• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The fact that it adds too little to Arch to be seen as a separate entity. And I don’t want to run mainline Arch. It requires too much maintenance to work with it properly, and every update is a bit of a gamble on what’s gonna break next - unless you spend solid time reading notes to every update.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Yeah, I am aware of some of those controversies, and they sure are unfortunate!

          However, it’s really, really hard to find a well-supported distro free of controversies. Still doesn’t excuse Manjaro on that front.

          I personally did not test Arch for such a long time, but what I had I certainly didn’t like. Also, full barebones approach is not for me, and more of an enthusiast kind of thing. So, to each their own indeed!

    • @Konstant
      link
      12 months ago

      I didn’t like that it doesn’t have a graphical software manager like Manjaro

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12 months ago

        Fair enough. Of course, you know that the exact same graphical installer is also available on EOS right? It is not installed by default but it is in the repos.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 months ago

            Nope. Both pamac and octopi work fine with EndeavourOS. In fact, they work better because the packages are not delayed like they are in Manjaro.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                12 months ago

                Sure. One of those cons is that you have more packaging problems when you interact with non-Manjaro repos—like the AUR.