I have a question that many users guess that they have. Whats the difference of full iso with minimal?Whats your preference? I am referring to KDE and other DE.
you can look at the package list differences on gitlab.manjaro.org
I believe Minimal is better for people who want to choose their own package set to use on top of the desktop environment and do not want the snap/flatpak/appimage stuff or many of the other pre-defined packages in the main ISO. It has the bare minimum to provide a functional working environment. with KDE there's another option called Vanilla. If I recall correctly that tracks KDE Project even closer than the minimal ISO and only uses KDE packages (perhaps even more vanilla than KDE Neon which ships with Firefox).
My preference is my own ISO built from the main manjaro KDE package list state a year ago. Obviously I altered a number of packages but most of the default list remained in place too.
Minimal isos are originally meant for quicker testing of release isos. Some editions like bspwm use them differently. Minimal isos might lack stuff like:
- extra fonts or themes
- Office suite
- printer support
- heavy browser like Firefox
Details can be found on the link provided by @anon71843593
I found it easier to diff the *pkgs.txt file of each respective iso.
Some things people might consider essential like the calculator app is missing from some minimal iso's (I only looked at 18.1.0 xfce). There really doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to some of the choices. It seems more of a hassle to use the minimal iso rather than the full iso and remove the things I don't like. Unless you really need to save 400-500 MB or only have a 2 GB thumb drive.
The minimal web install for Xfce (Architect) seems fairly logical. Still has some odd choices but at least it feels better than the community minimal iso.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.