Just installed this and it seems legit as fuck. I mostly use Debian, but got tired of it and don't care much for the whiny SJW shit.
Anyone else using this? Any good or bad experiences?
Do I have to worry about Arch fags spouting "Use a real distro!" ?
I use it.
The only diference from manjaro to arch is the slighly less updated repositories (IE it takes em a bit longer to update the repos) but other then that you are still "Bleeding edge".
I only had a bad experience with it when I updated without reading the news because of a new proprietary driver that required a special config other then that I never had any problems with it.
Thinking about dual booting with Windows. Seriously contemplating it, but I have a feeling that the partitioning is going to be annoying on my SSD.
Heard someone make the argument that dual booting actually destabilizes the two OS's a bit, so I'm thinking about getting a cheap SSD to specifically use for Manjaro.
Oh boy, here we go OP.
Incoming haters for the next three hundred posts/until the thread 404's.>>51462216
>lol shut up faggot
I'm sorry, but that's offensive. I live in Canada and I could take you to court for that.
It's not about using Arch, it's about letting people know you do.
there is no wrong way to use a thing, there's the way it was originally intended to be used and the way everyone actually uses it, but the latter isn't any more wrong than the former is correct
Noob question about this. I have a win7+ubuntu dualboot already, but ubuntu is starting to be shit. What's the steps in changing distributions this way? Is it as simple as wiping the ubuntu partition and replacing it?
It honestly seems more stable than any of those LTS Ubuntu's.
I don't understand the reason behind these different "flavors". I tried ubuntu and every other Debian flavor and got tired of it. Installed vanilla Debian with my preferred WM and love it. Try either installing Arch or use Architect.
just install arch with architect do not fall for arch with stability meme.All it means is that manjaro fuck will forget to update a dependency so your *stable update* does not work cause they forgot to update the dependency to latest version to make that update stable
>Take a look at a calendar sometime. It's 2015. It's called progress you ape.
I actually chuckled a little bit.
I tried installing once, spent a long while reading documentation and having a go at it, ran into a problem and didn't care about going back through the process. Made me appreciate Debian a bit more. There's "minimal" and there's "unnecessary".
I used Manjaro 1 year ago I think, it's a really good distro, but in my case after 5-6 months it became pretty slow, so i formatted and try Antergos, that is the pretty same thing but I found it more stable than Manjaro, also the live cd let you choose what DE install at the beginning so you don't have to download other ISOs to try other version.
I had terrible experiences with manjaro. I got things breaking on average once a month, this was from a time period of about 15 months. I didn't really like the attitude of the devs, Philm was practically impossible to interact with and he cut out 99% of the voluntary support he had when I was using it which really didn't impress me. I left shortly after this fiasco and then it seems one egomaniac dev took the reigns of support and Mr #2 but he's a complete cunt I'm glad I left. Somewhere in manjaro there is a good idea but it will probably never come to fruition and the devs continue to show they are complete imbeciles.
lol He looks like someone that might have done a school shooting.
You can't dual boot Manjaro without summoning Satan to do it for you. It does not detect your current OS and simply asks you to either wipe the whole drive or do manual partitioning.
>or do manual partitioning.
And why would you not be manually partitioning? The default scheme is almost always retarded in Linux these days. Plus with automatic partitioning you are stuck with the default file system.
What the fuck is the point of using Manjaro if you have to do any manual configuration?
lying faggot, several weeks ago I installed manjaro dualboot with existing win7. There was not a single problem and apart from some specific troubles with drivers for integrated vidia (I don't think they are manjaro specific tho) it just werked.
Well yes/ I made separate partition for linux. I installed in uefi so I just mounted /, swap and /boot/efi and that's all. I encountered not a single problem and with Calamaries (their graphic installer) it was incredibly easy even for such noob.
For one thing it's less vulnerable. Someone may gain remote access to /, but if /usr, /home, and /boot are separate from it, the potential damage that can be done is minimized.
Secondly, you don't want / getting filled up, or being written to any more than necessary. /var can easily fill up all free space on the partition if you aren't careful. Better that it be on it's own than /'s. /usr and /home is what will likely take up the bulk of space on your system, better that that be on their own partitions. Ideally / is small and never routinely written to.
because this is how manjaro xfce looks after fresh install
with also add/remove GUI programs which have easy AUR integration
okay, this makes sense for me. Except I don't understand why is It that keeping / and /usr separate helps with security. Isn't it the case that if some one gains access to / he also gains access to everything as well ()because of root) (maybe if you had /usr separately encrypted it helps, but otherwise..)
all the people in this thread complaining about arch things don't understand that all the issues come from using DEs like these. DEs are massive monoliths that the developers switch around constantly, breaking backwards compatibility left and right. thus, they obviously don't work in a non-static rolling release system. manjaro's "wait to approve packages until we can fix this" approach is just a good way to make your system vulnerable, as you miss out on bug fixes in the new versions and don't get patched old versions because the packagers have their hands full. either use arch and don't install a DE or use debian or something
>Suggesting as if the CLI installer is any better :^)
I don't want to start a new thread so I'll try asking here. Since the majority suggests installing Arch "by hand" instead of using an installer, I guess you all know your shit when it comes to installing Arch.
What in the hell do I do once I've installed the base Arch system? Installing X + a WM + a browser and some programs is easy enough, and I can't forget installing this stuff since I know I need a browser. But what about those "invisible needs"? All the stuff I need in the background to have a complete and functional system? For instance configuring hibernation, managing your network, and so on? How do I get a trash folder?
You see where I'm getting at. Is there a guide explaining the basics? Or do I just have to wait until I notice that something is missing and dig through the wiki to make it work?