Manjaro Linux: Making Arch Linux More Accessible
32 comments
·March 29, 2025flavaz
lucasoshiro
> I’m really not sure what the use case of Manjaro is.
People who want the benefits of Arch (e. g. pacman, AUR, arch wiki, rolling release, having only one package management instead of using deb + snap + flatpak + appimage + installing scripts) without needing to spend hours installing and configuring Arch.
> Fedora, Mint and Ubuntu both exist if you want a simpler installer.
In fact, nowadays it's harder for me to understand why would someome install Fedora. There are less rpm packages than deb packages (which is a downside compared to ubuntu/mint/debian); there's no AUR, you'll need to find a way to install what's missing; it is bleeding edge but not rolling release, which doesn't really make sense for me.
> Genuinely I think most people just confuse distro with desktop environment
In the case of Ubuntu or Mint, yes, it happens. But not in case of Manjaro, if you go to its page you'll still need to choose one of the several DEs that are availabe, there are options even with i3 and sway. It's not like Ubuntu that you'll need to know the existence of Kubuntu
z3ratul163071
> needing to spend hours installing and configuring Arch
In my experience the diff from cold install Arch vs Manjaro is certanly not "hours". You need maybe 30 min to bootstrap Arch and once you have pacman you quickly have DE and you are practically there.
lucasoshiro
> You need maybe 30 min to bootstrap Arch
If you know exactly what you're doing, ok, but why should I remember something that I'll do few times and that can be done in a nice GUI installer?
I have installed Arch in VMs for several reasons and once I installed Arch in my computer because "why not?". I spent some hours (yes, hours) installing arch, configuring post-install stuff, trying to figure out why my wi-fi wasn't working and installing basic stuff (Firefox, KDE apps, Emacs, etc). When I finished, I looked to it and thought "well, after all this time what I have here is a Manjaro".
wyclif
I find that people tend to overestimate how long it takes to install Arch just because it doesn't have an installer by default. I've seen people with very little Linux experience get it up and running in less than 30 minutes.
flavaz
Tbh if you value speed and ease, Flatpaks are hard to beat. For most users (arguably also those on Manjaro rather than Arch), they make software installation and updates really convenient.
Fedora and its derivatives have been great for me. No issues with my rx9070xt and felt like magic compared to my windows partition. It’s not rolling-release, but if that’s important surely this is where where base Arch shines for full control?
Manjaro feels like an awkward middle ground to me and my experience with it a few years ago was negative. Though I understand it may have improved. I don’t have use case for it.
As for package formats, for opensource, compiling from source or COPR has worked for me.
tastyminerals2
pacman and aur with preconfigured DE, it saves a lot of time. I switched to Manjaro after I got tired of tweaking arch even for most trivial things every single reinstall. Its the best distro for learning though. Apt or rpm distros can barely compete with the amount of available and up-to-date packages in aur.
lucasoshiro
Some people say that Manjaro is bloated, and I understand. But if you want a customized setup I find it easier to install Manjaro, remove what I don't want and them customize than installing doing the opposite with Arch
jopicornell
> Just use another distro
That's what Manjaro is, another distro. I'm not a fan of it, but EndeavourOS is pure arch with graphical installer, what's wrong with it? (apart from users opening issues or asking questions about specifics in Arch forums)
Arch has an awesome wiki, package manager and tooling, among other nice things. Arch is not only a complex installer of linux. I think that point of view is elitist
mystified5016
Manjaro is to Arch as Ubuntu is to Debian.
It's just Arch with some extra bells and whistles out of the box.
This describes about 85% of all Linux distros. It's just something else with extras.
xinayder
Correction: freeloading Arch while making the OS shittier for everyone with questionable business and security decisions.
setopt
Um, I don’t get the criticism, can you elaborate? I’ve used both Arch and Manjaro before (many years ago), but don’t recognize this.
hiciu
Manjaro users used to come to the Arch forums for support. In one case user came with some kind of a kernel issue and when we started to debug it someone noticed that the kernel version they were using was not in the core or testing repos at the time. (It was newer and bugged).
There were many such cases. There is now a policy in place: https://terms.archlinux.org/docs/code-of-conduct/#arch-linux....
That's not all! Some Manjaro users learned to withhold information that they were using Manjaro and insisted that "it's archlinux", even when their own logs clearly said Manjaro.
Also, people behind Manjaro let their ssl cert expire 4 times. At one time they told their users to change their system clocks: https://archive.is/JeOLo.
Manjaro people have literally DDOSed AUR. https://gitlab.manjaro.org/applications/pamac/-/issues/1017
Would you like me to continue? I think that's enough of examples but believe me, there's more. Have you heard story about manjaro-system 20180716-1?
Imustaskforhelp
I think endeavour os is greater than manjaro though I use pure arch
bcowde
Been using Manjaro as my main OS for quite a number of years, very stable.
Wasn't pleased to learn of the plans for opt-out telemetry however ...
ChocolateGod
> flexibility of Arch Linux and making it more accessible
Then don't you remove the purpose of using Arch? It's KISS / setup yourself is part of its appeal.
setopt
Arch has many other benefits, like Pacman arguably being nicer to use than e.g. APT, and AUR having a wider range of easily installable packages than even Ubuntu PPAs, and less patching of upstream packages.
Manjaro just makes it more approachable for people who don’t want to set it up themselves, similarly to what Ubuntu did to Debian.
ChocolateGod
Arch has a shell based installer, why use Manjaro over that?
z3ratul163071
Arch does not have a shell based installer.
If by shell-based installer you mean: you manually run a bunch of sequential shell commands, then yes.
For me that does not constitute 'an installer'.
tnname
I just want to ask why would you want this when Archlinux only takes 15 minutes to install. If you don't want to spend time installing and learning Archlinux, Ubuntu is already there. If you don't want Ubuntu, Debian is a better option with deb. Why would you want to use it if you are not willing to spend time learning about it? I just feel that if you are not going to learn how to install Archlinux and configure anything, Pacman and APT are almost the same. I use Archlinux because Linux, Xorg, Fluxbox, Virtualbox, Firefox are all I need.
wood_spirit
In the past I used to use Debian then Ubuntu but left back when Ubuntu became too opinionated on the UI etc. Just wasn’t fun to tinker with anymore.
So I haven’t been following too closely for the last few years. But then this morning I was just pondering which distro to use to breath new life into an old mbp 2014 and googled it and discovered Manjaro. That was just before seeing this on HN!
But comments here about telemetry…
What is the go to distro for no hassles no nonsense no commercial angle desktop Linux these days?
Guestmodinfo
You can try Antix linux with Runit init. This is the smallest complete desktop that you will ever get. I got it running on my 2006 lenovo T5200 chipset laptop and I could do ok even zoom used to work. Now I'm using it on another celeron laptop and it works fine
Guestmodinfo
Antix linux main guy's name is anticapitalista. So that there tells a lot about that they hate telemetry. Antix is based on Debian stable but they have removed all of the telemetry and systemd. One thing I like about them is they keep trying to get new init systems like Runit and Dinit included which don't spy on users. And it's a complete laptop. Im still finding a reason why should my newer laptop stay on Windows when I'm so happy with Antix linux.
pixxel
[dead]
xcircle
I prefer https://endeavouros.com as an arch distribution
jcelerier
I much prefer CachyOS
mightysashiman
Always been buggy for me. Has it got better?
zdragnar
I used it for a few years recently and it was just fine. I had to switch to fedora when my company wanted to try some remote management software, as arch wasn't supported. The day to day difference in stability was identical.
Philpax
Obligatory https://manjarno.pages.dev/
temp0826
I don't get why anyone would care enough, neigh have the time to bother with creating/maintaining something like this. If you don't like it don't use it? I don't see why anyone would be forced into it. (Not a manjaro user, never was, just a bystander but longtime linux user).
null
I’m really not sure what the use case of Manjaro is.
Arch exists for good reason, and if you’re not comfortable with the complexity of setup just use another distro?
Fedora, Mint and Ubuntu both exist if you want a simpler installer. I’ve started using Bazzite on more machines too and couldn’t be happier with the results.
Genuinely I think most people just confuse distro with desktop environment. If you don’t actually need arch just go with another simpler distro and set up the DE you need.