• Allero@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Always had - they even have names!

      But the numbering is fairly arbitrary, as you can guess, and number normally changes with bigger updates.

    • LeFantome@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      No matter what version you start with, a pacman -Syu brings you to the same point. But they update the install media from time to time and that is what the version numbers are capturing. How else would they track it? There are sometimes changes to how the system is installed. I have not used Manjaro in a while so I do not have any examples.

      EndeavourOS is the same and also has versions and names. As an example of installer differences, they moved to KDE by default instead of Xfce just recently. Not long before that they moved to Dracut and systemd-boot. Id you installed a year ago, you would still be using GRUB and Xfce even after doing a full update as package updates do not force that kind of change.

    • 737@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Arch is just as easy to install with a smaller ISO and a faster installer. Advertising EndeavourOS to inexperienced users will also lead to issues due to incompatibilities with the wiki due to dracut, the systemd firewall, and potentially systemd-boot.

      • unknowing8343@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        First of all: it’s a joke.

        Second of all: no, Arch is not as easy to install, specially for someone who is looking at Manjaro as a possibility.

        And believe me, I was once a Manjaro user.

        And for 99% of Manjaro users, what they really wanted was Arch with an installer. Which is what Endeavour OS is. (Although I’ll never understand why Endeavour people didn’t just develop the tools FOR Arch instead of wrapping it all up as their own).

  • ares35@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    upgraded here. no problems. didn’t even notice the version increment until i went looking for it.

  • ghostblackout@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I don’t like Manjaro or almost all arch bases distros because they just kinda suck and if you get mad I don’t care

    The arch bases distros I like are steam is that’s it

    Edit for people that don’t know how to read I use arch I just don’t like arch based distros except steam os

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Can you elaborate on why you think they suck? IMO most of the Arch derivates fill very good roles. Arch itself is a nice distro but you can never suit every user, and the derivates do things that Arch itself would never do.

      Most importantly I believe there are lots of people who would have never used Arch vanilla but they get to enjoy “second hand Arch” and that’s a good thing, isn’t it?

      My take on the most prominent Arch derivates (forgive me if I forget any, it’s off the top of my head):

      • Endeavour has a rapid GUI installer. It may seem like a small thing but sometimes you don’t want to go through an uber-customizable multi-hour install process. It’s not a beginner vs advanced thing; seasoned users can also want to save time. This installer goes against the Arch goal of providing full install customization so it will probably never be in Arch, but it is useful.
      • Garuda goes one step further and offers lots of optimizations out of the box. As great as it is to have complete freedom to configure your system sometimes you want a distro to step in and do it for you.
      • Manjaro goes in another direction and attempts to be “stable Arch”. That may sound like a wierd thing to do with a rolling distro but it works suprisingly well. The catch is that in doing so it sacrifices a lot of what makes Arch Arch; it has a “mommy knows best” approach and tells the user to not customize their system too much. This of course is complete Arch heresy (which probably explains all the rage against it). But I think it has struck a good niche as “Arch for the lazy” – people who would like a rolling distro but are afraid of bleeding edge.
      • LeFantome@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I used Manjaro and did not experience at all that it was more stable. For one thing, the packages do not get changed, just delayed. You are just as bleeding edge just not as current. The delay caused wrong packages to be installed, or unable to be installed, from the AUR sometimes. Also, mostly for governance reasons, Manjaro just plain broke more often than Arch.

        EndeavourOS just is Arch once it is installed ( especially if you remove eos-hooks which is what makes EOS report as EOS ). Everything on your system ( including the kernel ) comes from the Arch repos. Even the “unique” EOS configuration choices like dracut and systemd-boot come from the Arch repos. EOS adds a handful of optional utilities on top of Arch ( that you may never use ), some theming, and enables the AUR by default ( by installing yay and paru ). Of course, lots is people use these in Arch too.

        • Allero@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I’d argue that Manjaro just doesn’t implement similar procedures with AUR because it’s insanely labor-intensive, all while repos are doing great.

          As per the delay - the packages that cause troubles within this 2-week window are not updated until they’re fixed, that’s why this period exists in the first place.

          I’ve heard a lot of negative experiences around Manjaro, but most commonly they refer to an experience that has been long ago. As a 1,5-year Linux enjoyer who started with Manjaro and keeps to it for the desktop (though I played around with Arch, Endeavour, and currently have Debian on my laptop), I had no serious issues with the distro - except one time Pamac updated the kernel while I turned off PC. For that, yeah, some guardrails wouldn’t hurt.

      • LovePoson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Pretty much, yeah. Definitely agree with you on that one. I use Manjaro mostly bc im lazy to install regular arch and also bc I actually found that delay in the update cycle to be really good in my case. With regular arch the times I used it broke a lot more than what Manjaro ever did for me, and I’m not that particularly interested in “bleeding edge” that much, but instead I liked arch and arch based distros because of the compatibility and tools I need. The AUR is amazing, and there’s tons of custom repos to be added on top of arch which give me said tools I need to use + (yeah im lazy as hell).

        So yeah, Manjaro is pretty much a bit of a more stable arch for lazy people, so right up my alley!