Archlabs vs. Manjaro

So let me say at the outset: I’m very biased here. In my defense, my bias stems entirely from my experience of both. I’ve been blown away by AL’s solidity and simplicity/elegance. Manjaro was supposed to be “all that” (if you read internet reviews) but it always disappointed me. I tried it multiple times (like around 5) and each time it broke on me.
I’m not sure I understand why though: is package management handled differently here vs. Manjaro? How come I have not had any updates break the system the way they did in each of my Manjaro experiences. Want to learn how AL is doing this so well.
Here’s apples to apples: I had both AL and Manjaro running. I then had a long bout of illness, so did not boot either for months. After that, I updated both: and again AL came through, and Manjaro broke. That was when I finally gave up on Manjaro.

My experience too. Manjaro is good, but its broke on me so many times now that I’ve ditched it. AL has been on my desktop, almost since the first release. I hsve kept msnjaro on my laptop for a few years, but it recently broke again. Now Have AL on the lappy too with Mint in virtual box.

I think manjaro is a bit like a Kardashian- high maintenance to stay functional, but if you ignore it for a while it will be broke(n)

1 Like

Yes — Manjaro delay the upstream Arch packages by a few weeks and call it “stability”, which is just nonsense.

ArchLabs rules, Manjaro drools…

Disclaimer: I’ve never tried Manjaro :grin:

1 Like

Another way it is Kardashian is that it is “supposed to look good.” I do agree, when you first install it, the desktop looks pleasing. Colors are different and nice. Their terminal looks among the better ones OTB. Of course, if things keep breaking, looks are the last thing on your mind.

But Mr. HoaS, just to try to understand Manjaro’s approach here: so they delay upsteam packages a bit. Why does that result in so much breakage? Thanks.

Arch synchronise their package releases so they all work together, Manjaro’s delays probably interfere with that.

EDIT: when I used Arch I always enabled the [testing] repositories to get the latest fixes as quickly as possible, it seemed to work well.


Ahh… understand better now … I guess Manjaro is underestimating Arch’s stability and trying to put some extra sauce which ends up souring the recipe.

Yes, I would agree with that.

It does. I switched to Testing for a while months ago and I’m still here. :smiley:

Many years ago I used Manjaro. It was an unreliable system to say the least. I used Manjaro because I was lazy, the many breakages basically pushed me into using Arch proper.

I am sure Manjaro has improved though.

@philT, i like the picture Kardashian-high maintenance :wink:
Good point.

1 Like

Well said, Dobbie! Same here. In a minimal attempt to be fair (HA) as HoaS stated but used in Manjaro - setting the testing repo in Manjaro may have removed some of the breakage as it may be more on-par with the normal Arch repos.

That all being said, I have never been a fan of a repo taking it upon itself to put forth an environment (look and feel) that I would never use. I absolutely HATED the overall scheme they use on all the spins (even down to the community editions) which I prefer to use w/i3.

Thus the move to AL - a nice, simple install, a scheme that is more pleasing to the eye then most others I have experienced.


The difference between Archlabs and Manjaro is the layers - the branches and the user base.

There is a few - as I see it - key points to note

  • The bulking of packages - which ultimately explodes in a major update
  • Manjaro userbase is a few experienced users and bulk of n00bs
  • AUR PKGBUILDs is heavily used by said nOObs with any regard for general system stability

While the packages on from stable to unstable - are exactly the same - the bulking of packages before they reach stable is what - together with the often inexperienced users - is causing the headaches on Manjaro.

I have been using Manjaro for several years now and I have never had the failures many Manjaro users post about.

But when and then I began using Manjaro it was because - I was using Arch and it my learning process - I broke my system so often this was not Arch fault and I grew tired of reinstalling the Arch way - and I actually participated in the early translation of Architect (Carl Duff) back in 2015 - it was only years later I learning he left Manjaro in anger - but nonetheless - it was the ease of installation that caught my attention and what has kept me around for around 4 years now.

Some of you will know me from Manjaro forum and it is safe statement - that the Manjaro Openbox edition wouldn’t be what it is if I hadn’t stumbled on Archlabs - Archlabs has been my primary source of inispiration - so thank you @Dobbie03 and @natemaia - it is a pleasure and a honor.

If any of you happen to know how to get in contact with Carl Duff - please let me know.

And with recent events in Manjaro Core Team … I am going to pay more attention to my Arch projects PacBang and BlackBox.

Have a great day …


Almost seems to be the standard issue there, which is sad.

It is because we have a solid base thanks to the skills of @natemaia and we keep it simple. It also helps that we have a very loyal and knowledgeable user base. Nothing more, nothing less.


As an Arch user for quite a few years, i thought that I’ve had something to add to the topic, but then i’ve realized that @Head_on_a_Stick, @fhdk and @Chris summed up almost all I’ve got to say in only six lines.


LOL, I’ve been on the edge of the bleeding edge for months: Arch Testing, and lately the mainline kernel (5.8-rc7). No single problem so far.