Fair enough. We all have different GNU/Linux journeys. Personally I don’t understand why any would use something based on ArchLinux when there are easier and more sane distros out there, but that is my opinion and the arguments just don’t apply to my skill, ability, or use cases. But I am also more of a purist when it comes down to it.
With that said, the mention was just because the op mention that they were not exactly happy with manjaro, or at least I interpreted it as that way. But yeah, if you don’t want to constantly update and manage those updates week to week or day to day, it would make sense to choose a distro that is not based on a bleeding edge rolling distro.
1 Like
Ait, just got back to my computer, ran some updates and the problem is gone. Not going to go through all the 380 something updates there were to see what did what but something solved it. Probably one of the previously mentioned ones that got another update that fixed the missconfig/conflict/whatever.
Thanks for helping me out guys, ive def learned some things 
1 Like
Last time when I used Manjaro (around 1 year ago), I had many similar issue with updates breaking things, then other updates fixing it. Manjaro for me is almost just as bad as Ubuntu.
Personally, I don’t understand why people are using Arch instead of something like Void, Alpine or Gentoo (or even *BSD), but that’s just me. I prefer simpler systems that I know everything that is installed on (I got 638 packages on Void at the moment). “Bloat is any feature that you don’t need at all. If you are making use of something, it’s a feature.”
What I meant was, why use a derivative of an actual distro. You are at the mercy of that groups curated experience unstead of learning how to use the actual prent distro. With Arch being bleading edge, why use a “user friendly” version of the bleading edge distro. Just use a sane parent distro is what I am trying to say. You have access to the mainlinr and you know what is happening upstream and downstream.