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?
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.
For example, how they handle SSL certificates expiring. For one, any production website should have auto renewal setup. Even ignoring that, a certificate renewal should cost 1-2 minutes of time (once the website host is aware). Instead of setting up auto renewal, or just renewing manually, Manjaro has (in the past) told users to turn back their clocks for a day to trust the expired certificate.
You can check here for an easy answer. :)