What are the advantages or disadvantages to using Manjaro instead of Ubuntu-based distros?

Thread tidied to remove leftovers from the previous cleanup. @linux-aarhus was kind enough to keep the thread listed and not close it earlier.

Please review:

:warning: Any further inappropriate behavior in this thread will be grounds to close it permanently. :warning:

2 Likes

In my experience, being a rolling-release distribution and at the cutting (but not bleeding) edge of keeping with updates, I’ve found that Manjaro seems to offer updated software at a greater frequency than, say, Linux Mint or Ubuntu. For me, this has been a pleasure, but it does mean that one may need to pay a bit more attention to updates than with a less cutting-edge distro. For performance, the overall system seems to be snappier and certainly more capable with Manjaro (and performance deltas are very noticeable on the very underpowered laptop I use it on). One thing that may not have been mentioned: I really like the design decisions the manjaro team has made for Gnome, KDE, and my current Xfce. For the latter, many distros either provide the default options and themes or make decisions I am not fond of, resulting in some unnecessary tuning after install. For Manjaro Xfce, it was very usable right out of the box. I realize the question wasn’t directed to me, but all feedback can be helpful. :slight_smile:

Many people claim that rolling releases may require more maintenance, i’m not sure what it actually means but feels like a disadvantage.

Rolling releases perform better in multiple areas, file system, disk I/O, GPU and CPU, gaming, responsiveness, desktop smoothness and performance.

Rolling releases bring the latest software such as DE, kernel, drivers, all this brings performance improvements.

  • GNOME 41 is butter smooth when compared to GNOME 36 that Ubuntu uses
  • Kernel 5.16 brought Futex2 which reduces CPU usage in games and improves frame rates
  • Kernel 5.15 brought a new NTFS driver which greatly improves copy and write speeds of NTFS formatted devices
  • Latest drivers improve graphics performance not only in games but in general
  • Latest kernel improves CPU performance, file system performance, compiling speeds
  • Latest desktop environment version improves UI performance and responsiveness

There are many factors that make a rolling release perform considerably better than point releases, those factors i have mentioned are just a few that i know of, the main reasons are latest DE kernel drivers, and they improve performance in many ways.

Point releases usually freeze their packages, they only bring new features and improvements on major upgrades, which means you won’t get any new shiny stuff until a new version is released.

3 Likes

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation and categorization of information, makes it easier to learn as well.

Quite honestly, I don’t think I am knowledgeable enough to even describe exactly what I want from a Linux distribution. Perhaps performance, security and ease-of-use with a steep learning curve. Personally I like using the terminal too, and seeing and comparing some of the basic pacman syntaxes against Debian’s apt kind of put me off a bit, but I’ll give Manjaro a try. I don’t plan on becoming a computer programmer or work with development or anything, I just choose to stay far from Apple and Microsoft products/services that’s all.

I like the philosophy of opensource and this seems to be good Linux community with lots of good people contributing to it.

What it means is that rolling releases have no good way to keep breaking changes out of regular updates unless they want to be stuck with outdated software forever.

Thing, e.g., of a major (first-digit) new release of KDE Plasma (e.g., Plasma 5 when it was new, or probably soon Plasma 6). What a non-rolling distribution will do is to stick to the old version for the lifetime of the stable distribution release, and offer the new upstream version only in the next distribution release. That, together with continued support for the old distribution version (for a limited time, which may be as short as 1 month after the new release or as long as 10 years total, depending on the distribution), allows users to pick their own schedule for the potentially breaking upgrade. Of course, that comes at the price of sometimes running outdated software.

A rolling distribution obviously cannot do that, because there is (by design) no “next distribution release” to begin with. It can delay major updates for some time so that they can get some amount of testing (and in fact Manjaro does that, even for minor updates), but ultimately the update will have to go out. There are really only 3 things the rolling distribution can do:

  1. ignore the new upstream version forever – obviously not a reasonable thing to do,
  2. automatically upgrade users to the new upstream version – usually the most reasonable thing to do, but can require maintenance if the upgrade breaks something, or
  3. require users to manually upgrade to the new upstream version (e.g., by installing a differently named package that conflicts with the old one) – sounds like a good idea, but is actually the most maintenance-intensive approach, and risks users unknowingly being stuck on an old version that is no longer updated (by upstream and/or by the distribution).

One example is the switch of the telephony backend in Plasma Mobile from ofono to ModemManager: The new feature release of Plasma Mobile with the switch went out to Manjaro ARM stable pretty quickly, users were upgraded automatically, but had to manually disable ofono and enable ModemManager for telephony to actually keep working. There were also some regressions fixed in later updates. A non-rolling distribution would probably only have offered the new version in a new release (but on the other hand, this makes non-rolling distributions not very useful for Plasma Mobile at this time, at its current pace of development).

1 Like

Thanks for clarifying.

Never had Manjaro break anything on me, i have used it for many months and it was pretty solid so far.

2 Likes

My experience as well after many years on unstable branch.

1 Like

And Manjaro has always said it’s a curated rolling release. Just as it’s based on Arch but not, in fact, Arch.

I’ve always said that I like and prefer Ubuntu LTS for my servers. But I’m sure Manjaro can work, if you’re prepared to perform the regularly required maintenance.

3 Likes

Hahaha, i think you should stop dreaming or maybe learn what is a production environment.

I am talking about companies, with employees…
Servers are home hahaha not serious bro.

Yeah, I know what you mean. And I stand by my point, because I specified the qualifier:

If you leave it as is, it can also work if and only if you don’t install anything new.

I haven’t experienced any unexpected behavior since doing proper maintenance. I.e.: keeping it updated, staying on the stable channel and merging all .pacnew files after an update.

So I stand by my point, I’m sure it can be used for it. No, I don’t think it should.

2 Likes

Ubuntu seems faster with the security updates.

1 Like

What do you mean by “merging all pacnew files after an update”?

This should help

2 Likes

My general perception tells me that those who choose to venture into Linux is doing so for reasons like

  • privacy
  • security
  • resistance against malware

As coder and software architect I had a few more reasons …

2 Likes

My reason was different, my reason to look for Linux was that Windows 10 broke in just 6 months.

1 Like

Indeed.

Not having to reinstall Windows every year or so is a big plus for the Linux operating system, but performance and battery life still suffer on the free and opensource side!

Maybe things have changed since, having not used Ubuntu in a long time. I remember Ubuntu being frustrating due to so many bugs and lack of latest software. I moved away from Ubuntu to Debian for much less bugginess. But not having access to up to date software on Debian got frustrating, so I eventually moved to Arch. Having up to date software on Arch was nice but was more configuration and breaking than I wanted to deal with (likely due to my own configuration issues). My experience with Manjaro has been almost the complete opposite of Ubuntu, with the benefits of Debian and Arch combined. Manjaro is my first recommendation to anyone moving to Linux for the first time.

The only major issue I have ran into with Manjaro is that since it is a rolling release, you have to keep it reasonably up to date, else you might end up needing to do a fresh install after some months to get up to date. I experienced this after leaving a laptop unused for some months.

1 Like

While that may be true to some extent with the Unstable branch of Manjaro, Manjaro unlike Arch and most Arch based distro’s has a Testing and Stable branch. Packages move from one to the other as bugs are worked out. The Stable branch of Manjaro is rock solid. The packages may be a month or so older than Manjaro Unstable, but still newer than most static release disro’s like Ubuntu.

If you want newer packages than Ubuntu Manjaro Stable is a good choice. While offering newer packages it is still stable. I have been running stable for over two years and have had few bugs.
If you want stability there are things you can do to ensure it. First install timeshift and timeshift-autosnap (creates a restore point before upgrades). That way even if a bad update happens its easy to reverse. Second be selective in your use of the AUR. Adding applications is safe, the worst that can happen is the app doesnt work. Do not install system components from the AUR unless absolutely necessary.

Its true that pacman doesnt work with the AUR. But Pamac the Manjaro gui package manager can be configured to work with the AUR. That being said, refer to my previous comment about being selective with the AUR.

2 Likes