Another “difference between” Linux question: What ist the actual difference between them?
How fast/stable are releases, compared to each other and in comparison to upstream Arch?
I think I dont get the difference because in my understanding Arch is a rolling release and with both alternatives you want to stay as close to there releases as possible, but dont break you system frequently, right?
So whats the main differences?
You must log in or register to comment.
I tried both Manjaro and Endeavour early in my distro hoping days. Endeavor, like others have said, is basically Arch with a good installer and some good defaults, but it is still Arch, which requires you to pay more attention and get more involved in your OS.
Manjaro was kind of an “easier Arch” for me until they pushed an update and black-screened every one of my computers. Twice.
After that, I was done, which is a shame because I rather liked it.
Yeah the problem I had with Manjaro was that in trying to protect me from breaking it, it also made it difficult for me to fix it when it broke by itself. I much prefer regular Arch where you can just get in and pull all the important wires out lol.
Manjaro is just a bad distro. For all the reasons stated in other comments. Nobody should be using it.
My understanding is that both are more or less just arch, except that Manjaro holds back update on some packages and breaks stuff.
Manjaro was my first distro. I used a number of AUR packages and ran into excessive dependency issues due to Manjaro’s packages being held back and often a version or two behind. This eventually led me to switch to vanilla arch. Unless one plans on not using any AUR packages at all, I do not recommend it.
Manjaro also uses the pamac gui package manager, which has a bit of a history of “DDoS”-ing the AUR with excessive requests. Apparently, the search field in pamac would begin querying the AUR after every letter typed to try and populate autocomplete results, hammering it with requests. Pamac also does not distinguish between package repos, so even just having AUR enabled and searching for a regular repo package would send requests to the AUR. Apparently it got so bad that it took down the AUR and they started returning 403 to requests from pamac users. In fact, this happened a second time and got them blocked again. This got the Manjaro devs in bad graces with a number of Linux folks as it was not a bug, but a poor design choice.
deleted by creator
I see lots of sidekicks against Manjaro, it’s a thing apparently :D I am using manjaro on a framework 16 for about a year now and it never broke anything, just works wonderful for me, although I dont have any fancy requirements other than a working Linux.
But i would be interested in the critics about the team and their “bad” decisions, as stated in some comments. What were the problems?
There’s several blogposts on the issue. If you don’t mind I’ll link some
https://www.hadet.dev/Manjaro-Bad/
https://github.com/arindas/manjarno
The grand deal is that you probably won’t notice much issues unless you tinker a lot, but claiming to be more stable than arch while not doing much to be as such and then actually being more unstable ends up with a passionate hate crowd.
I ran more than a few Manjaro installations for myself and family, and still do. Despite what others say, I’ve had very, very little problems with it and maintenance has been low, users just run Octopi every once in a while and it just works.
I’ve since moved my own systems to Fedora because I just find it more useful for development, but I would still use it over vanilla Arch, which I ran for almost a decade before Manjaro. Can’t really speak to Endeavor, but as far as I know it’s basically bleeding edge Arch with the ups and downs that implies.
And whatever the stupid shit the Manjaro team has perpetrated over the years, they’ve still built a solid distro.
