Archlinux/Manjaro Versus Debian Thread
 

Hello,

Archlinux/Manjaro Versus Debian Thread...

Archlinux/Manjaro is nice, more or less reliable, and quite okay.
Debian is a long tradition. It works.

However, I observed that numerous broken packages and errors occur in Manjaro/Archlinux. This is at cutting edge, but basically half things seem to work. The package manager is less reliable than apt-get, in sense that it takes long and it can lead to broken package/libs....

Debian well, everyone knows debian mostly.
It works more or less. Even systemd is more or less okay.

Tested:
armhf, aarch64, amd64, i386/686/(486) on debian
x86_64, aarch64 <- arch

Depends what version of Debian you're thinking of. Sid/Unstable is the nearest thing to Arch and that also requires you to be able to deal with broken packages without panicking.

let's say stable or testing.

SID is basically too early for use. dev only for sure.

I stopped using Manjaro when an update came in and broke Proton.

At the moment I'm running Debian stable. I enjoy the stability of stable; I don't need the cutting edge of Sid. Arch is a nice distribution to run in a VM and I do. However, Arch can and will break just by applying available updates. I like Debian and Slackware for bare metal installs. Arch and other operating systems are fun to play with in VMs.

It depends on what the user wants. I like Debian based distros but I prefer Arch based distros more. In my multiboot laptops, I only have one Debian based distro installed, Void installed and all the rest are Arch based distros.

On my pbpro, it is evident that debian goes significantly "faster" (whatever it means) than Manjaro.
Maybe drivers.

I don't know what you folks are doing, that you are getting breakage. I've Been using arch for 12 years I think. Never had pacman -Syu break anything.

Nvidia will break, but that is Nvidia's fault. They drop support for their hardware.

Grub will break, but the arch news tells what to do.

Aur packages, you'll need to rebuild them yourself. They are actually not Arch.

I think that Arch is a good platform to develop on. I'm not missing anything.

pacman isn't fault. some package do miss some libs, sometimes.

pacman-key --populate ; pacman-key --refresh-keys
pacman -Syu
pacman -Syyu

I once encountered a package (for Ubuntu) which had a missing dependency. I was installing it on a new blank system and the program wouldn't load. I figured out what the dependency was and, sure enough, it wasn't in the package's prerequisites list. So I submitted a bug report and the problem was very quickly corrected. It was likely just overlooked, because the missing dependency was a fairly common package that most of the time would probably already be there. These things can happen. And it's a testament to their diligence that it usually doesn't.

On Manjaro, these things can happen most of the time. Better to get a base with pacstrap and keep it untouched.

I have had similar experiences to you. At the moment I'm running up to date versions of Arch and Debian 12.4.0 virtually using QEMU/KVM, Virt-manager, on a Void host. Arch uses a little less RAM than Debian on boot-up. They're both responsive using KDE-plasma.
When I ran Arch on bare metal it could break just by updating the system. This rarely happened on Debian. Systemd can hang on occasion, particularly on shutdown. Not a criticism, just an observation.

i used/use Arch as a daily driver. one Arch install were destroyed by user error, other than that i have had good luck with Arch, couple times i have had broken packages but nothing that i couldnt fix.

as a gaming Distro i use Pop!_OS, havent logged to Arch in a month or so. but i think updates will go ok. Debian 12 i have installed on VirtualBox, solid thing that one.

i dont understand why Arch has a unstable reputation, if you read wiki and be ready to fix one or two broken packages everything is just fine.