Another “difference between” Linux question: What ist the actual difference between them?

How fast/stable are releases, compared to each other and in comparison to upstream Arch?

I think I dont get the difference because in my understanding Arch is a rolling release and with both alternatives you want to stay as close to there releases as possible, but dont break you system frequently, right?

So whats the main differences?

  • myersguy@lemmy.simpl.website
    50·
    8 days ago

    Endeavour is basically Arch with a more user friendly installer, a very small number of their own packages, and a coat of paint.

    Manjaro is similar, except Manjaro runs their own repositories and delays packages for testing. This can lead to a whole bunch of issues when combined with the AUR. The team leading it has also been shown to be a little inept at times. I wouldn’t personally recommend it.

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      12·
      8 days ago

      Pretty spot on. I run EOS, mostly because when I decided to get off Windows two years ago I tried it out and it hasn’t broken yet (at least not to the point I couldn’t fix it). My biggest draw was ease of installation, as I didn’t really have the time nor desire to go through a full Arch install. The mechanics of the OS, package management (both pacman and AUR), are identical (EOS does use dracut by default instead of mkinitcpio for image generation, that threw me for a loop when I had to fix it a while back as I’d never used it before). Any questions are easily answered using the Arch documentation. I’ve had to fix my install twice in the last few years, the most recent being systemd-boot deciding to be an asshole after an update, but I’ve been very happy with it.

    • gyrfalcon@beehaw.orgEnglish
      4·
      8 days ago

      I’ve been using EOS for about a year and a half, and for the year and a half I used Manjaro, and this is spot on. EOS is just a better experience, plus they’ve got much cooler default backgrounds!