but I don't think that how Manjaro is perceived based on their own communications lines up with what you say here. There's a reason Linus went, "Oh, I'll use that other beginner-friendly distro I know about, Manjaro!"

[xAcid9]

From my experience, Manjaro is more stable.

[goatedpenguin]

3 hours ago, xAcid9 said:

From my experience, Manjaro is more stable.

Any distro is most of the time stable if you know how to maintain and use it, some are just harder to screw with.

[goatedpenguin]

Manjaro imo should not be used by beginners coming to Linux

[xAcid9]

3 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

Manjaro imo should not be used by beginners coming to Linux

Why?

[goatedpenguin]

1 hour ago, xAcid9 said:

Why?

Ask a guy who was new to Linux and used manjaro as their first distro, you’ll find out.(most of the time) if you still don’t believe me than this link speaks for itself: https://forum.manjaro.org/t/consideration-is-manjaro-the-right-distribution-for-you/149244 HOWEVER THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A LINUX NOOB EXPERIMENTING AND TRYING OUT ADVANCED STUFF ON LINUX.

[BoomerDutch]

4 hours ago, goatedpenguin said:

Ask a guy who was new to Linux and used manjaro as their first distro, you’ll find out.(most of the time) if you still don’t believe me than this link speaks for itself: https://forum.manjaro.org/t/consideration-is-manjaro-the-right-distribution-for-you/149244 HOWEVER THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A LINUX NOOB EXPERIMENTING AND TRYING OUT ADVANCED STUFF ON LINUX.

I've learned hard way by hopping distros till i ended in arch and started from scratch and used advices from different youtubers.

 

As you can see doesn't matter where you start you'll fall into linux pit anyways.

 

After I've climbed out I've became advanced linux user

 

Now I'm addicted and obsessed for a perfect system that doesn't exist yet.

 

A man must dream.