Guys, why are you constantly making fun of arch. It really is a straightforward, stable and user friendly distro. The wiki is amazing and it’s very easy to find help even when you run into problems.
In my 8 years of using Arch as daily driver, it has broken only couple of times for me, and usually I can find the fixes in the forums. Ubuntu on the other hand has lead to so much pain.
I've been running slackware as my main os since 94. I was never able to get really used to any other Linux distro and I saw them all. I run it in my home pc, in my work servers, my work notebook. Best distro ever.
What a vucking great social network this Lemmy is.
I clicked "subscribe" to your community or whatever the vuck it's called and for two weeks I've been looking at "Pending". Is this such a vucking fediverse achievement that I don't understand?
Now for the topic at hand. If you have to choose between Arch and Manjaro, you have to choose Arch. 100% none of you will need to thoroughly partition your hard drive, because none of you will bother moving /home to another partition on the drive. And the main difficulty will be setting up the wifi, solved by reading the man pages. Unfortunately they are without pictures, so you will have to work hard.
Manjaro has compromised itself so many times that I don't understand people who use it.
Although no, I do understand you, my little friends. Manjaro has a graphic installer.
Arch takes a lot of manual configuration to make it work, hence providing some bragging rights about using it. Manjaro is a fork that has your typical GUI user-frienly installer that does everything for you, therefore you "proudly using arch" has no substance as you did zero work.
I wonder why I keep getting the advice to use Arch, then? Everyone on the Linux forum questions me using fedora and says arch makes more sense and is easier.