endeavour was one of the leading grub issue reporters iirc, because they actively update grub on manual updates. Unless you hook it on your arch machine manually, or do it regularly yourself, grub doesn’t update, and tbh there isn’t a huge reason to do so. If it works it’ll continue working.
The point is, updates break Arch (and as such Endeavour) just as they can break Manjaro; and, as a matter of fact, one of Manjaro’s selling points is exactly that they allow updates to be tested before putting them into stable repository, making the system more stable.
And, as with any distro, Manjaro doesn’t break if you don’t change anything.
Does it make Manjaro as rock solid as Debian? Hell no. But suggesting switching to more bleeding-edge Endeavour seems like something that certainly won’t help with stability.
The point is, updates break Arch (and as such Endeavour) just as they can break Manjaro; and, as a matter of fact, one of Manjaro’s selling points is exactly that they allow updates to be tested before putting them into stable repository, making the system more stable.
until you install an AUR package, and realize that having 2 week old main line repos is not going to help you at all. Or that archlinux is based on bleeding edge security, move too fast for anything to be implemented, and if something is, then it’s going to be removed very quickly, that kind of stuff now requires manual intervention on manjaro.
Archlinux literally has a new board for every update cycle they roll out, anything significant that you should know about is going to be in there. Otherwise, it’s probably going to be fine.
Realistically, i think things like manjaro and endeavour are going to be a worse experience than something like arch long term, but that’s mostly just me not liking derivative distros. Short term, i think they’re fine. I just don’t understand why things like endeavour feel the need to complicate the existing repo structure.
I absolutely don’t understand why Endeavour exists and is so popular.
On Manjaro side, the criticism of AUR compatibility is valid, and that’s why even Manjaro devs warn against actively using it; although, I have to mention, I personally have never encountered issues related to this 2 week delay, even when at first I used and abused AUR with no respect to warnings. (then decided to be on the safe side just in case)
Also, repos include everything except edge cases, and for those, Flatpaks cover most of it. Currently, I have 2 AUR packages installed, one of them being an obscure printer driver, and other being OcenAudio, a sound recording tool I prefer.
To me, Manjaro has shown itself as a safe, predictable, noob-friendly system that doesn’t lead you the ways of Arch unless you choose to go there, while benefitting from the rolling release model and wonderful optimization.
Endeavour, on the other hand…seriously, it’s a little more than Arch skin. Even Garuda makes much more sense.
honestly, i think an arch distro that is basically a preconfigured version of arch built for the end user a good thing. Takes away the pain of setting it up, but keeps the benefits of running arch.
endeavour was one of the leading grub issue reporters iirc, because they actively update grub on manual updates. Unless you hook it on your arch machine manually, or do it regularly yourself, grub doesn’t update, and tbh there isn’t a huge reason to do so. If it works it’ll continue working.
The point is, updates break Arch (and as such Endeavour) just as they can break Manjaro; and, as a matter of fact, one of Manjaro’s selling points is exactly that they allow updates to be tested before putting them into stable repository, making the system more stable.
And, as with any distro, Manjaro doesn’t break if you don’t change anything.
Does it make Manjaro as rock solid as Debian? Hell no. But suggesting switching to more bleeding-edge Endeavour seems like something that certainly won’t help with stability.
until you install an AUR package, and realize that having 2 week old main line repos is not going to help you at all. Or that archlinux is based on bleeding edge security, move too fast for anything to be implemented, and if something is, then it’s going to be removed very quickly, that kind of stuff now requires manual intervention on manjaro.
Archlinux literally has a new board for every update cycle they roll out, anything significant that you should know about is going to be in there. Otherwise, it’s probably going to be fine.
Realistically, i think things like manjaro and endeavour are going to be a worse experience than something like arch long term, but that’s mostly just me not liking derivative distros. Short term, i think they’re fine. I just don’t understand why things like endeavour feel the need to complicate the existing repo structure.
I absolutely don’t understand why Endeavour exists and is so popular.
On Manjaro side, the criticism of AUR compatibility is valid, and that’s why even Manjaro devs warn against actively using it; although, I have to mention, I personally have never encountered issues related to this 2 week delay, even when at first I used and abused AUR with no respect to warnings. (then decided to be on the safe side just in case)
Also, repos include everything except edge cases, and for those, Flatpaks cover most of it. Currently, I have 2 AUR packages installed, one of them being an obscure printer driver, and other being OcenAudio, a sound recording tool I prefer.
To me, Manjaro has shown itself as a safe, predictable, noob-friendly system that doesn’t lead you the ways of Arch unless you choose to go there, while benefitting from the rolling release model and wonderful optimization.
Endeavour, on the other hand…seriously, it’s a little more than Arch skin. Even Garuda makes much more sense.
honestly, i think an arch distro that is basically a preconfigured version of arch built for the end user a good thing. Takes away the pain of setting it up, but keeps the benefits of running arch.