lemmyvore

How long have you been using each of them? In my years-long experience it's been the exact opposite. Manjaro goes out of its way to not break anything and offers safety measures out of the box to recover if something should break. Arch doesn't care, it introduces breaking changes all the time and expects its users to be able to cope with them.

They target very different types of users and have very different goals. Manjaro explicitly tries to be stable and user-friendly whereas Arch exclusively caters to advanced users and aims to be customizable above all.

You can achieve the same with Arch that you get out of the box with Manjaro but it's not there by default – because that's not something a lot of Arch users are seeking.

For a normal user, you probably won't notice that technically manjaro is not arch and EOS is.

What's a "normal" user? On Linux you get all sorts. But you will most definitely notice a difference between daily driving Manjaro vs driving Arch.

All distributions make mistakes. It's a complex job. Debian stable had a local root elevation exploit on for a while a couple of months ago and nobody batted an eye. People would have a field day if that happened to Manjaro.

It's a double standard borne out of the resentment of a vocal minority and that sucks. The Linux community wastes so much energy on these pointless feuds. (And then they wonder why there's never the year of the Linux desktop...) Linux and FOSS are not about treating user share as a zero sum game but unfortunately there are people who can only think in terms of "if you use another distro you're dumb and I must ridicule you".

It's an especially narrow-minded take with distros like Manjaro, which is different enough from Arch that its users were never going to use Arch anyway.

First of all would be the fact that Endeavour is basically just an installer. It should have been an alternative offered by Arch alongside archinstall. I know it also offers some desktop setup but IMO that's too little to qualify as a distro. You can replicate looks and themes fairly easily. Might as well install Arch.

...but I don't want Arch because I'm at a point where I want my desktop distro to be boring and predictable, so it enables me to focus on other things. Arch needs more maintenance than I'm willing to put in. But I also want a rolling distro and having recent-enough packages.

Manjaro is a unique combination of rolling and stability. It's that combo that's the main factor but I'd be lying if I didn't say I enjoy not having to ever think about the graphics drivers, or about the kernel, and it's nice to have a graphical package manager.

As a sidenote, Garuda goes the extra mile and adds similar quality-of-life tools, while staying true to Arch repos. I think Garuda should get the publicity as an actual alternative in-between Arch and Manjaro, rather than Endeavour.

I believe intel-compute-runtime is in the official packages, why install from AUR?

They also may not compile stuff from source, they can download and install binaries and some AUR packages do exactly that.

There's zero guarantee when using AUR. It's not supported by Arch for a reason.

There no security and trust when it comes to 3rd-party repos. There can be anything in there. Neither the AUR nor PPAs come with any guarantees.

How did it crash?

Manjaro is a very opinionated distro and has a certain way of doing things. There's also a lot of bad advice online that tells you to do exactly the things that will break it. Doing things like using an experimental kernel, switching to unstable branch, using Arch repos, installing graphical drivers outside its driver tool, installing critical packages from AUR, using Arch-specific config commands and so on.

Manjaro will work perfectly if you let it work the way it was designed, but lots of people don't. Those people would be much better off using Arch or one of the Arch derivates that stay true to the way Arch does things.

Messing with Manjaro then complaining "it broke" is like using a toothbrush to slice bread and complaining it's not working. Well, it's the wrong tool for what you wanted, of course it won't work.

Manjaro is the only distro I've tried whose live image worked flawlessly, out of the box, and did everything I could think of, first try.

Granted this was 5 years ago when I set down to find an alternative to Ubuntu. Maybe today there are more distros that can do that.

At the time I tried all the usual suspects that are supposed to provide a user-friendly, gamer-friendly desktop experience and they all came short — except one.

That sold me. And it was surprising because I didn't really expect to find such a distro, I was just thinking I will make a list of what doesn't work out of the box on each, and pick the one with the least stuff. I didn't expect a distro to have no list.

Endeavour is Arch and Manjaro isn't. Endeavour is not a replacement for Manjaro for that reason alone.

"I installed distro B over distro A" does not mean "distro B is a replacement for distro A". They can be wildly different and it could be very misleading for someone looking for something that's actually similar to distro A.

If you're lazy (which I take to mean you like low maintenance) and haven't tried a rolling release distro, you need to try Manjaro. It's downstream of Arch (like Mint vs Debian) but with a lot of QoL improvements that take the edge off.

It's"Goldilocks" for me because it's rolling and has recent packages but also very low maintenance. I was sick of 3rd-party repo incompatibilies and update issues on Ubuntu.

It's a curated take on Arch in that it sources packages from Arch but holds them back until they're in a decent shape. Recent example was the Plasma 6 which they've held back a couple of months until most bugs had been cleared, but normally they release packages on a 2 week cycle.

It works out of the box, keeps working indefinitely (5 years going for me), and they have integrated system snapshots if you use BTRFS for root, just in case (automatically takes snapshots before every update, which you can restore from Grub). Never had to use a snapshot (did it only once to see if it works).

Limitations of Manjaro compared to Arch:

• Not as bleeding edge due to holding packages for a while.
• You have to stick to their way of doing stuff, like their tools for graphics drivers and kernel management.
• You have to stick to a LTS kernel or at least keep one installed as backup at all times.
• It won't change your kernel major version for you, ever. Some people see this as a disadvantage, personally I greatly prefer it.
• You have to stick to their stable package repo. If you use their unstable/testing repos all bets are off (which is not going to be news to someone familiar with Debian).
• You get access to the AUR but the usual warnings apply since AUR is even wilder than Sid. Some people say they've ran into trouble installing some AUR packages on Manjaro due to missing dependencies. It's never happened to me but I can see how it could happen due to the package delay.
• You can't say "I use Arch btw". Arch fans tend to hate Manjaro because they see its limitations and hand-holding as antithetical to Arch's goals.

Regarding that last point, there's a very vocal minority that will smear Manjaro any chance they get All I can say is, try it for yourself.

You don't have to install drivers or CUPS on client devices. Linux and Android support IPP out of the box. Just make sure your CUPS on the server is multicasting to the LAN.

You may need to install Avahi on the server if it's not already (that's what does the actual multicasting). The printer(s) should then auto magically appear in the print dialogs on apps on Linux clients and in the printer service on Android.

On Linux it may take a few seconds to appear after you turn it on and may not appear when it's off. On Android it shows up anyways as long as the CUPS server is on.

From what I understand OP's images aren't the same image, just very similar.