"Today I feel like manjaro is what arch should have been."

The best feature in Arch is flexibility of installing every kind of DE possible but the problem is huge learning curve. Arch is real time rolling manjaro closely follows with 7-15 day interval only, where LTS takes couple of months. With everything configuring by terminal, it is a great way to show off to friends but not for someone who tries a lot of linux distro now and then. In manjaro same thing is possible. With community every sort of DE available, 10 min installation time, ready yaourt, a warm forum for exceptional problem now and then and almost everything can be configured by preference. Its 2017 and people desires flexibility not headache.


I understand Arch to a small degree–it has been my main/resident OS for the past three years or so. Kinda understand Manjaro a little too, since it was my intro to Arch and I still use it as well. It’s easy to confuse the two, but what works in one may or may not work in the other. Some very major differences, let alone the fact Arch is general use and Manjaro desktop-specific.

is like saying…

Today I feel like Ubuntu is what Debian should have been.

That’s just plain wrong. :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

But everyone is entitled to their personal opinions. :smiley:



You get both today, (and for many years now).
This is WHY there are multiple distros. Some focus on core issues, others focus on end user issues. They work together, one building on the other.

Its the same in the Debian worlds and all of its derivatives, Same in the Slackware world, RedHat, you name it.

If you were expecting a core oriented distro to also be very well rounded and trouble free and completely polished, you were pretty much destined for disappointment. With few exceptions, that’s not how it works in the Linux world.

Maybe you first chose Arch thinking that would be an interesting place to start. I thought that about Slackware once. Then I thought i’d move directly to Debian. Lots of people make that mistake. Sure, you can make it work. But its a lot of work.

Maybe Redhat and Opensuse release a polished system from bottom to top based on their own kernel developers, and their own source tree. There might be a couple more that do the complete job that I’m not aware of. Microsoft maybe what you had in mind?

Arch should NOT have been Manjaro. (Probably “could not” have been Manjaro) Manjaro does a super Arch derivative. We all piggyback on Kernal.Org’s efforts.

Its not reasonable to say one should have been the other. That’s the wrong take on the whole Linux community.


Maybe it is wrong in facts terms, but it is right in emotional terms. :heart_eyes:
PS: Moved the discussion to a separate topic to avoid Stable Update topic being flooded.


I also get the opinion, but I would say that Manjaro now is what Arch used to be, at least in terms of updates.

In Manjaro, Kernel 4.9.0 was in stable 2 weeks before it was in Arch stable.
Nvidia304 still does not build against Kernels 4.9.x in Arch due to slow updates, while it already does on Manjaro.

Manjaro used to be slower than Arch, but in many aspects, Manjaro now is faster than Arch. Still there are packages where the old order Arch unstable --> arch testing --> arch stable --> manjaro unstable is kept, but not that often like it used to be about a year ago.

1 Like

So you’re saying that Arch is for people believing in facts, while Manjaro is for temperamental or sentimental people?

I really don’t think that Arch should be like Manjaro, because it would take away from what Arch is good for, which is being a simple, lightweight system with bleeding edge software. It would also take away what Manjaro is good at, which is being a user-friendly system with many of the tools and features of Arch, such as the AUR (which has nearly eliminated going on the web for software). So, instead of saying that ‘Manjaro is what Arch should have been!’, we should say that Manjaro, is what Manjaro should be, and Arch is what Arch should be.

1 Like


I agree or differently said:
“Today I feel like manjaro is what arch could have been.”

With a bit more open-minded politic (for noobs) aside of elitist & inappropriately named KISS princip, an easy graphic installer & tools for keep it rolling…, & maybe, manjaro won’t even exist !

You musta been buddhist in a previous life, always seeking the middle road… :smiley:

I don’t know what we’d do without your balance, eugene. :smiley:



Manjaro would not exist if it were not for Arch. Arch is Arch it does not mimic others it does what it does well very well why have tools you do not need Manjaro is like going for a drive and filling the boot/trunk and back seat with all the tools imaginable not only is it more sluggish uses more fuel those tools are not needed so why have them in the 1st place.

That is not saying Manjaro does not have its place it does and performs very well within its limitations, but its not Arch and never will be just look at the forum of Arch members still contributing after 15 years or so what does that say install forget and very long term users. The most Manjaro offers is brainwashing users to reinstall on a monthly basis for a new theme and a GUI installer that is hit and miss, non free drivers again hit and miss, and a grub install again hit and miss. Arch has its own way install scripts that actually work pacman -S nvidia if you have a Nvidia card and of course long term stability for those that are capable and willing to learn

That is not quite correct you need to get your facts right As soon as software hits stable its in Arch, Arch does not support alpha software, as default Manjaro offers kernels that are alpha and the odd driver as well, but does not recommend them as they know they will break users systems or not fully supported. The 1st topic I read today on this forum was about kernel 4.9 I have never had a kernel break nor a non free nvidia driver break using Arch Linux in 15 years. Chakra under the same kernel builder also took chances with alpha kernels/non free drivers, and many breakages was the result and funnily enough they also had huge problems with the GUI installer then became incompatible with arch and has been dyeing a slow death ever since

TL;DR , but:
As I have always said, for every difficult thing, there is a simple way.
Debian=>Ubuntu, Mint
and so on.


i do not fully agree… and I’m not critical at all about arch. they have a philisophy and I respect it. and they do a great distro.

but about tools that are useless, slugish etc and don’t need them so why to have them in the1st place. maybe for you.
I could say the same for makepkg. PKGBUILD files, scripts. it’s aslo tools you could live without.
you could just use cmake, make or gcc and linker without certain tools that come over.

with all my respect. every user have certain background, skills, time and motivation about computer science.

manjaro tend to be a good distro with the philosophy they want, it’s the same for arch.
it’s why there is manjaro I think. because they liked arch pilosophy for the biggest part. and just wanted something a little different. manjaro would not exist without arch. and I would never ask arch to change.

there also certain things I noticed. for some “power user” if a tool is a script or a console program it’s ok maybe even great. but as soon it’s a GUI that is used to accomplish the same it’s “bad”. but they are both tools to do the same things. (I don’t talk about you. )

1 Like

That maybe in theory
Debian is more stable ubuntu is not its the Debian experimental branch and not really compatible apart from lts the comes a bit closer
Gentoo is totally rock solid built from source, Sabayon is fine for month no comparison and binary
FreeBSD again a rock PcBSD again fine in theory but not that good in use.

Arch my 1st install lasted till my old ide drive court fire 12 years without a install, I did not need to reinstall all that time. I learned to fix it. + arch is simple to install always was just use your eyes If a dyslexic old fool like me can install arch anybody can there is no excuse what so ever.

Manjaro I know how to fix it other than that it would have broke more often so all these so called tools do not make distros safer or immune to breakage, more the other way as users break their installs by not knowing what they are doing then not being able to fix-it after its broken.
The old saying really applies to Linux, a little knowledge is dangerous.
And another, too many cooks spoil the broth
And I would say tools are good if you really know how to use them and very dangerous if you don’t

1 Like

Philm came to Arch from Ubuntu helped with Arch kmod I believe for KDE the best KDE3 ever, went to Chakra then here very much influenced by Arch. I don’t say he has done a bad job but has strayed just like the chakra project did. I would not have used Arch for 16 years and tried every project in that time to better Arch without success I hate Arch but can’t better it in any way simple as that, When I worked full time I used the best tools on the market and invested a huge amount of money in them the same goes with distros even windows is the best tool for certain things

LOL! I’m glad to see I’m not the only one identifying that phenomenon. My personal feeling is a friggen GUI is why I left DOS 'lo these many moons ago. ------BAD UI DESIGN RANT DELETED-------


1 Like

Their is a mighty big difference between dos and Linux and windows I use CMD often to fix windows machines its terribly over complicated Linux its simple to use a terminal. Man i think you are getting old or smoking to much cannabis you should be sharing it with me lol.
The main difference with a terminal and a GUI is in a terminal its you that can mess up in a GUI its somebody you have never known that breaks the system that is why people like me prefer the terminal its simple faster less bloat and works every time well nearly :grin:

1 Like
  • Never seen any such “brainwashing” here. In fact the development goes towards making updating the look easier by installing manjaro-DE-settings and copying the dotfiles from /etc/skel.
  • The installer is improving in features and stability. Not to have a graphical installer is not an option for a distro targeted at general public.
  • You propose not to offer non-free graphics drivers? But they seem to work for most users with such graphics cards.
  • Manjaro’s Grub indeed has some incompatibility with other distros. Maybe there will be a solution some day.

I also do not agree with OP, that Manjaro is “better” than Arch. It is just very different, targets a different user group. Arch may be better for advanced users, but you cannot give an Arch ISO to a typical Manjaro user and tell him: Install Arch, you won’t miss anything!


Exactly my point, people don’t seem to agree manjaro saves a tons of time and trouble. It comes with all sorts of application that different people requires. but it can be removed with just one command. thats it.

And guys this is not world war, everyone has their opinion. I get it Arch is superior and i hit a rather sensitive spot. Sincerely sorry for that. In online no one knows me doesn’t mean it okay for me to attack others verbally.

PEACE… :dove:

1 Like

LOLOLOL! Hey, don’t worry about it–you have not offended anyone whatsoever! :smiley:

Once you’ve hung around here for a while, you’ll see that we have rather lengthy, sometimes ‘loud’ debates about the pros and cons of virtually everything!

But we all agree on one thing (I hope): Linux rocks! :smiley:

So take it easy, mi amigo, and go do some Linuxinginginging…:smiley:

Best Regards

1 Like