I have been using Linux for a few years, usually some flavor of Debian. But recently I acquired an older Thinkpad and thought it would behoove me to use something more… involved.
So I chose to dive into Manjaro and only broke pacman once. So now the question… can I say I’m using Arch btw or is that a faux pas?
I like to call it Arch for the lazy.
Well, jokes aside, people who install Arch usually want maximum flexibility out of their system (I have no idea why you would torture yourself like that otherwise). And after some time spent with Manjaro, I can confidently say that it greatly sacrifices your ability to tinker with the system in the name of user friendliness. A great distro to start with, but if you still like it after a couple of months, you probably didn’t need Arch in the first place.
Oh definitely, Manjaro is all about “mommy knows best”. It’s why people who say “you should use Arch instead of Manjaro” are completely missing the point.
Technically, Manjaro used Arch exactly as intended, leveraging its flexibility, but it’s very ironic that it used it to remove said flexibility. I’m guessing it’s why some Arch fans feel betrayed and hate Manjaro.
nah thats endeavouros
Endeavour differs very little from Arch once you’re past the installer. To the point I’ve never understood why it’s a standalone distro instead of an optional Arch installer, as an alternative to/part of archinstall.