[Answered] Stablity of Manjaro vs Arch

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:


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:


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.


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


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.


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:



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.

It depends on your definition of stable 15 years one reinstall after 10yrs due to hd failing now that is stable Arch, Manjaro a few years nothing major yes stable, but Manjaro can not beat 15 yrs that Arch is more stable by years not days weeks months, and by a non new user.

Stable is a term that is dependent on one’s ability to fix issues along the way in my experience. Are you saying that in 15 years you didn’t have to do anything to keep your system “stable”?
My Norton motorcycle of the past was “stable” too, but it required a lot of diligence on my part to maintain its stability. Not a problem, since it was an absolute labor of love on my part.:smiley:
My point…“stable” can be a relative term.

Best regards.


Your right but not correct I’m running the big deal in Arch testing 15 years one reinstall due to HD failing, I’m not a geek just a user I have actually had more breakages in Artix stable mainly small niggles if i did not know Arch strengths those small niggles would be ball breakers,
than 15 years with arch just updating daily, Manjaro was Fine but then its based on the best my only gripe was it was not any more stable,
But to put things in perspective I run a simple 6 core, nvidia graghics, Linux friendly desktop I built solely for Linux I think that is the key


Forum kindly sponsored by