[Answered] Stablity of Manjaro vs Arch

Mine either, though I skipped Manjaro Unstable & Testing & went straight to Manjaro Stable with the old NET installer. And that gave me the taste for Arch.

But I have said it before and I’ll say it again:

When I install Arch, I install it for one machine, the one I am running. After a lengthy installation that requires me to read, think, and type, thanks to the basics I started learning here, running and maintaining Arch is easy-peasy. But other than actual broken packages, the burden is totally on me to install & maintain it.

But when @philm @ Co. formed Manjaro, they made it to install to my machine, your machine, and everyone else’s. That’s a damn tough job! As well with updates which have to work, again with my machine, your machine, and everyone else’s.

Then there is the support. In Arch, since it is user-centric, the onus falls on me to provide my own technical support, posting for help from their forums only after doing my own homework and exhausting my own resources. And that is how it should be.

But Manjaro, being user-friendly, gives me the ability to seek quick answers to common problems without reciting the entire repertoire of what I have tried and what I have not. I can even come here with a “My OS is broke–help!” plea, and other than receiving a little bit of scorn from folks like me, I will receive help.

So it comes down to those two things, once again, the difference between user-centric and user-friendly which is absolutely why I state…

regards

3 Likes

Most people seem to have cyclic preferences anyway.

2 Likes

I think it comes down to, Manjaro is more stable than Arch, because it has another testing pass before released. If it was less stable, then I think we would need to go back and reconsider what we are doing. Is that stable enough for the OP? I don’t know, how stable does the OP want the OS to be?

Maybe they can go to the https://forum.manjaro.org/c/announcements/stable-updates topic, and look at the number of people who reported “no issues” with each update and decide for themselves?

The last update had a 96% of the people reported no issue, with 4% had issues, but fixed it themselves (195 people reported). The one before that was worse 88% had no issues, 9% had issues they could fix, 3% had issues and needed help, 213 people reported…

I do. Manic, then depressive, then back again. I never lack for company, however. :wink:

1 Like

Or it could be a preference for cycling.

1 Like

I was gonna dun you on that, too, but… :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

Is Tuesday the official play-day 'round this joint? Seems to be a lot of giggles going on today. :smiley:

2 Likes

No that’s just not how it is, Manjaro does a lot of things to take Arch stability away holding back package updates is one, changing config files, alpha kernels, etc. Arch does not do that arch only uses stable software in its stable branch. Me like many other arch users use Arch testing repros, with no problems.
The one thing I learned from Ubuntu/Debian many years ago Is when you apply a patch then you need to patch everything every update, The most stable Linux DE is slackware no patching then Arch/Gentoo, as they use minimal patching, and only if their is no other way.
I’m not putting Manjaro down its just in the wisdom of making Manjaro easy for the masses it in some ways just makes things less robust for the users.

Small correction. Make installing Arch easy for the masses, yes, although I hate that terminology.

But once you make installing Arch easier for the masses, then you get stuck supporting it. Ergo, Arch-based Manjaro. (We should pity poor @philm!)

But as you have pointed out, they’re not the same. I run Plasma, sometimes both in Arch Stable and Manjaro Stable, dual-booting on the same machine, same HDD. Basic but big differences.

I do that because sometimes what applies to Arch does not apply to Manjaro, and vice-versa, and it is very difficult discerning why without doing so. At least for me. :wink:

2 Likes

I used Sidux on a second machine for years till its demise It was the distro that taught me the most. If you did not read the front page update warnings, and how updating is only viable when all individual bits of software are altogether, Debian stable taught me that no matter how much you patch it does not make the system stable far from it. Arch for me has the most stable core of any Linux, When I used Manjaro and it was till Artix became available, running testing was fine even unstable, but stable broke at times as it is out of sync with Arch by doing batch updates.

It’s still around, producing current ISOs. I loved their scripts! :smiley:

1 Like

No that’s siduction a fork, Sidux the latest ISO is 02 .2009 http://sidux.linuxfreedom.com/download.html
Their was a big dev bust up the end of that year Sidux changed it name to Aptosid and is now dormant, Siduction was forked and is still going but has really lost its drive updated media is very sparse.

1 Like

I stand corrected. Sad about Sidux. :frowning:

1 Like

I was a shame and the last Aptosid release was 2013. all down to devs disagreeing one being very dictatorial and the rest walked away, it was a great bare-knuckle experience that will never be repeated again.

1 Like

Wouldn’t that be more accurate for Antergos or SwagArch than Manjaro, since those do use Arch repos?

That used to be my opinion, too, for a long while. Some, like Antergos, are unaltered Arch packages straight from Stable for the most part, with maybe some theming. But Antergos, SwagArch, WhateverArch all seem to have their own repos, even if it’s just for small stuff like theming.

But once you’ve done a little of that, what’s the difference between a little and a lot? They are still all stuck eating their own dogfood, right? I mean, now they have to provide support for their New-to-you-Arch-based distro, correct? :smiley:

Nah, I have quit making those distinctions. Some are just a little closer to the bone, is all.

2 Likes

No non are Arch Linux just Like MX is not Debian etc. or Mint is not Ubuntu.

2 Likes

The way i see it, still quite a difference.
As far as i know, Antergos and SwagArch use Arch’s repositories, plus their own respective repositories for custom themes and some packages usually in AUR. This makes their update process very tied to Arch’s. It’s like “Arch with an extra”, though i acknowledge they’re not Arch.
Meanwhile, Manjaro uses its own repositories, and thus can release updates as it sees fit. Its release cycle is less tied to Arch’s. I see a clearer separation between Manjaro and Arch here.

3 Likes

You think the others don’t hold, change, and release from their own repos on their own schedule, regardless how big or small, as well? Of course they do. While they don’t have as many repos or have the whole bloomin’ distro in their own repos, it is just a matter of degree. IMO, of course, since we’re set on splitting stuff here. :wink:

regards

2 Likes

They are inspired by Arch the same as arch was inspired by Crux in the early days worlds apart today mind you. as Crux still uses ports for software

I find that if something goes wrong in Manjaro, it was almost always because of something I did (not necessarily a big mistake or a small mistake) and it’s always reversible. Whereas in Ubuntu/apt, it’s more likely to do something or make a mistake that will slow down the system and that is harder to reverse. Therefore I would say as long as you’re using the default pacman setup Manjaro has, it should always be more stable than Ubuntu/apt and definitely more stable than Arch; however ofc anything can go wrong, although Manjaro is no longer in beta, it’s a mature distro by now.

Forum kindly sponsored by