Interesting! Thanks for sharing!
Not a big fan of Manjaro, but I’d like to see how this works out.
It will crash and burn.
I can’t decide if this is a good or bad thing…
It is easier, we also have this plan in the works for 2022. We’re hoping to achieve it with the April release Together with transferring the forum to Facebook…
Well… Manjaro is now pointless. They’ve taken the rolling out of the rolling-release distro, so there’s zero advantage to using an Arch base over Fedora.
They will still have their regular version.
For now, anyway .
Phil has been talking about getting rid of pacman for years: it’s a long-term goal.
Manjaro Jadegreen edition
What better way to spread the love of Linux with your grandma!
The whole point of Manjaro, what made it a great distro, was the fact it was an easy way to get into Arch, without any barriers to entry, with thoroughly tested repositories and no surprises on updates.
I couldn’t agree more.
Are they aiming at making inroads into the Enterprise world?
Majaro might end up like *buntu. Well, I don’t care I have enos. If this takes a nose dive (highly unlikely) I have Arch itself.
That and being designed and maintained around the requirements of its community - that’s why it was popular in the first place, and why I got involved. Development was proactive and didn’t make odd choices. How things changed over the years… (Yes, Sue, I know…).
Pacman -less Arch? Is it even still Arch based any more? I don’t quite get it.
I’ve always wanted to go pacmanless. What are we waiting for?
That’s an old idea, it was thrown around all the time on the old Manjaro forum, when I was still active there. The only thing preventing them was the inability to do so.
I took a different route with my Manjaro installs, I removed Pamac from them (which, of course, is a trivially simple thing to do).
Well - an Arch installation is dependent upon the
base package, of course, and if you look at the PKGBUILD, you’ll find:
pkgdesc=‘Minimal package set to define a basic Arch Linux installation’
distro defined requirements
‘licenses’ ‘pacman’ ‘systemd’ ‘systemd-sysvcompat’
So, I think it would be fair to say that pacman is a requirement to be considered Arch-based. But I am, admittedly, quite biased on this subject .