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

LOL. When you've installed and maintained LFS for any appreciable amount of time, Arch is a piece of cake...


I deleted my responses because I did not react to this topic I reacted to desperate topic from former manjaro team member who is crying over the net. So let it empty or put it back where it was!

I would vouch either for Garuda or Cleanjaro. More familiar workflows than other Arch based I would guess.

1 Like

Cleanjaro has been discontinued.

I have not checked if there still around. Pacbang... And there still around.

I tested Anarchy Linux installer a few years ago in Virtualbox and it worked very well.

So when my Apricity-Arch install died mysteriously earlier this year, I downloaded the Anarchy Installer and got a Gnome desktop up and running very quickly as an almost instant replacement. I then copied over all the necessary configs,files etc from the Apricity partition. Done.

Manjaro Architect looks similar to Anarchy.

Arch wiki way ... Read read and learn :+1: you enjoy linux more and its your distro when done ...nothing on there that you not want or not need :facepunch:


I'm glad you cleared that up. Seems they'd be better off just publishing the themes and not bothering wasting all that time with the Manjaro distro. They must spend days upon days checking those themes ready for the next stable release.

Well turn off gnome extensions, remove the Manjaro theme and icons what have you got Vanila Gnome, Same goes with KDE, XFCE, no magic juice, just wallpaper, broken themes and icons that is virtually every distribution out their apart from ubuntu Gnome
Its under the hood that makes the difference, Ubuntu is a mess under the hood.
Manjaro Is good under the hood as its arch based,
But arch is better not for new users and people that refuse to let go of their ideas. plus arch is simplicity to install with out a installer, a rolling release should be installed as a rolling release by definition to take advantage of it being a rolling release, what is the point of a rolling release that you have to update before you can use it.

But unlike Eletists I don't mind users using a installer but they are the ones selling themselves out by using a installer.


So you don't believe that Manjaro has any effect on the repositories?
Why, then, was my KDE upgrade delayed so long (reading the news, apparently they just couldn't get KDE to run properly).

Wouldn't some form of net installer address this point, whether it be Arch or Debian or whatever? That way it's pulling straight from the repos at the point of installation?

Yes of course Its the best way that is what a Arch install is also for Manjaro their is architect, and calamares can also perform a net install,
On the Ubuntu front Their used to be a minimal install 35mb a installer and Debian had the same whether they still do them i do not know they were never advertised that much. And of course on Ubuntu you can change the repros to nightly and live danerous just like sid.
In fact Fedora, CentOS, RH, Suse EYC all have net installs.

1 Like

If you used untsable it would of been the same day as Arch all software only goes to Arch when deemed stable and because arch uses vanilla packages it usually works fine due to the Arch testing repro and in the case of KDE its the arch KDE testing repro.
So in theory if software gets to Arch stable and breaks in Manjaro its down to something that Manjaro has done as Philm and others hold packages and take arch packages from arch testing then add to Manjaro stable then stable is out of sync,
Why do you think a majority of Manjaro users use Unstable they want to be close to arch

1 Like

I don't know what percentage use stable vs unstable.
I know that you can't get much help in Arch forums if you can't fix it yourself.
I don't have the chance to test multiple options as I only have one computer...

Also reading in Reddit, there were many folks saying they used Arch for ten years and Manjaro a couple of years and Manjaro's 2 week testing period does make it more stable... and so far I've seen no good reason to move 'upstream' so to speak.


manjaro use a manjaro kde-theme

  • sometime we have to wait for an update of this theme
  • last kde update was not very stable in arch (i use arch kde)

ps: not sure if the last big delay was entirely due to kde


For gentoo the question makes sense, you compile for your hardware. But arch is binary, so there is no better or worse. If you are curious to learn about linux structure, then again it is good education.

I agree to a point on the arch forum, I also see it from their point of view the forum is for arch users, not for spurious users, As the forums would get very polluted by non arch users.
Also Reddit must be taken with a pinch of salt, these so called arch users may of never used arch anyway, but i only know my personal experience can can only quote that, I run arch testing for years and very rare I get a problem, and the odd time its just a matter of using arch rollback machine and rollback a day no need for timeshift its kiss working like it should next day update all is fine.
When i was using Manjaro i used unstable 7 years for all was fine one breakage that was my own fault for trying to be clever using a core package from AUR and forgetting so one breakage in 7 years Manjaro unstable my fault. Russian roulete with arch testing 15 years + 2 breakages.
In my opinion both Arch and Manjaro are very stable seeing CentOS does get the odd problem from time to time.


I believe problems are mostly theming on both KDE, Gnome, the 1st thing I do is remove them and use themes I know that work. :relaxed:

1 Like

Their is better or worse Arch uses vanilla software Manjaro does patch from time to time it also holds back and pushes some forward then finds itself slightly out of sink at times using unstable you should be using the same packages as arch, they tell me, others like Debian/Ubuntu heavily patch software

YES but the time it takes to compile is ludicrous and it can still break after that. :rage:

I use Arch on one machine because I want to have installed what I want, for example I use i3.
My Arch build hes 499 packages what I chose it is fully functional for me, my goal was minimal fully functional system. For my needs.
Manjaro i3 has 1019 packages
EOS i3 has 719 packages -still missing core packages for me like zsh, ranger, vim.
I am not saying those are bad bud Arch as Gentoo has advantage of building personal distro however Gentoo is too time consuming, building all the time while Arch just installs.

Forum kindly sponsored by