I have been around a while, I started off with Freebsd, then to Red Hat linux, I’ve even set up Gentoo back several years ago, and It is fun and all but like one poster said I want a working os, Now. Not only a working os but a rolling distribution, which is impossible to do correctly with their Apt repo system breaking all the time or not working at all until someone fixes them after a new version comes out. Not only that but Manjaro is just easier to configure than the Ubuntus.
there is the Manjaro architect installer.
I don’t know if the question should be why Manjaro over Arch? Why would it have to be using the word over? How about and/or. Both Arch and Manjaro serve a different function for different people. For me, I started on Ubuntu, I have used Mint, MX Linux, Puppy, PC Linux and now Manjaro. I think choosing an OS has to do with the journey someone is on and the individual preferences and reason for using an OS. Be it Windows, Linux or Mac. You found the distro that works for you Arch. I would like to, when I know more about Linux to build Arch from scratch, but for right now, I consider myself a newby when it comes to Linux and all that there is to learn. I saw a video on YouTube the other day and the person (I can’t remember right now the name of the video) said not to worry about the distro you use. If it works for you use it, if not, change to a different distro.
I love this aspect of Linux. I keep learning so much about computing and the fact that unlike Windows, one can change Manjaro to fit one’s needs. The command line, which I have really not used a lot in Windows, became very useful to me in Linux. And wow, the amount of commands I need to learn!. I always marvel how easy it is to getting something done fast by using the CLI than by the GUI.
Finally, I wish you the best journey in Linux ever! Like they say: live long and prosper!
Why Arch over Manjaro?
These are my personal reasons:
- I like and need Arch’s bleeding edge packages but have no time (read: unwilling to spend time) to set it up
- I like Manjaro’s little addition to the supported DE, e.g. easy kernel management in Plasma’s system settings
- I like MHWD, no idea what’s gonna happen if this is used on Arch
Basically, Manjaro works for me and this is my one size fits all OS, why should I bother adding difficulties of installation and configuration?
Because arch is exactly what I want to make of it (though not to the extent of a source based OS like gentoo). Manjaro comes in trying to simplify so much which can sometimes be annoying. Also, the clout that follows arch is far greater . Arch lets me do what I want regardless of the consequences in most situations while manjaro tries to govern the OS to do so many things without even asking me. I mean it should (in my opinion) have no pre-installed large programs like a web browser and ask the user if they want x or y or z installed for doing something. Another example might be someone may hate pamac for whatever reason and would rather only use pacman for everything. The user has to manage and remove so much random stuff. Just give me the power in the first place on what should be installed.
I was going to ask this question, “is it possible to convert Manjaro to Arch” however I did a search and indeed it is possible. But it does beg the question, What does it gain me and what would I lose?
Perhaps the brag factor is one that I can think of off the top of my head, “I run arch”
I like the choices that the branches offer, depending on your experience, whilst still getting an up-to-date and stable system.
Just give me the power in the first place on what should be installed.
Wish granted. Use Manjaro Architect.
You can then say “Btw, I use Arch”. As for what you lose, I can’t say a word.
I forced parents, sisters, and friends (and their parents) to Manjaro when support for Win 7 ended (because no Win 10, nonono). It’s the same for them, they basically use Firefox…
Why Manjaro over Arch? Because it is a better Arch.
Manjaro is Arch, but upgraded.
Manjaro is not Arch, and it’s certainly not a step up in every way. Unless you consider increasing bloat is a step “up”. As for being a better Arch, like I said before, it’s subjective. One might even say it’s a worse Arch, given how it’s not even Arch. One man’s bread is another man’s poison.
For me, now that I’ve gotten comfortable using Manjaro and have done a few installs of Manjaro Architect and twice used Anarchy to install vanilla Arch, I would prefer to install Arch using Anarchy instead of Manjaro on a new laptop (which I plan to buy in the near future). My reason being - now I know how the system works and I want more control over it, what packages are installed, be on the actual Arch repos, and a lightweight OS.
OK cool story Bob.
I didn’t say Manjaro IS Arch, I said it is a better Arch.
I answered the question of the thread, which asks for subjective opinion, so don’t lecture me please on my opinion
You can have yours, its OK.
There is one more thing to debate. Blue or Green? Of course, it’s obvious - Orange
And here I was, thinking it’s Yellow…oh Well…
I’m not lecturing you on your opinion, you can Hakuna Matata now.
My comment was meant for Mirdarthos’ reply but I misclicked reply on your comment instead.
Ok. If you’re not talking to me when talking to me it is difficult to follow what’s going on.
I myself choose Manjaro because apparmor comes pre-installed. I also choose it for the ease of kernal choices.
You can use Arch, and then install and configure everything you need to get a working system that satisfies you.
Or you can use Manjaro, get a working and perfectly good system out of the box, and then tune everything to make it satisfy you.
With the same amount of work you can end up in exactly the same place; the difference is with Manjaro you start out with something very good and composed by a team that really knows what they are doing, and then you can use your machine and take your time making it exactly what you want it to be.