[Answered] Stablity of Manjaro vs Arch

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.

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.

5 Likes

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

2 Likes

Are you saying “Stable is as stable does”? :smiley:

Skip me.

2 Likes

I think you should avoid false modesty, @mandog. :grin:

In this community, you cannot deny you are extremely experienced and knowledgeable with 15 years behind you.

What is easy and stable to you now may not be defined as stable by other users. Essentially you are saying “Arch is stable because I know how to maintain it and what to do with the terminal messages that are generated after an update”.

But I agree with that definition of “stable”. If one is able/has the willingness to learn to maintain their system and read update announcements, then Manjaro and Arch are about the same in stability.

If someone says, “I want to use Manjaro/Arch but I just want to blindly click on an “update” button whenever I’m informed of any update, yet I expect it to work stably forever without any intervention by me”, then I say they are setting themselves up for a disappointment. Good maintenance habits in Arch will carry over to Manjaro.

My disclaimer is that I have never installed Arch the Arch way (hehe), but have quite easily been maintaining my former Apricity (now Arch) install since end 2015.

I can’t speak for any other Arch-based distro, but Apricity’s own stuff was very minimal. When the devs closed shop, I removed their small repo and noted their main 2 packages were Google Chrome and pamac-aur both repackaged from AUR. The repo also had their icon set, gtk theme and wallpapers. There were maybe 2 or 3 other small apps which I had removed from the start because I didn’t use them.

Note: I don’t apologise for not installing Arch the Arch way. I came to Manjaro for itself, not because I wanted to say I’m a wannabe Arch user. I tried out Apricity 3 years after I first started with Manjaro, mainly because it looked pretty (total honesty!) and I was curious as to how much more difficult updating and maintaining Arch repos would be compared to Manjaro.

Conclusion: no real difference, and it was nice to use so I kept it. It gives me an early warning as to what issues might hit Manjaro for the next update.

However, I took advice from @mandog and @handy when I first joined the old Manjaro forum to read the “for newcomers” stickies in the ARCH forums and take in their spirit and philosophy. I credit them for proper habits learnt.

5 Likes

That is a great story, Most of the stability I get from Arch/manjaro is familiarity with the product. You learn the strengths and weakness. Like everybody else when I started with Linux I wanted to make Linux a windows clone, use windows programs under wine, make Linux windows etc, but I learned that Linux is not windows its not a clone its a operating system in its own right.
Arch is Arch its independent not a version of Ubuntu/RH/Debian its a Linux distro in its own right, so I use it the Arch way, If I use Ubuntu its the ubuntu way etc.
I find that works perfect for me.
I must admit in the early Arch days It was hard I was younger and determined, Sidux well it was a monster and if you did not update when Sidux said so, it broke it was so fragile you had to stop the server to update, Again the lesson was to do things the Sidux way. Also the Sidux forums made arch feel like Manjaro. Talk about dictorial but thats another story.

2 Likes

Ones definition of breakage also fluctuates with experience. For example, my touchpad started to act up on libinput update. I just downgraded the package and just waited until the version that it worked with again. If you understand why something stopped working and how to easily fix it, then it is really not that big of deal.

Many people would consider freezing desktop or apps instability. In this regard both manjaro and arch have been very stable (way more stable than windows), with the exception of the time I liked to overload gnome with extensions.

4 Likes

Forum kindly sponsored by