Manjaro Linux vs Arch

Описание: What do you think of Manjaro Linux vs Arch Linux?

Remember how some national founder said you shouldn’t trade security for liberty?

He said it was stupid to trade eternal liberty for temporary security.

There’s a joke that Manjaro traded stability for security. As in, it is stable but so wide open that it is barely better than Windows.

What really happens?

Manjaro takes weeks to get a security update rolled out, while Debian gives you a fix in days and Zorin in hours.

I’d like to know how that compares to Arch.

Arch Linux is easy to install, but it is difficult to configure. Arch has fewer packages to install, but this means you have to identify which packages to install.

This sounds worse than Debian.

Arch uses scripts like BSD, instead of the init scripts some other Linux versions use.

I have to follow a script to do anything in Linux. I’m too new for the complicated stuff.

You can install packages from Arch libraries or compile them from the arch build system.

That’s too complicated for me. I’m a user, not a system admin.

Arch lets you use any desktop environment, from KDE to Gnome to OpenBox.

While I hate the Unity desktop by Ubuntu, I don’t like having to install something just to use Linux, aside from Linux.

Arch is more secure than Manjaro.

Sure, because no one can figure out how to use it.

It is more a matter of all the different configurations creating an environment to complex for most hackers to handle.

Confuse the heck out of the enemy is a valid strategy. But that makes it too hard for me.

Then you can go with Manjaro, knowing that it has more security holes.

I’ve been running Windows XP for over a decade. Even Manjaro is a security upgrade from that.