• @cetvrti_magi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      To be fair, I would see why. Arch isn’t that hard to install anymore so some people see Arch-based distros that are just Arch with GUI installer as useless. I use EndeavourOS just because GUI installer is more convinient to me.

    • Spectranox
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      Endeavour is objectively better than plain Arch, this list is incredibly subjective.

  • @bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    371 year ago

    Have you actually tried Manjaro or do you just listen to what other people say about it? I find it has no issues and have been daily driving it for like 3 years now. Just because something has negative hype doesn’t mean it’s as terrible as people say.

    • @Sina@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      6
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I tried many times, though not recently and I agree with it being worse than just redundant. Sure, it’s usable and maintainable, but it’s objectively a bad idea.

      You can just run vanilla arch, or one of the installers like Endeavor OS and just use BTRFS snapshots to counter breakages instead of Manjaro’s delay thing managed by people I just cannot take very seriously.

    • Vik
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      tier listing distros is such a Linux community thing to do. Wish we’d get past it.

  • Papamousse
    link
    fedilink
    121 year ago

    I don’t really care, for me “linux” is a kernel, a bunch of gnu utilities, and I take Xfce as desktop. I can use firefox? an editor? cmake? gcc? I’m in business.

    All distros are the same. The main diff is apt/yum/pacman/etc. to distribute packages.