Talk:Manjaro

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

Wikipedia gets a lot of articles added about many obscure Linux distributions and most get deleted as not meeting WP:GNG. This article needs some independent third party refs to show notability or else it is on the way to deletion as well. - Ahunt (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's no. 23 on distrowatch and on the up - about the same as Chakra, with which is shares similar goals, but not limited to qt. Since 0.8.0 was launched, it got quite a lot of attention, including in reviews. Ayceman (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As per this AfD precedent, because distro developers can pay to have their distro listed on DistroWatch that alone doesn't show notability. If there are reviews in independent third party publications (including websites) then these should be added to prevent the article from being sent for deletion. It would also allow the tags to be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the source that would show you can get a rank listing on distrowatch by paying. I think your a bad apple. How would you propose that an advanced distro like Majaro aquately demonstrate worthyness in your eyes? The Linux community is awaiting your answer....

Mrbrklyn (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I think you need to read WP:AGF before you start accusing other people of bad faith editing. I also never said that people can pay to have a ranking on DistroWatch, but that they "can pay to have their distro listed on DistroWatch", which is the case. The distro rankings on DistroWatch are based on page hits, not popularity of use, so they are not indicative of any useful metric, as DistroWatch explains: "The DistroWatch Page Hit Ranking statistics are a light-hearted way of measuring the popularity of Linux distributions and other free operating systems among the visitors of this website. They correlate neither to usage nor to quality and should not be used to measure the market share of distributions. They simply show the number of times a distribution page on DistroWatch.com was accessed each day, nothing more." As far as paying to get your distro listed on DistroWatch that is all explained here: "there is some good news for those developers who absolutely and desperately want to have their distribution listed on DistroWatch today. All you need to do is to buy an advertising banner and your distro will be listed straight away." So in future before you accuse other editors of bad faith please check your facts first. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Three independent sources provided - there are more, but the article is too short to crowd it with refs. 13:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayceman (talk • contribs)
I removed one WP:SPS ref as these can't be used on Wikipedia. Almost anything with "blogspot" in the URL will be self-published. - Ahunt (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you completely losing your prespective. The Linux Kernel itself is 100% self published. I think you need to take a step back and spend some time understanding how these distributions are formed. There mailing lists, and forums ARE the authoritiative locations for announcments and advences in the product. They are not anonounced in some mythological peer reviewed journal on Linux distributions and development. That peer review takes place on the forums and on the mailing lists.
Mrbrklyn (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please aquatint yourself with WP:SPS to understand which self-published sources are acceptable and which ones are not. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A little peer review is in order here: What's a prespective -- something that comes before a postspective? What's an anonouncement -- an anonymous announcement? What do you consider an authoritiative announcment about advences in a product -- one that's spelled correctly and consistently? And what did you learn by aquatinting yourself with WP:SPS -- an intaglio printmaking technique that is a variant of etching? ;) 77.249.57.170 (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supported versions[edit]

Since Manjaro is a rolling release distribution, I cannot understand the difference between an "Old version" and an "Old version, still supported". Theoretically every old version is still supported, since it suffices to run the updater to turn it into the latest version. --Commodore64 (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Illyria is not released yet (as on 19-Oct-2018). The download page stable iso are of 17.1.12 (Illyria is still rc (18.0-rc1)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.200.246.48 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARM version[edit]

There is an ARM version too and this entry might be updated to include it. NoPolymath (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manjaro Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What "Manjaro" means/etymology?[edit]

What "Manjaro" means/etymology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.240.49.200 (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a unique word that only refers to this distro, isn't taken from anywhere else, named after anything or means anything in another language. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The name was taken from Mount Kilimanjaro, but just because the developers liked it and not because of any particular meaning. [1] [2] - Murchison-Eye (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for that. - Ahunt (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a kind of obvious question. What section of he article should the etymology be added to? History? Should we simply add the Wiki to External links? Talib1101 (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually say it should be a second para in the lede section. - Ahunt (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

I'm about to move this page to Manjaro. Would anyone object to a move? If not, I will move this page accordingly. Mstrojny (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mstrojny, Use a requested move Template but Support per WP:COMMONNAME RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 19:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RhinosF1, What I am asking is whether this is a controversial or an uncontroversial move. In other words, should I perform the move myself or list at as a requested move? Mstrojny (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mstrojny, WP:BEBOLD if some disagrees then they can revert and discuss RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 19:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contested and reverted move. Please take through procedure WP:RM#CM. google maps correct or incorrectl reports Manjaro, Tanzania at -5.4165867, 34.8977973; manjaro is also an urban dictionary word. The Linux suffix also describes the article purpose well. If consensus agrees with the move then fine. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 17 March 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manjaro Linux → Manjaro – Manjaro does not use the Linux suffix anywhere on their website. If disambiguation is needed, move to Manjaro (operating system). Mstrojny (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: nomination claim Manjaro does not use the Linux suffix anywhere on their website invalidated per @2019 MANJARO LINUX At the bottom of the homepage on the offical website (2 March 2019 snap). Manjaro Linux also used at Distrowatch and the github tab header (meta property og:title content="Manjaro Linux") Manjaro Linux. Some evidence Manjaro is also a settlement in Tanzania and can be used as an urban dictionary word (nb: not in wikt) though these would not currently be primary topic. The suffix Linux is common on Linux distributions and a better choice than the more generic (Operating System). Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: While Manjaro occasionally uses the Linux suffix on its website and Gitlab, it seems clear that the developers intend to brand themselves simply as "Manjaro". Several sources refer to it simply as "Manjaro", and it is certainly the most notable use of the term "Manjaro". I think it would only be necessary to add the Linux suffix if disambiguation were required, but it currently doesn't appear to be necessary. — Katie <3 (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, as the Manjaro operating system appears to be the primary topic for "Manjaro". If disambiguation becomes necessary for the Manjaro operating system in the future, the article should be moved back to Manjaro Linux, as natural disambiguation is preferred. — Newslinger talk 12:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This seems to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In addition to above I also note a UK based Manjaros restaurant chain which may be more notable in the North of England and Ilford; I do not mention Glasgow. It was actually preceded by a Manjaro nightclub in Islington. The draft of the former, which has currently been was attacked by a bot, may not progress beyond draft, is an indicator Manjaro linux may be at some point challenged for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Though more of interest I have seen some signs links with the surname to the Caribbean and it even appears once or twice in (minor?) novels. I remain opposed to the move but if remain the only one opposed to the move especially after a relist I will accept the consensus of the remainder; though I am inclined personally to regard it as a poor decision as reversion would at some future point seem inevitable. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reception Section[edit]

As of march 2019 I am somewhat pondering if the Reception section relies over heavily on reviews and quotes from Jesse Smith of DistroWatch.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is mostly because Smith seems to have taken an interest in this distro and followed up new releases with testing and reviews. Certainly other reviews can be added if any can be found. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is somewhat a question of balance and neutrality. Manjaro focuses on easy of use, speed, cutting edge and an extensive range of third party support. However this may come at the expense of security ... aspects of which are possibly hinted at in forums in particular speed to fix security vulnerabilities for example. Smith does not seem to cover this which may mean his report is not holistic in some respects. In some ways the security aspects are likely less critical compared to an enterprise security based solution. One is drawn to WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE. I might well consider cutting Smith's contributions to perhaps a third of the current size, if thats unacceptable and gets reverted that's fair enough but a Template:POV section might be appropriate unless balancing content is added without making the section relatively too long which it probably currently is. I don't intend to search for other reviews or add them but if I come across one I might note it here or add it. Nearly everything I say here is subject to my time resource ... not that I by any means spend it consistently. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes can be shortened and summarized if needed. I don't see any issues with POV or BIAS, since these are third party reviews. I'll see if I can find some other reviews to add. - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think shortened and summarized is probably good. I think the quotes are a little too much in my face for my liking and I think someone could pick that up in the future. To a degree where I've added a security section I think I've partially balanced the fact Smith hasn't ... but he is describing product that is more user orientated. One indicate of a possibly biased review is no criticisms of the bad or poor points of a distribution and Smith does not seem to bring those out .. certainly in the conclusion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found literally hundreds of reviews on line and picked out out a few from the best sources, including critical ones. The reviews are basically all user-focused, rather than sysadmin focused. - Ahunt (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I personally remain very unconvinced. The overall WP:WEIGH?T of the section remains in my opinion large .. in fact every larger, the quotes remain in my opinion obtrusive, criticisms mainly say older versions were bar more buggy and trick to install ... but the current version is just brilliant. Overall it may be questionable how close the whole section is to promotional content.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most distros get better with time, so that is hardly surprising. Hardly promotional. Read the quotes, much of it is quite critical. - Ahunt (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the quotes are quite trashy. But perhaps its better for others to look at it, perhaps I'll consider removing the whole section, or perhaps it will go to mediation.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and edit, no indication mediation is needed, there is nothing to mediate. I really don't mind if you edit the quotes down and summarize them if you think they are too long. I really don't have a horse in this race, have never used this distro or have any connection to it, just trying to expand Linux distro articles. Keep in mind that the reviews are there to show notability, without them the remaining article would need much broader referencing, so just removing the section is not a good option. - Ahunt (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done an edit of a different approach to the Reception section. I've chosen to lose the dual boot criticism because the person was doing some more complex dual boots and this may be regarded as a more specialist area and it is a one-man website so on balance I've left it. The remaining long quote still is irking me a bit ... I'd really like to explode it out but it contains a lot of info of a recent release. Any views so far? (Also a couple of refs I've added to the security section will help). NB: This distro will actually be safe at AfD. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine so far. - Ahunt (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's end of 2021 and Manjaro's reputation is still... less than stellar. Maybe it's time for more balance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2788:11C4:6E6:8145:8E91:D047:8ED0 (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically what should be added? - Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contested removal of Security Section[edit]

The security section was removed [3] by Bernie74 on the basis on the basis of "Removing the Security section because it didn't contain anything notable. As noted in the same paragraph, firewalls aren't commonly enabled by default in Linux distributions. That's a deliberate design choice, not a missing security feature. Feel free to restore the section when there's more that needs to be covered." and reverted again by Ahunt with the comment "I agree with User:Bernie74, there is nothing notable here worth including.". I immediately note per WP:NNC there is absolutely no requirement for sections within an article to be notable. So I believe restore is appropriate. The article should be applicable to a wind range of users and while the firewall default is not of interest to some it is to others. The loss of the security section is disappointing and arguably leads to an article bias balance as there is loss of balance of between ease+speed vs security. When I first came to the article back at something like Old revision of Manjaro the article seemed haavily promotional bias particularly in the weight of the reception section compared to the remaining prose ... the security section .. the loss of the security section has not helped this. For those wishing to improve the section searching for references such as [4] might be a more useful way of improving the article. I am strongly proposing to restore the section. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The security section contained nothing noteworthy. So the firewall is not turned on by default, so what? It isn't in Lubuntu, Xubuntu or Ubuntu, either but those articles don't mention it. This is normal in Linux distros and falls under WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. I agree with Bernie74, when there is something actually different worth mentioning it should be put back in, otherwise not. - Ahunt (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what about security? There is an option also of bringing the "As of January 2019 package updates derived from the Arch Linux stable branch to the Manjaro stable branch typically has a lag of about 6 weeks." to the security section. This lag also affects other distributions that derive from others: CentOS etc.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are misquoting me there. I said "The security section contained nothing noteworthy. So the firewall is not turned on by default, so what?". That isn't unique or worth noting. If there was anything noteworthy to said about security within this distro I would be all for putting it in. - Ahunt (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then we are currently agreeing to differ. I have not chosen the time of this content distruction and bias. You seemed happy enough a couple of months ago. Yes I'd like to go round the distros but its not my current focus.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well we have two editors opposed and you in favour, so let's let this discussion run for a bit and see if any other editors support including it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and take Djm-leighpark's side on this. I generally tend to think that 'more (sourced) content' is better than 'less content'. The sourced article in the section is from the reliable Ghacks, I don't see any legitimate reason not to include it. Also, it absolutely isn't RUNOFTHEMILL when the author of the article explicitly expressed disappointment with this aspect of Manjaro. --Sek-2 (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A link to wikidata would automatically display the latest data[edit]

A link to wikidata would have the advantage that e.g. the version number and the version date can be maintained centrally at one place and the articles of the different languages are always up to date. Unfortunately this linking does not work in this article.

The following change didn't work with the current setup and I don't know why:

| latest release version = <!-- Wikidata -->

| latest release date = <!-- Wikidata -->

For reference, the code of the German Manjaro Wiki page can be viewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P Metzner (talk • contribs) 05:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unstable users?[edit]

Testing: contains packages from the unstable repositories after they have been tested by unstable users.

LOL. I realize some of us are somewhat unstable—but maybe "unstable", "testing" and "stable" should start being capitalized as a matter of course? – AndyFielding (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have the better idea with the quote marks you just now did with them all... Huggums537 (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was easy! Huggums537 (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No controversy?[edit]

Manjaro has had many blunders and missteps (e.g. compromising security by allowing their SSL certificates to expire four times (to date), shipping applications from non-release branches, etc.), yet this page presents a glowing summary. I think adding such a section would give the page a more balanced and objective view. MultiPoly (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can't add anything without references, preferably third party refs, see WP:PROVEIT. Got any? - Ahunt (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A possible reference might be https://web.archive.org/web/20150409040851/https://manjaro.github.io/expired_SSL_certificate/ showing Manjaro not only forgot to renew their certificate but also advised users to set back their system time in order to create a temporary fix, an advice which is questionable, to say the least. However, that is a primary source and I have not yet been able to find proper sources beyond Reddit and blog posts saying why this is a problem. --MichielN (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As with many controversies, unless it was reported on by third party sources, in this case probably the tech press, then it really isn't notable. One of the issues may just be that even in the Linux world this is a fairly obscure distro (compared to say Debian, Ubuntu or Fedora), so it is possible that it is mostly "below the radar" of even the specialist Linux tech press outlets. - Ahunt (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manjaro&oldid=1208767004"