Allero

I couldn't look the same at Windows after about two weeks on Linux. Seriously, Windows is THIS bad.

Most people are actually passively opting for Windows.

Computers just come with it, or if somebody install it for them, Windows is the default expectation.

MacOS comes with very expensive Apple computers, and most people just choose Windows. The idea of Linux either never crosses their mind, they may not be aware of its existence, or think it's some geeky server thing.

Most people opting for Windows, thereby, don't make a rational decision between Windows, Linux, MacOS, FreeBSD or whatever. For them, Windows is just how computer works.

If Manjaro doesn't work for you, doesn't mean it doesn't work for everybody

Leave our sacred amazing green Manjaro alone!

EndeavourOS is crap btw

And LibreOffice has terrible UI, even if it's feature-rich. Onlyoffice is the way to go

Alright, enough unpopular opinions for today.

Arch people REALLY hate Manjaro

-happy Manjaro user

Well, technically they're not wrong

Open source is the only way for anything that should enter our brains.

Really hope regulations will come to this.

Guess we have very different experiences.

Wonder if it could be in some way hardware-related.

I've previously looked into and tinkered with EndeavourOS a little, and I don't get the reason for its popularity and existence.

Archinstall+minimal tinkering for 20 minutes=equal system but without relying on some obscure distro.

Again, Garuda at least adds something to it. And Manjaro adds a lot.

Nope, EndeavourOS to me is a useless project from the start that doesn't really simplify everyday operation of Arch and just cuts corners on installation and minimal quality of life.

If someone needs pure but accessible Arch, I'd go with Garuda, though it has all the issues of pure Arch as well.

Manjaro is still my choice. A good majority of Manjaro haters just hear about AUR issues and never go there, although they are fairly rare and can be resolved, or you can rely primarily on extensive repos that probably do have what you need. Some others just blindly use solutions for Arch, and while Manjaro does allow for it, it shouldn't always be done, as devs themselves warn. If you won't treat Manjaro like mainline Arch, it will not break. But as any Linux system, it does allow you to shoot yourself in the foot.

The difference is - in Arch, noobs destroy their system and power users (kinda, usually) do not. In Manjaro, it's the Arch power users that don't know the difference and blindly apply their experience that get rekt, while noobs do just great without even knowing stuff that can break it.

Also, backups and snapshots are a must for absolutely every Arch system, that is just the reality of it. Arch does break, as anything bleeding-edge. Manjaro helps with that - granted, by introducing another issue that can easily be circumvented.

If anything, I'm a happy Manjaro user for 1,5 years, and I'm just alright.

Arch includes the setup process (not just installing the OS, but like adding literally every piece of software), which is super not noob friendly.

New users should just use an installer and get ready-to-use system. Manjaro, Fedora, Mint do exactly that. Arch does not.

Also, Arch may break in very unpredictable ways due to the way the updates work. You're essentially always in a beta - price of a very bleeding edge.

I had a better experience with Manjaro, and generally the advice for Manjaro users goes as "do not abuse AUR, and you'll be fine".

My personal pick that is gonna get downvoted into oblivion: Manjaro.

Manjaro is an actual "Arch for your grandmother". Combining rolling release with two-week checking period, taking the speed and customizability of Arch and wrapping it in a noob-friendly, everyday system - it's Arch that just works, is sleek, welcoming and easy.

What else to ask for?

Still some narrow scope communities holding some people back (but it changes slowly).

~~Also, variety of porn is still better there~~ (but lemmynsfw.com for the win)

Because none of the big companies listen to the privacy argument. Or any argument, really.

AI in itself is good, amazing, even.

I have no issue with open-source, ideally GPL- or similarly licensed AI models trained on Internet data.

But involuntarily participating in training closed-source corporate AI's...no, thanks. That shit should go to the hellhole it was born in, and we should do our best to destroy it, not advocate for it.

If you care about the future of AI, OpenAI should long be on your enemy list. They expropriated an open model, they were hypocritical enough to keep "open" in the name, and then they essentially sold themselves to Microsoft. That's not the AI future we should want.