• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    211 months ago

    Don’t remember what packages caused problems for me but I had to repair it via tty quite a time. Not updating AUR packages automatically is actually a nice workaround to prevent system breakage which I was also doing it, until it started to cause problems more often. Maybe they fixed it I don’t know (though highly doubt it because of the way they do it), haven’t used Manjaro for 4 years. Then I thought about that, why would I need to deal with these kind of things if I can use my system up-to-date with every part of it. No one uses Manjaro because it’s stable, people use it because it was the only “Arch with GUI” they know at the time. Now we have a lot of these and some of them are better than Manjaro. But again, if you’re happy with Manjaro there is no need to change. I was happy until I wasn’t because of Manjaro’s structural problems (like they nuked AUR once). It’s not a bad thing to recommend a better option if you know one.

    • lemmyvore
      link
      fedilink
      English
      011 months ago

      I’ve started using Manjaro 4 years ago so basically I picked up where you left.

      The situation seems to have reversed, nowadays there are plenty of “arch installers” like you said but Manjaro is actually a “stable Arch” alternative… provided you actually want that and don’t do anything to rock the boat. Using flatpak instead of AUR when possible can help further.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        211 months ago

        I guess the key point there, using Manjaro as Manjaro, not as Arch. It can be stable that way since they also have their own repos. And I agree that using flatpaks instead of AUR on Manjaro would be better. Though at this point, if I am to switch distros, I would go for Void I guess. It’s actually nice to hear that Manjaro seems more stable now.