To preface this: I've primarily used Debian based systems throughout all of my years with linux. I started with Ubuntu and then moved over to Debian (which I still trust all of my servers with). However, I am starting to get the feeling I rely a little too much on Debian and know little outside of it. For experimentation, and for an interesting learning experience, I have spun up a vm with Manjaro linux. I've heard very mixed opinions about Arch but was always very curious about it, I thought, installing Manjaro will likely be a bit easier than Arch, it was about the same difficulty as Debian for me (not difficult at all).
I am now currently running a small vm when I plan to spend some time in for a while. My first impressions so far are that I really like how vanilla of a Linux experience it is, the only software that is installed is what you want to install - no unnecessary programs right out of the gate and the size of the net-installer is super compact. I also personally already adore the pacman package manager system and how condensed the syntax is in comparison to Debian/Ubuntu.
To long term Arch/Manjaro users, what should I expect, what do you consider to be so great about Arch/Manjaro, and what advice would you give me as a new user? (but as a fairly experienced Linux user).
You might think I'm being extremist here, but... think of Manjaro and Arch as two different distros. Don't expect to get help with Manjaro on the official Arch forums or similar. If you go on an Arch-centric forum, then don't be surprised if people think low of Manjaro. I'm an arch user myself, and I admit that I don't have the highest opinions of distros such as Manjaro and Antergos - but it's not out of extremism. I think those distros try to make Arch into something that it isn't and I don't like it (however if people wanna use Manjaro or Antergos, that's fine. I understand that some people like it, and I mean no harm to anyone. I simply don't agree what Manjaro and Antergos tries to do).
Also, from what I've heard, expect there to be hassle with packages. As I've understood it Manjaro has its own repos, which are copies of Arch's repos, but tested once again. Which can end up putting you in a position where you have one package that has an update, but relies on another package of version B, but that update isn't released into the Manjaro repos yet. However, this is just what I've heard. I have no first-hand experience using Manjaro, and this might not be a problem anymore.
Also, try to make use of the official Arch wiki, it can be pretty damn useful. ;)
What do I consider great about Arch?
The simplicity of everything. The ISO is bare, there are no version numbers, there is no set mold that everyone has to use, and that it inherently promotes you to be experimental (because there is no set mold). Pacman, which is not arch specific, is also a great plus. As you said, it has a compact syntax, and I think it has a great design. The wiki is also a pretty nice knowledge resource (also not (always) Arch specific).
Here's probably an uncommon opinion... but the community (most of the time). Yes, the community can be very harsh and unhelpful when you ask a question to be met with "RTFM" or a link to the wiki. But I like it. Why? Because I think Arch fundamentally differs from distros as Ubuntu, Debian, or Fedora. It promotes experimentation, and independance. Kind of like "give a man a fish, and he has food for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he has food for the rest of his life.". I've been on Arch help channels, asked a question and had people link me to the wiki, or wikipedia, instead of simply answering the question. That has taught me much more on the subject than a "run [command]" or "use this program" would've done. That's why I like the community. Also, this opinion chains together with my dislike for distros like Antergos and Manjaro. :P
Advice?
Don't be afraid to get your hands dirty. The worst thing that can happen is you gain knowledge and experience ;)
I have absolutely no hatred or dislike toward distros like Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, Debian, list goes on. I don't look down on anyone who doesn't use Arch, or uses Manjaro instead of Arch. I just have my interpretation of what Arch aims to be, and I think that Manjaro and Antergos breaches that. I have no extra love for Arch, I just use it because it happens to be what I installed one day, and now I'm used to it. I might use Debian, Slackware, CentOS, or *BSD some day, who knows. If I do switch, then I'll probably develop an interpretation of that distro's philosophy too.
Thank you! It was really interesting to hear, in all honesty. I've always been a fan of what you described for linux in general, being forced to figure shit out - makes you a lot more productive and knowledgeable, plus the 'war stories' are fun to tell =P
Out of curiosity, what is so different between Arch and Manjaro outside of the packages being derived from Arch rather than being directly from it (which I had heard of when researching). Outside of that factor, everything seems to be about the same as far as I see, just the installer is easier to sit through (which, while I like a challenge, there is a point where things get a bit ...needless rather than fun).
Regarding your last point, I would honestly recommend trying out Debian as well as BSD. Debian is just so stable from my experience and as a web developer, the documentation is great, and the servers are always without much downtime. I guess I just like the ease of quickly spinning up servers, it's rather painless and easy to get it up - which saves time in the long run - however I don't mind being more experimental on my own time.
Well, I personally think that when you abstract the installation process of Arch like Manjaro and Antergos does, you invite those who are after a distro that is beginner friendly, that will work with you and just werk. That's not exactly Arch, now is it? ;P The official forums make it clear that Arch is Arch, Manjaro is Manjaro, Antergos is Antergos. Which people sometimes forget when they use Manjaro or Antergos and go to the Arch forums asking for help. Why do they make this point? How are the people using Arch supposed to know what Manjaro and Antergos does differently from Arch? Maybe they change some packages, package name, or location of something. That's why I told you to think of Arch and Manjaro as two separate distros.
I tried Debian on my laptop, and I thought I'd give it a fair chance even though I had to go to my desktop, download some non-free driver, go to laptop, go back to the desktop down- you get it. But when I had finally got it running I dunno... it just didn't speak to me. I remember thinking it wasn't as simple in a way, kinda? I'm not really someone who cares about open source over closed source, which is not true for Debian. But I'll probably dwell into BSD some day.
I can definitely understand the minor differences becoming a problem when trying to diagnose a problem, though generally i'm the type to read up on the wiki or previous posts before asking a question on a forum. Maybe I will decide to go deeper one day and experiment with Arch, though in all honesty, i'm more trying to comfortably try it out at the moment which is why I am using Manjaro.
Debian has gotten a loooot better about that kind of stuff, so it might be worth another chance. My only experience with BSD has been pfsense (under freeBSD), and I don't know if I will be looking further any time soon, but it is really interesting.
it's always nice to have an idea, where to look for stuff when things break, down the line.
That said aside from package management, and philosophy I haven't found it much different to debian based systems. One other thing you will find that when you finally trust the updates, and have forgotten all about the "be wary of updates" advice that an update will break the system (speaking of arch here, I have little experience with manjaro). Thus, albeit futile I'll still say it: don't update when you are (or soon to be) in the middle of something important. You may well find you suddenly in a 3+ hour troubleshooting session.
Arch doesn't break often; only once in a while, when you're on a deadline :)
Yeah, I was warned of that quite a lot, haha. I guess that's the downside ultimately to rolling releases, but it's a release schedule that I think could be very cool if not frustrating at times.
On another note, even after reading The Arch Way, I can't see what is so different about Arch philosophy in comparison to Linux in general, if you can elaborate.
Technically it's not because it's a rolling release, that you need to be wary, but due to arch philosophy (you are responsible for your system, and are expected to research the software before you install). However, all the other rolling release distros I can think of are "testing" releases, so stuff is bound to break now and again. So I guess you could say that it's a downside to rolling releases, because even though there is no causal relation ship, it's still true :)
In no particular order, Arch is about
preserving the vanilla linux experience, keeping packages as close to upstream as possible
most linuxes have testing or incubation periods, during which packages are tested before they are sent out to users, thereby catching most immediate errors before the packages are sent out to the users. This means they get slightly older, but more stable software.
Arch strives to be the newest of the newest as well as authentic to each package's developer's vision.
ease of use for the maintainer (not the user)
Most linux distributions focus on the user experience. Arch focuses on the maintainer experience: users are expected to check archlinux.org before an update to check for comments, and if stuff breaks are expected to be able to fix it "on their own".
keep the installed documentation to a minimum
no HTML documentation (not all packages honour this though)
small default install base (simpifying the process of building your own ideal setup)
There are probably more points, but those are differences I can think of off the top of my head.
Antergos IS arch just with one additional Repo and a good Installer. Other than that, Antergos is Arch. Manjaro is different in that the updates are not current among other things.