“advantageous users” which should have been “advanced users”. I MISSED that one in the original article. Apparently I read it TOO QUICKLY to spot something like that, but sometimes our EYES see words and automatically INTERPRET what they MEAN rather than what they ACTUALLY say! Anyway, I really like the formatting and even better content in your updated work!
Also, a comment on openSUSE and the Tumbleweed configuration.
Once upon a time, by today’s standards a very long time ago, I wrote some comparison articles for a Ziff Davis Media publication called Extreme Tech and one of my first big comparisons included Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSE and Caldera openLinux (if I remember correctly); it may have been Libranet, one of my favorites at the time.
Back then, SUSE (or SUSE, depending on when, and where you see it mentioned), had a lot of packaging, but quite a few of their configurations were SLOWER than the others I was comparing to, and they tended to have a few quirks that really did not make them very attractive so back then it was one of my least favorite distributions.
While I don’t have it installed at this time, openSUSE Tumbleweed, for years, has been an excellent addition to the openSUSE available editions. Leap, the long-time name of stable editions, unlike those early years, has been a model of stability. Tumbleweed provides more frequent updates (right about where I like it); Slowroll ought to be just right for those who don’t need constant updates but prefer occasional new software changes in between release cycles. While I have not tried it yet, I’ve used both Leap and Tumbleweed and they are both VERY solid.
If you’re a person who DOES want a rolling release system, I completely agree with openSUSE right up there with the best of 'em!
One other comment - and I really think this is where personal preferences come into play - and it’s between Arch Linux varieties, as it was when we discussed this before.
I agree with you that Manjaro Linux just has not been solid enough to warrant a top spot in any list; you’re probably right to keep straight Arch Linux and Manjaro near each other; with careful management they can be effective, but unless you’re great with Arch, it’s probably better to steer away from both of them.
Where we differ is between Endeavour OS and Cachy OS. On one hand Cachy OS does offer a choice and you can see it easiest in the kernel: they offer a long term support kernel or a cutting edge kernel, so it appeals a lot to Archers who appreciate the features it offers.
I have a different take than you, however. No matter when I’ve added an Endeavour OS configuration, it has been very solid and I’ve seen no evidence of brokenness. On the other hand, Cachy OS has been pretty good, but I’ve found if I go away from it for a while, then try to bring it back, half of the time I have to download and build a fresh thumb drive that I can use to install it; I haven’t experienced that with Endeavour OS; the other thing - and this is pretty trivial, but it’s kinda cool, Endeavour OS has a lot of night sky “star system” visual themes that uniquely position them visually, plus they have two or three ways to update the system that you can access right off of their Welcome screen so I feel that they’ve done a number of things to add tangible value to their distribution, PLUS they have mirror update tools for Arch, Endeavour, and whatever configuration you have configured, which truly makes them easy to conquer. For those reasons, my bias would raise Endeavour OS a few notches, while those that want the absolute cutting edge newest stuff may still prefer Cachy OS; I’ll say this: they are both very good.
Neither matches the stability of the SUSE stuff, but comparing SUSE and the Arch derivatives is a fantastic study in why systems that are remarkably similar when it comes to the applications available still have a completely different look and feel and justify the numerous different reasons why their followers choose them; this is true of all distributions, but I chose these ones to really highlight how the distributors make so many different systems, and they really look and feel different, though 75-90% of their functional payload is quite similar.
Mostly fixed errors that I didn’t see at the time of publishing.
