@joekamprad And what is the benefit for us?
Why Antergos instead of Arch || Manjaro
Meta-packages are good, but problem is if you dont want some packages you have to remove those as well, but thats my opinion, such meta packages looks for me to ubuntuish :)
Antergos vs. Arch:
- Antergos is easy and fast to install
- Antergos has an additional own repo, including some extra packages
- Antergos has a friendly forum!
- Antergos is meant for all people, not just technically inclined
- Antergos is otherwise quite similar to Arch
Antergos vs. Manjaro:
- Manjaro does not use Arch repos directly, but has its own repos
- Manjaro has three branches: stable, testing and unstable
- Manjaro testing branch has about as new packages as Antergos
- Manjaro uses Calamares installer
- Manjaro has some more apps for various settings/configs than Antergos
- sometimes certain apps are newer in Antergos, but sometimes linux kernels are newer in Manjaro (here Antergos is compared to Manjaro testing branch)
I used Manjaro 3 years ago, and got tired of system break down after an update! If you encrypt your hard drive through the system, it takes for ever to load (another disadvantage)!
I have been using KDE neon for the past 2 years with no problem, and I just installed Antergos KDE, on my home, and work computer, and was very impressed! The system starts fast even with an encrypted hard drive. So far so good. I like the system to be reliable. I guess time will tell.
@gigamax3 Antergos and by implication Arch is remarkably stable, but in my opinion you should expect breakages to occur, that is the nature of a system with rolling updates.
It takes an enormous effort to validate non-trivial software implementations.
That is why often the software deployed on critical systems like satellites and medical systems are year(s) behind the current state of the art.
It is impossible to validate in the PC ecosystem with the multitude of component combinations.
That is why I think Apple deploys it software on a limited set of hardware (in an attempt up the quality).
In other forums they mention the stability of Manjaro compared to other distros, the hardware detection and the easy switch of kernels. How Antergos is compared to that features?
@andreasdimo79 Arch linux is also stable is just stability in context…, Manjaro is designes if there is an update fluke they make a work around with script, does not mean it works 100%. Hardware detection for some can work, but not for every hardware also, if its not giving in. to use Prime as example you have remove the mhwd framework for graphics, so stil not a noob job :) mayby @manuel can make a fun tool later on to switch easy :p but manjaro also got too manny kernel under the beld each got his own name but if you use point release kernels you have to install the nieuwer kernel en remove, i late the arch way, just linux and linux-lts more you dont need.
@ringo32 @ringo32 i am not understand your answer about the hardware detection due to my poor english. I agree with all that you said, but to the majority of people all this “tools” plus the delayed updates gives the impression that is more stable the Manjaro from Arch and Antergos. I my self i am impressed from the speed of Antergos
About the stability of Antergos vs. Manjaro:
I try to be unbiased when I say Antergos is more stable than Manjaro. I’ve used both for a couple of years.
I have had some issues with Antergos, but they have not been anything major, and relatively easy to solve. Antergos forum/wiki and Arch wiki have been most helpful.
But on Manjaro I’ve had a couple of major issues (and a few minor). The major issues were such that I had to reinstall Manjaro. That’s not very good in my book.
On my machine I’ve installed all three, Antergos, Manjaro and Arch. But I must say Antergos is the one I use the most, by far. The others have their benefits, but for me Antergos is the best choice.
Must say however that Arch has been the most stable of all three on my machine.
But I’m not using Arch so much, that may be the reason… :)
In addition to what everybody else said in here: If Antergos (or Arch) breaks during regular updates (and those are not that common as non-Arch users claim), it’s a bit easier to find the culprit update, while with the bulk updates Manjaro releases, most Manjaro users opt for a reinstall.
I know all that, and i am a very satisfying user. I say what other people think when they are on to choose what distro to install
From this thread, perhaps the conclusion is that Antergos is closer to Arch than to Manjaro. Personally, I prefer to run Antergos more on my machine than Manjaro.
such thing Manjaro known good is to hype things good up, bad or good does not mather… at the end is users should always decide, antergos is basicly arch… Manjaro is arch-based but does not make arch directly… At some development stage Manjaro it getting more off Arch, because near future pamac would be there nr 1 packagemanager. so if you want pacman you have to install it, and then come the fun with it. Pamac get more development but the splitted pacman get less developed because they patched it to use with manjaro-system, in time is it kinda waste… the difference get bigger… Always depends what going on the path. Nobody can tell. What for sure is if Pamac get out of sort stage that have standard options, also the cli counterpart. Pacman get out the standard installations… Minor would be wiki spread is kinda minimal if on some issues you have to rely more on the forum.
For me, I am a linux mint user for years, love that distro, will recommend it to anyone who wants to get into linux. but I wanted something with more up to date packages. While i have no problem installing arch, I just find antergos awesome that you can pre-set everything you want before install and the community is awesome and so friendly like the mint community. And I love Gnome 3. :)