Is it better to use an Arch-derivative with an installer or install Arch directly?

Moderation Note: Moved from [HowTo] Convert Manjaro to EndeavourOS

I'd say he's only an archlinux installer.
Which makes this topic very ironic: installing EOS without calamares :laughing:... why not install arch directly instead? but maybe it's too much fun to install an installer without it?


I'm not of the opinion that it's 'more fun' to install Arch directly. I find it tedious to have so many steps, the need to carefully make a list of things to do and be extremely careful not to make a single error.

Manjaro USB - plug in, 15 minutes later you have a gorgeous KDE desktop themed and ready to go... and no stupid one touch opening folders in Dolphin (the first thing that annoyed me about 'vanilla KDE').

It's more fun to get the desktop going, fire up PMP and watch a movie, or play music whilst I play cards with my family.


Yeah it is what I was thinking. When one installs Arch they learn basic about Linux and have freedom to build its own "distro". Manjaro gives people greatness of Arch with more testing, its own kernel, with its own programs and plugins, its own repo, some programs in Manjaro are rebuild from AUR etc. This one looks like just an installer with sets of programs chosen by some people. I see huge differences between Manjaro and Arch ISO called other name.


Yes, but there are also more minimal installers for Manjaro - so you can do it the 'strongest' way with more work and more choices - I'm going to give it a go one day to see if it comes out any better.

I install archlinux every 3 years (if I have problems)
On the other hand, an installer like EOS can be useful if I want to make tests in VM.

Compare manjaro/arch ... :sob:
For me the big(only) difference is KISS! archlinux is focused on the administrator (no tools for the user: calamares, manjaro-system, mhwh, ... : all these tools are anti-kiss) while manjaro only cares about the user (admin is make by manjaro tools).

I don't have the time for it. I just want to get back to using the computer, not playing with it. I've messed with theming, customising, until I'm blue in the face - in the end I have my basic Manjaro colour scheme tweaked (it was too dark for me, but I don't like bright - so I reduced contrast and tweaked until it suits me).

Where the hell do you get these myths from Arch is simple to install All-ways has been. Apart from themes Manjaro just installs Vanilla DEs, the community WMs are hybrids most are not as they were designed to be used with Manjaro, more for new user experience not that its a bad thing for new users.

Personally i would recommend @Librewish and garuda Linux It just works for people that have never tried the Arch experience with a installer :kissing_heart: every desktop supported is themed setup and optimised with love by the team. :100:

KDE is just stock KDE with Manjaro theming
Endeavourer like manjaro gives many desktop environments totally configured just like Manjaro, so what is the problem tools well Endeavour is closer to Arch on that side, Kernels arch uses the stock Vanilla kernel in 15+ years its never had a problem for me.
But that does not stop you from installing other flavours and yes you can boot into other kernels just need to to a couple of steps as arch does not use update grub, then they are in the grub menu.


I think Manjaro offers more then one man project like garuda and other arch installers who just build ISO with their preferred packages and call it linux distro.

It is three man and expanding


I wish you luck

1 Like

You think you need to try it a very good project


Well that is true for you and me, but for some they need a installer. You know the oldest Linux Distro is a so called one man band but its still out their after over 25years. Linux popularity not all about Developers it more about contributors and community and more with reviewers.

Distros are judged not on how good they are but on reviewer fads.
What is the to go to distro today may be the one to steer clear of tomorrow


You have got it wrong i have used pure arch for over 15 years. My point is new users its no disgrace to use a GUI installer to try arch if you are frightened of it all


it is like saying a baby who has not even learnt alphabets
to write an essay


You consider manjaro users like babies? :roll_eyes: Now that's serious :astonished:
And note that "the bus" is rather made up of very competent people who could easily do without calamares.

i never considered it i was just giving an example
may be that example is wrong

cause i was also a manjaro user.
why would i consider myself as a baby?

1 Like

You don't have to go through the Arch installation 1000 times to learn.
It's good the first and second time, but then it comes more of a chore.

I haven't installed Arch with a plain Arch installer in over 10 years, because it's simply too tedious and the learning factor will vanish once you are experienced enough.

A simple Arch installer is always welcome, even for experienced people.

1 Like

I agree

  • I never break my arch so it's once every three years if I'm unlucky with my equipment : not big chore.
  • This subject if for manjaro user : so the first archlinux install. if they don't do it at the premiere, they never will.
1 Like

Something that is still new, but is clean and works. Plus has 32 bit support (experimental):


Whatever gets you a working system. :man_shrugging:

Forum kindly sponsored by