1350
Anon uses arch btw
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
1350 points (100.0% liked)
> Greentext
7581 readers
2 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I've had more issues on mint than I ever had on arch, and I'm in no way a computer expert. Arch is just more simple.
Can you give some examples?
Not the guy you replied to but i put Mint on my uncles pc, tried to install some software and it just gave me some errors, tried fixing it for about 40 mins and gave up and just put windows on it. I had an Kubuntu install that just randomly killed itself after a few months as well. It worked fine for a while, then i restarted one day and wouldn't boot giving some drive error, and i ended up moving to arch after that. Arch has been working very well for me and it has had issues but i could always solve them quite easily.
At the end of the day all linux distros are essentially running the same software, the only difference is the version of software you're running, some update faster some slower.
But did you try putting Arch on your uncles PC? Seems like you'd have run into more of the same.
I've been an Arch user on my main machines for years, which is exactly why I'm hesitant to buy that it's "simpler" and less prone to issues than a distro like Mint.
Im sure that arch would probably cause more issues than mint in the long run, i was just saying Mint or any other beginner distros are not exactly 100% issue free as some would claim them to be
That's just Linux in general at that point though -- and really wasn't what I was responding to.
Every Debian/apt based distribution needed a reinstall after some time.
very probably my fault, but with Arch I always could save my install somehow, while with apt it was a lost cause - for me at least.
But I spent much more time with Debian based system in the past and still all my customer production machines are on a Debian variant, for my laptop and workstation, I'm happy with Arch - or if I'm lazy with Manjaro
Go for Endeavour over Manjaro for lazy-Arch. Manjaro is the least stable of the bunch.
The choice for Manjaro was quite some time ago, so maybe it's time for a re-evaluation.
Could you tell me, what you think the advantages of Endeavour are?
Endeavour is essentially just a GUI installer that spits out a proper Arch install with a few nice-to-haves pre-installed (like yay for example), and some good defaults (like increased parallel downloads for pacman).
Manjaro, on the other hand, holds back packages from the main Arch repos for testing. Which is reasonable in theory, but it means you can have compatibility errors if you install things from the AUR (which is the main draw of Arch IMO).
The Manjaro team has also forgotten to renew their SSL certificates multiple times (and told people to roll back their system clocks to fix the problems it caused), as well as DDOSing the AUR a few times too.
Thanks!
I've read the SSL story, but never had a problem.
Endeavour sounds interesting though, thanks!