Yo! Apologies for the spam. I just wanted you to know that I appreciated this interaction and adore your enthusiasm towards Manjaro. Wish ya tha best. Bye!

As others have stated, reviving them through Linux should be a piece of cake.

However, how many is “a tonne”? This is important information for the community to provide recommendations on administrating those systems.

Do you use it?

Nope.

What are your problems with it?

If you meant problems from usage; none, as I’m not using Manjaro.

Besides, I don’t need to use Manjaro to state the problems some of its users have experienced.

Btw, I’ve read your comment(s) under this post in which you clearly outline your thoughts on Manjarno. Thank you for those insights! My only question at this point would be have you (or whosoever) voiced this to Manjarno’s maintainer?

I say this, because I believe this approach to be a lot more effective and productive than discussing this with random people on Lemmy. Heck, one of Manjaro’s contributors has opened issues in Manjarno and it has gone as you’d expect; i.e. the truth prevailed and Manjarno changed some of its content to better represent reality.

Or, have you (or whosoever) considered writing up a ‘Manjaryes’? In which, most misconceptions regarding Manjaro are addressed and discussed.

So you’re really butthurt, eh 😂. Don’t worry; I won’t initiate any further contact. Consider growing up though. Cheers.

Last year, this piece was written on it. And, based on an extremely small sample size (N=1), the takeaway was basically that the 1% lows (and the 0.1% lows) do seem to benefit on some games.

But, there are so many factors at play, it’s pretty hard to back up any claim of performance increase (or decrease). However, if you’ve got the time and you want to play around, then please feel free to benchmark the 1% lows (and 0.1% lows) of the games you play on different distros and come to your own conclusions.

Small nitpick; layering is technically only a thing on Fedora Atomic. Not all immutable distros subscribe to it.

First of all, I’d like to apologize if I misunderstood the situation. Communication only through text can be hard. And, in retrospect, I agree with you that I should have been more careful with my writing.

Secondly, please dismiss my last two replies. Especially the first is atrocious, while the second one was written under time pressure. Something that I should have not done to my fellow human being.

Thirdly, you’ve had another conversation with another user under this post. And I got most of what I wanted to get out of this conversation from that one already. And, I’d have to agree that that person was a lot more punctual and eloquent when wording their views. Thus, I understand why my writings might have felt as a downgrade by comparison.

Fourthly, thank you for your time. I appreciate it. And I wish you a great day.

Fifthly, there’s actually one thing that I really want to know 😅. But, I’ll not bring it up, unless you allow me.

Cheers.

I’m glad to be proven wrong.

Thank you for being more optimistic than I am.

😅. Alright, I’ll digest it for ya.

You said: “If rolling release causes the system to implode, doesn’t that make arch more user friendly?”

Which, if I’ll have to guess, is what you understand from the following sentences of mine:

• “But, did I understand you correctly, that you hint towards the curious observation that rolling distros in general are technically ‘immortal’ while point-release distros eventually implode on themselves?”
• “The inevitable implosion happens once every two years at worst.”

Which, are the only two instances I used the word. And, in both instances, it is pretty clear what I meant. I even just checked this with a LLM and it agrees with me on this.

However, the question you posed (i.e. “If rolling release causes the system to implode, doesn’t that make arch more user friendly?”) has many flaws within it:

• Like, if rolling release cause a system to implode (which I never said nor implied), then, because an implosion is clearly undesirable and thus not user friendly, Arch (as a rolling release distro) would also have been less user friendly (not more user friendly*).

So, what did you actually try to convey with that sentence? Did you make a mistake while formulating it? If so, what did you actually intend to say/ask?

Regarding me quoting myself; it’s pretty simple. I just want to ask you if you think that a distro with the following policy can be considered user friendly. And if so, could you explain why you think that’s the case? Policy:

“Note: It is imperative to keep up to date with changes in Arch Linux that require manual intervention before upgrading your system. Subscribe to the arch-announce mailing list or the recent news RSS feed. Alternatively, check the front page Arch news every time before you update.”

When I quoted the text found below, I wanted to ask you why you feel pacman is better than apt beyond the claimed robustness. I agree with you that I could (and perhaps should) be more explicit.

it’s package manager is just better than apt

You didn’t lay out “fault in my logic”

I meant the following parts of my previous writings:

I’m relatively new Linux user (just over two years now), so please bear with me. But, did I understand you correctly, that you hint towards the curious observation that rolling distros in general are technically ‘immortal’ while point-release distros eventually implode on themselves? If so, wouldn’t it be more correct to attribute this to the release model (i.e. point vs rolling) instead? Because, IIRC, this issue persists on openSUSE Leap, but doesn’t on openSUSE Tumbleweed. While both utilize zypper as their package manager.

But, if you noticed, I didn’t actually explicitly mention Arch’s install or its unopinionatedness as its downfall; which are indeed solved by its derivatives. The problem is with updates. At least on Debian and Ubuntu LTS, packages are (mostly) frozen and thus updates are in general non-existent and thus are not able to cause issues. The inevitable implosion happens once every two years at worst. Is that bad? Sure. But does it cause any trouble within those two years? Nope. And honestly, I don’t blame anyone that simply prefers to worry about updates once every two years instead of daily.

To make it easier for you:

• Is Debian (according to you) not robust because it breaks eventually?
• Do you acknowledge that this occurs beyond the Debian ecosystem?
• Do you acknowledge that this occurrence seems to be found on distros with point releases, but not on distros with rolling releases?
• Do you acknowledge that, therefore, blaming the package manager for this lack of robustness is perhaps an oversight?
• And do you acknowledge that, with openSUSE Tumbleweed (rolling release distro) and openSUSE Leap (point release distro), this is perhaps most evident. As both rely on zypper, but the former is basically ‘immortal’, while the latter will eventually succumb to some major release.
• Thus, do you acknowledge that, in fact, Debian’s lack of robustness can not justifiably be attributed (solely) to apt. Nor, can Arch’s (seemingly) superior robustness justifiably be attributed (solely) to pacman?
• And thus, do you acknowledge that, we can’t continue to make the claim of pacman’s robustness as the reasoning doesn’t hold any truth in retrospect?

Earlier, when I said

Then, I’d argue, if you really dislike reinstalling, then Arch scores better at that. But we don’t measure how user friendly a distro is on just a single metric.

IF we both understand with your earlier statement of “pacman is so much more robust than apt” that you meant that Arch installations survive longer than Debian installs (under optimal conditions). Then, we could translate this argument to; if you dislike reinstalling, then Arch scores better. But, then I proceeded, with “But we don’t measure how user friendly a distro is on just a single metric.”. I don’t think this sentence needs any explanation, but I can clarify if you feel like it. The reason why I said “single metric”, is because I assumed - with how you actually didn’t try to rebuke anything that I said in this comment of mine - that you also agreed with my points. This might be a wrong assumption. So please feel free to correct me on this.

I honestly suspect the main issue is related to either the opinionatedness of Ubuntu compared to Debian or the absence of Snap. Why do you think that Distrobox will help them with their choice?

😂. No worries fam.

I’m afraid that you won’t get an answer from OP. Based on the last couple of days, and OP’s many posts, we’ve noted that OP has only rarely answered questions. I don’t think it will be different this time.

So, while I can’t read their intentions, I will provide my thoughts.

OP is a newb. And has asked this community many different (but somehow related) questions.

OP was on Xubuntu, but experienced a problem. After they saw that the solution involved more steps than they’re willing to take, they instead opted to switch distros. After prompting the community for some input and inspiration, they decided to go for Debian with Xfce. However, they’ve experienced a bunch of things since that have made them second-guess their choice; Xubuntu was perhaps better at some things AND Linux Mint Xfce was actually the popular pick in their earlier community prompt.

So, in order to resolve their second-guessing, they intend to put them all to the test simultaneously though multi-boot before finalizing their decision.

But as far as I know, NVIDIA just supports enterprise distros.

I tried looking this up, but to no avail. Got any proof to back this up?

I didnt know that, but uBlue uses random OCI container builds by Fedora for all their stuff, that Fedora doesnt even officially use themselves.

I don’t know how it is currently. However, initially, images were provided by maintainers affiliated to Fedora. Could you provide a link in which your current understanding is better described/explained?

I will make my case clear of what I meant earlier:

Me:

• Doesn’t understand by everything that has already been mentioned under this post why one is considering Manjaro.
• But, I am glad to hear that it has been working lovely for some people.
• Doesn’t accuse those who’ve enjoyed using Manjaro for lying, being not genuine or misrepresenting reality.

You:

• Argue why Manjaro should be considered.
• Mention how your experiences don’t quite align to the ones others are experiencing.
• Your reception to concerns:

That page is not legit criticism, it’s a bunch of nonsense. It misrepresents what Manjaro does, outright lying in some cases, it fails to understand how package updates and AUR work, it glosses over the fact that Manjaro helped the AUR infrastructure. It’s prejudiced information made out specifically to make it look bad.

There is not one pertinent criticism in there. It’s all meaningless drivel presented as legit concerns.

I suppose I don’t need to spell it out for ya. How about, instead of taking the subject to other places, you address the following elephant in the room:

All of that is cool and all, but trust is what it’s all about.

• Do you aknowledge that trust is the end all be all for considering a distro?
• Do you outright deny every single thing mentioned in the infamous Manjarno?
• If so, are you aware of any place where (with facts) a rebuttal (or something similar) can be found?
• If not, could you write up one yourself? So that we may benefit from that as a community.

I like for the truth to prevail. And for injustice to be stopped. If Manjaro is actually accused of crimes they’ve not committed and if (therefore) misinformation is spread, then I’d desire that the world is ridden of that fake news.

Windows ->

Fedora Kinoite: A relatively mature atomic/immutable distro combined with excellent security standards and that resembles Windows’ workflow. Unfortunately, it broke almost immediately. Though, to be fair, it was a known issue with the ISO back then. As a newb, however, I couldn’t be bothered with it. ->

Fedora Silverblue: Well…, I didn’t have much of a choice 😜. Or I had to forego Fedora Atomic altogether. However, I actually really enjoyed GNOME’s workflow. I used this as my main system for about year. Until I found a related project… ->

Arch: The memes got me 😅. In all honesty, though, it was mostly curiosity. Still, I didn’t intend to throw away my working Silverblue installation for the sake of quenching my thirst for experiencing Arch. So, as dual boot, I tried to install it. This was pre archinstall, so it took a couple of tries before I booted into GNOME. However, I guess I did mess up something as I don’t recall ever booting back into that system 😅. So, what if I want Arch, but don’t want to spend more time with the installation… ->

EndeavourOS: Yup. I actually enjoyed it. I also took the opportunity to install another DE; KDE. Tried out the hardened kernel. Was able to make Davinci Resolve work, which just caused a lot of trouble on Silverblue. Access to AUR. It was cool, really. And, for some time, I was actually pondering to dismiss Silverblue altogether in favor of EndeavourOS. But, I started to miss the ‘stability’ that I was used to from Silverblue. Though, I don’t exactly recall if it was the fault of being based on Arch, or rather linked/attributed to KDE instead. Regardless, I noticed that (over time) I spend more and more time on Silverblue. At some point, booting into EndeavourOS didn’t work any more. It had broken. I did engage in some troubleshooting efforts, but to no avail… ->

Zorin OS lite: On backup laptop; the poor thing couldn’t run Windows but (even today) it’s still kicking on Linux ->

Nobara: So, I guess I did miss some of the functionality provided by EndeavourOS; running Davinci Resolve being the primary one. But, I didn’t want to pass out of the opportunity to try something else. Back then, Nobara was released relatively recently and was received very positively by the community. And had even a special guide/tutorial to make Davinci Resolve work on AMD devices. Nobara was cool. But, it didn’t feel very special. I actually enjoyed EndeavourOS a lot more. It was mostly utilized for Davinci Resolve and for gaming if Silverblue wasn’t fit for the job (for whatever reason). Unfortunately, even this one broke at some point 😅. I could still boot into it. But, the system just didn’t do what it’s supposed to do. I tried troubleshooting. But, once again, to no avail. ->

uBlue; Silverblue image: Through all that was previously mentioned, I had stability in Fedora Silverblue. It was reliable. I could trust it. Well…, most of the time 😅. Decisions related to mesa or video acceleration in browsers definitely felt more like misses rather than hits. I can’t blame Fedora as they’re legally restricted. But, shouldn’t we be able to do better? Enter uBlue. It seemed like some black magic shenanigans. The earlier issues would have never occurred (nor did they occur) on uBlue. This ‘managed’ aspect of uBlue was clearly, at least for me, the reason to consider it over regular Silverblue. And so, I parted with regular Silverblue and started using the Silverblue image provided by uBlue. Not long after, I even had my own (hardened) custom image. But, eventually (to be more precise; about half a year after switching to uBlue), keeping up with hardening took up too much effort for me to bear. But, thankfully, I had already found the perfect solution… ->

secureblue (based on the Silverblue image): This was Silverblue hardened by someone that actually knows their shit. And, thankfully, I didn’t have to maintain this myself. I used this for a couple of months until the next best thing… ->

secureblue (based on the Bluefin image): Currently on this for I think half a year now. It has just been a lovely experience through and through. Everything I could have asked is provided.

I’m glad to hear that it has been working out for ya.

But, you see, I don’t dismiss the fact that you and others like you are still using and enjoying Manjaro. In fact, as I just stated already, I’m happy for y’all. However, why do you dismiss/belie/behave like an ostrich that burry their head in the sand when so many others voice their concerns?

Thank you for contributing so that people don’t misunderstand!

I didnt know they have testing images, but makesbsense in their flagship variants.

You can verify it yourself from here.

Though, with all that’s mentioned above; do you still think Pop!_OS is better than Bazzite for Nvidia?

I think we’re misunderstanding eachother. So perhaps consider to outline if you agree with the following:

• uBlue has some systems in place that enable it to detect some breakages.
• uBlue’s pipeline is such to not ship you the detected breakages.
• After a method has been found to fix a breakage (or other issues), uBlue’s maintainers implement these fixes and then, the very next update, the users will receive an image that contains both the updated package and the fixes required for it to not cause problems. Heck, the user didn’t know anything was up in the first place. They didn’t notice a thing*.
• uBlue’s issue/problem detect systems are not absolute; things might slip through.
• However, Nvidia drivers will not cause breakage that will make you shiver in fear.
• uBlue does not fix it on your device. They fix the image and that fixed image will deliver you the fix built-in; so manual intervention are a thing of the past (except for edge cases).
• Their pipeline does not require nor does it detect (through telemetry or whatsoever) the breakage on the device of the user. Heck, as implied earlier, most breakages are detected, prevented from shipping broken, fixed, ship the fixed one before any end user is disturbed by it.
• uBlue is not a Stable system (i.e. it does not freeze packages (apart from security updates) until the next major release). So yes, you receive updates all the time.
• Not being tied to legal restrictions is cool. However, a lot of derivatives do this. So this can’t be its unique selling point.
• uBlue is not entirely free. Its maintainers do pay money for providing some of their services (as has been mentioned by Jorge).
• Some of their images do have testing branch; even Bazzite has.

Hahaha. Okay, yeah you laid it out brilliantly. Thank you for that! I can’t but agree with you then. I hope some Fedora employee sees this @[email protected]. Apologies for the ping*.

From the FAQ of Qubes OS (i.e. most secure desktop OS for general use):

“Why does Qubes use Xen instead of KVM or some other hypervisor?”

“In short: we believe the Xen architecture allows for the creation of more secure systems (i.e. with a much smaller TCB, which translates to a smaller attack surface). We discuss this in much greater depth in our Architecture Specification document.”