Why Manjaro Linux is Loved and Hated: A Personal Reflection

I remember the first time I saw Manjaro Linux. It was sleek, polished, and had an aesthetic that immediately caught my eye. The default themes, the carefully crafted UI elements, and the overall experience felt far more refined than most Linux distributions. It felt like someone had taken the raw power of Arch Linux and actually made it beautiful. That alone made me curious enough to give it a shot. And once I did, I was hooked.

For more than two years, Manjaro was my daily driver. It had everything I needed—a rolling release model that meant I always had access to the latest software, a robust set of tools that simplified package management, and enough automation to keep things running smoothly without the frequent tinkering that pure Arch required. Manjaro’s team had done a fantastic job of making Arch’s power more accessible to users like me, who wanted the flexibility of Arch without the painstaking manual setup. It felt like a perfect middle ground.

The Features That Made Me Stay

At first, I loved how much care they put into their customization. Their take on KDE, XFCE, and GNOME felt uniquely theirs, setting Manjaro apart from the many distributions that simply shipped default desktop environments with little thought given to polish. The experience felt premium. It was what got me in the door.

Manjaro’s theme and style configurations are incredibly detailed and well-integrated. Their versions of KDE and XFCE are among the most visually refined implementations I’ve ever seen in a Linux distro. Manjaro provides multiple themes out of the box, including their signature dark-green aesthetic, which not only looks good but also maintains a consistent visual identity across applications. The ability to fine-tune the desktop’s appearance with just a few clicks made it incredibly appealing.

Another major highlight of Manjaro is its driver management tool. Unlike Arch, where setting up GPU drivers and other hardware can be a chore, Manjaro makes it dead simple. Their Manjaro Hardware Detection (MHWD) tool is an absolute game-changer, especially for users with NVIDIA graphics cards. With a single command, I could install proprietary drivers or switch to open-source alternatives without manually hunting down the right package versions. This level of automation made Manjaro one of the most user-friendly Arch-based distributions available.

The kernel management system is another standout feature. Unlike many other Linux distros that lock you into a single kernel version until a major system update, Manjaro gives users the freedom to easily install and switch between different kernels. This flexibility is particularly useful for users with newer hardware that requires a more recent kernel or those who want long-term stability with an older version. Through the Manjaro Settings Manager, I could install multiple kernel versions and switch between them effortlessly.

Then there’s Pamac, Manjaro’s package management frontend. While Arch users primarily use pacman, Manjaro’s pamac provides a much more user-friendly interface, both in the command line and GUI. Searching for, installing, and removing packages felt intuitive and smooth. It also allows access to the Arch User Repository (AUR) by default, which is a massive advantage for users who want access to a wide range of software that isn’t officially included in the main repositories.

Why I Left Manjaro

As time passed, I started noticing small things that would pile up into larger frustrations. Manjaro wasn’t just customizing the look and feel; they were heavily modifying system behavior in ways that often got in my way more than they helped.

One of the first cracks in the experience came with updates. Unlike Arch, which pushes updates as soon as they are available, Manjaro holds them back for additional testing. This sounds great in theory—after all, a little more stability can go a long way—but in practice, it created problems. I’d run into dependency issues, packages that fell behind their Arch counterparts, and a general sense that I was no longer getting the best of both worlds. If I wanted true cutting-edge updates, I might as well run Arch. If I wanted stability, there were better-tested distros out there. Manjaro seemed stuck in an awkward in-between state where neither advantage fully materialized.

And then there were the strange modifications they made to system components. More than once, I found myself troubleshooting issues that only existed because of Manjaro’s changes to the default way things worked. Their package manager configurations, custom scripts, and preconfigured settings sometimes created more problems than they solved. At first, I put up with it. I told myself that every distro has quirks, and I just needed to learn how to work around them. But the longer I used Manjaro, the more I realized that I was spending a disproportionate amount of time undoing their decisions rather than enjoying a smooth experience.

The breaking point came when a system update completely changed my default configuration without warning. I suddenly found my workflow disrupted, key applications behaving differently, and no easy way to roll back to the setup I had fine-tuned over the years. I spent an entire weekend trying to restore my preferred settings, only to realize that I was fighting against Manjaro’s decisions more than I was benefiting from them. That’s when I knew it was time to move on.

The Wider Community's Criticism

As I looked into why so many others had negative opinions about Manjaro, I found that my frustrations weren’t unique. The Linux community has long voiced concerns about the distro’s handling of updates, package management, and system stability. Some users reported that Manjaro's repositories occasionally fell behind or contained inconsistencies that led to broken dependencies. Others expressed concerns about the team’s handling of security patches, where critical fixes sometimes lagged behind Arch itself.

One of the biggest criticisms revolves around Manjaro’s update system. Unlike Arch, which rolls out updates as soon as they are available, Manjaro delays updates for additional testing. While this sounds good in theory, it has led to serious problems in practice. Users have reported package mismatches, outdated dependencies, and in some cases, even system-breaking issues due to conflicting updates. There have been multiple instances where Manjaro’s package repositories fell behind, leaving users with broken software or unresolved security vulnerabilities for extended periods.

Manjaro has also been criticized for its unstable financial management and project governance. The distro has been at the center of multiple funding controversies, where community members questioned where donations and sponsorship money were going. In 2019, the Manjaro team announced they would become a business entity, but the execution was widely regarded as poorly managed, with little transparency. Some users lost trust in the leadership after they requested funding for full-time development but failed to provide clear updates on how those funds were used.

Another recurring problem is Manjaro’s relationship with Arch Linux and the AUR. Manjaro users have access to the Arch User Repository (AUR), which is one of the biggest advantages of using an Arch-based distro. However, because Manjaro holds back updates, this often causes compatibility issues with AUR packages. Many Arch users argue that Manjaro’s delayed updates make it more difficult to ensure stability when using AUR, as packages are built against newer versions of dependencies than what Manjaro offers. This leads to frustration among users who rely on AUR software but find themselves facing frequent breakages.

The trust factor surrounding Manjaro’s developers has also been questioned due to past incidents where changes were introduced without properly informing users. One of the more infamous examples was when Manjaro altered the default behavior of the sudo command, which created security concerns. This change was met with backlash, as many felt it was unnecessary and poorly communicated. Transparency and communication have been an ongoing issue for Manjaro’s team, with multiple incidents of users discovering system modifications only after they started causing problems.

Another significant concern in the community is Manjaro’s tendency to over-customize and overcomplicate things. Many users, myself included, initially love Manjaro’s polished look and feel. However, as time goes on, the heavy-handed modifications become more of a hindrance than a help. Manjaro’s default applications, theme configurations, and package management decisions often diverge too much from upstream standards, making troubleshooting harder. When something breaks, it’s not as simple as looking up an Arch Linux solution—Manjaro has changed enough that those solutions don’t always apply.

Performance inconsistencies have also been reported. While Manjaro aims to provide a smooth experience, its resource usage can sometimes be higher than a base Arch system. Some users have found that Manjaro’s preloaded background services and tweaks actually slow down their system rather than optimize it. It’s common to see complaints about unnecessary preinstalled applications and modifications that feel bloated compared to a standard Arch setup.

Security concerns are another frequently discussed issue. Because Manjaro holds back updates, critical security patches do not always arrive as quickly as they do on Arch. While the team claims that their testing period ensures stability, many users argue that security fixes should always take priority and be pushed immediately. Some high-profile vulnerabilities have remained unpatched on Manjaro for longer than acceptable periods, leading security-conscious users to abandon the distro.

Lastly, there’s a growing sentiment among experienced Linux users that Manjaro tries to be too many things at once. It markets itself as both beginner-friendly and a powerful Arch-based system, but this duality often leads to compromises that satisfy neither group fully. Beginners looking for a stable experience might find Manjaro too unpredictable, while advanced users who appreciate Arch’s philosophy of simplicity and control may feel frustrated by Manjaro’s added complexity and deviations from upstream practices.

For all of these reasons, many Linux users recommend either sticking with Arch Linux for a true rolling-release experience or opting for more well-managed beginner-friendly distros like Fedora or Ubuntu. While Manjaro still has a dedicated user base, these repeated criticisms have led many to move on to alternatives that offer either more stability or greater flexibility without the same baggage.

Final Thoughts

I don’t regret my time using Manjaro. It was a learning experience, and it showed me just how polished a Linux distro could look with the right effort. But at the end of the day, I realized that I value a system that stays out of my way more than I value a system that looks beautiful at the cost of unpredictability. I moved on to something closer to vanilla, something where I could make my own decisions without constantly undoing someone else’s.

Manjaro is not a bad distribution—it’s just one that makes a lot of opinionated choices. Some people love that about it. Others, like me, find that over time, it becomes too much to fight against. If you’re considering Manjaro, go in knowing that it’s a beautifully crafted, feature-rich distro—but be prepared for a few bumps along the way. And if those bumps start turning into roadblocks, it might just be time to move on.