I made a post a few days ago asking your opinion on Manjaro and it was very mixed, with a slightly negative overall opinion. I heard some recommend EndeavourOS instead and did some online research and it seems to be pretty solid and not have the repository problem that Manjaro has.
Just for context I am a Linux noob and have only used Mint for about the past six months. While I don’t have any major complaints, I am looking to explore more distros and the Arch repository with its rolling releases. I am not a huge fan of how certain packages on apt are a few years old and outdated. However, I also don’t have the time to be always configuring my OS and just want something that works well out of the box.
Is EndeavourOS a solid choice?
One thing I don’t know about any Arch based distributions is how about configurations. On Arch, the default configurations for some packages, whether do not work out of the box, or are not the safest configs. Whether while installing new SW, or while updating, there’s a good level of involvement particularly with configurations.
Apart from installation, which in rolling release distributions it might be about a one time thing per device, configuration might become a burden for new users.
I believe Manjaro (I’ve never used it) comes with some sort of sane configs that work out of the box for most users, unless when looking for particular tweaks, or so I read in the past. But Manjaro has fallen really down on people’s preferences. If EndeavourOS uses Arch repos, I’m wondering if there’s any difference, once installed, between maintaining Arch and maintaining EndeavourOS. Just by how it sounds, it’s the same thing, a lot of wikies readings (particularly when not familiar with the SW and how to make it work, there’s SW that works without particular configs, but there are some that don’t really work nicely out of the box on Arch), having to config lots of things to install stuff and make it work, and then be careful on upgrades about configs changes. It doesn’t look like EndeavourOS makes this any simpler, and just having some extra stuff, but not having their own repos, where they package SW with curated configs, then I see no purpose other than to make the Arch install easier, which now a days have alternative ways to do so.
Can some one please clarify on configs, and maintenance in general, for EndeavourOS? Is there an Arch based distribution really making this easier on new gnu+linux users, who are are really not used to deal with any of that? TBH, depending on Arch packages repositories sounds hard to achieve any of that…
“ Can some one please clarify on configs, and maintenance in general, for EndeavourOS?”
EndeavourOS is Arch with a nice installer and decent default configs. It is super easy to get to a nice, fully configured desktop. Once installed, it is basically Arch Linux.
Yeah, I was afraid so… I’m OK with Arch, and I actually use Artix (to avoid systemd), but I know there are people who don’t want, neither can do configs, nor maintain them on upgrades, as it’s a typical thing on Arch, and most distros based on it… So I’m afraid there’s really no Arch based distribution for those kind of users, and EndeavourOS seems no exception. Actually if one really wants typical Arch after installation, there are alternatives to the Arch ISO, no need for other distribution for that I’d suggest…
It’d be nice to have an Arch based distribution equivalent to Mint, so maintenance is really minimal on new users, and users with no tech abilities. Something rolling release is actually something welcome for such users, since having to upgrade on major versions is not always as clean, even for people with some experience.
At any rate, thanks for the clarification.