Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arch-Based Manjaro Users Express Concern Over Update Strategy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by GermanyChris View Post
    Sure you can if you run a custom kernel, and an old version of X
    Old Xorg release repositories in Arch

    You can also get the Linux LTS kernel on Arch if you want a more stable kernel.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by GermanyChris View Post
      Sure you can if you run a custom kernel, and an old version of X
      Well that all could be complicated for some, not so much for the others etc... Anyways, it's not proficient to do a spin or a derivative just because one of many OEM's was caught with their pants off and they are not in a hurry to put them on. BTW, xf86-video-ati is a beast as of late...

      /edit: + what Xaero_Vincent said I haven't had an idea that there were repos that hold older versions of Xorg. I guess I have (or had) a habit to run most of my software from git master

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by Xaero_Vincent View Post
        Old Xorg release repositories in Arch

        You can also get the Linux LTS kernel on Arch if you want a more stable kernel.
        You need linuxck for the BFS and yes you can get the old version of X from the AUR.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by Xaero_Vincent View Post
          Old Xorg release repositories in Arch

          You can also get the Linux LTS kernel on Arch if you want a more stable kernel.
          You need Linuxck to have the BFS, but yes old versions of X are available on the AUR. Thats not really support now is it

          Comment


          • #75
            Firstly, I am an Archer. I have been an Arch user for over 5 years, i still run Arch-proper installs on real hardware and still think Arch is a magnificent OS that i'm grateful to have as a base for Manjaro.

            That said, Manjaro does have perks:
            Can you install AMD catalyst with one click in a GUI settings app in Arch? No.
            Can you install a different series of kernel, including some out-of-tree modules for your hardware, in a matter of seconds and with one click in a GUI on Arch? No.

            Not to mention the amount of in-house testing we do of Xfce 4.11 components that we then ship to our users, giving a notably more feature-rich experience than the Arch-proper Xfce 4.10 packages. We also have LXQt infrastructure in our repos that Arch doesn't.
            We could also talk about the fact that nowadays we even offer an optional alternative choice of init system, in OpenRC, available from our binary repos.

            People who make assertions like that we "just literally rsync them off the Arch repositories, and maintain a couple out of date AUR packages" are just 'haters' who've obviously never even given Manjaro a good look-over before forming their opinion and making comments about it.

            "a couple of out of date AUR packages" what a joke. We have something like 550+ packages in our overlays. Between only myself and Ayceman alone we maintain 25+ AUR packages.


            Also, sidenote: we don't ship the BFS CPU scheduler in our kernels, we ship the BFQ I/O scheduler.

            Comment


            • #76
              I'm using manjaro and I'm pretty happy with it. If someone don't like it for some reason just don't use it instead of put your hate in this thread. Ok ? I think its simple

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by Xaero_Vincent View Post
                I actually use Archbang as an easy base to install Archlinux because it has an installer. Almost no changes from Archlinux, except a pre-loaded OpenBox and X11 and its easy to migrate to a different desktop environment. No seperate repositories either.
                That sounds like a good quick and dirty way to install Arch. I've played around with Archbang and it was not bad at all.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by GermanyChris View Post
                  You need Linuxck to have the BFS, but yes old versions of X are available on the AUR. Thats not really support now is it
                  I haven't really heard about Linux-ck but after seeing it, its available in AUR in multiple forms and also in binary form via Repo-ck. And those legacy Xorg repositories aren't part of AUR, they provide pre-built binary packages.

                  As far as support goes...I call it community support. Sure its not "official" support but when you get down to it, Archlinux and most other non-commercial distributions are supported by the community who contribute to them. If you want real "support', you buy Red Hat or SUSE Enterprise Linux.

                  Besides the only people who will want to use outdated Xorg release are those who want to use legacy proprietary drivers, but I see that need declining because the FOSS video drivers are now supporting older graphics hardware almost as well as the proprietary drivers do, with likely fewer bugs.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Much ado about nothing

                    My my, what a glorious piece of drama in this thread. So Manjaro stable users had to wait 14 days longer to get their update fix. Even without the bi-weekly updates they were still far ahead of the periodic release cycle distro's.

                    The important question here is this: Were important security fixes pushed to stable outside of the regular update cycle in this time period? If yes, then what is the problem? Other than harping about Arch having the regular packages a few weeks earlier.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by r_a_trip View Post
                      My my, what a glorious piece of drama in this thread. So Manjaro stable users had to wait 14 days longer to get their update fix. Even without the bi-weekly updates they were still far ahead of the periodic release cycle distro's.

                      The important question here is this: Were important security fixes pushed to stable outside of the regular update cycle in this time period? If yes, then what is the problem? Other than harping about Arch having the regular packages a few weeks earlier.
                      my understanding is that they got no fixes whatsoever during that time. i could be wrong, though.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X