• rhubarbe@tarte.nuage-libre.fr
    link
    fedilink
    Français
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Those cycles are meant for testing a coherent set of versions. If you update Arch on a monthly basis I’m not quite sure you got the same testing. I’ve been running Manjaro for 8 years now (laptop for business and family stuff) and I can’t remember any issue with it. I also have Endeavour and Debian on my desktop (gaming / casual) and server.

    • sonofearth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Yeah but Manjaro’s stable repo is around 2 weeks behind Arch’s. So basically any package in the AUR that has newer dependencies might not work well with packages from Manjaro’s repository. So basically you leave out Arch’s main feature half-broken. Thus, usually, people recommend to run pacman+flatpak instead of AUR. Vanilla Arch has worked flawlessly for me. Once an update borked my system but it took like 10mins to rollback and restore to a working snapshot with Timeshift. And has been running flawlessly since then.

      Arch is pretty rock stable when you have minimal packages and not the most bleeding edge hardware.

      • Liketearsinrain@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Manjaro has always sold the illusion of “vibes based” stability. It worked well and even some laptops shipped with it. It’s self evident why it’s not an actual improvement but people want whatever value they assign to using arch.

        • rhubarbe@tarte.nuage-libre.fr
          link
          fedilink
          Français
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          All you said is factually correct but I never had any issue with aur and Manjaro. It seems the issue is more theoretical than anything. On the other side, there are plenty of situations where I don’t want to have frequent 1Gb updates that don’t bring many benefits.